Pablo,

As cited above Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.13 establishes a Duty to Act for 'most LEO'.

*Warren v. District of Columbia* established that police generally owe no specific duty to individual citizens, as their primary responsibility is to the broader community. Others here are correct but for the 'generally owe' provision.

HOWEVER Texas Education Code Ch 37 establishes a specific not general obligation on officers assigned to schools. This is a recognized statuary exception to Warren in that "Duty may exist in specific circumstances, such as when there is a special relationship." or laws requiring officers to act.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.

---

I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

---

Precedent gets overturned occasionally. Even if it is a waste of time in regards to winning in a courtroom, this pos needs to be harassed until he offs himself.

---

no he doesn't.

the internet tough guys crack me up, always assuming they'd be the hero regardless of circumstance when the SHTF. Fact is, most people run away when gunfire starts, even if they are carrying. Human nature is to flight first, then fight.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.

---

I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

---

Precedent gets overturned occasionally. Even if it is a waste of time in regards to winning in a courtroom, this pos needs to be harassed until he offs himself.

---

Then what? After he commits suicide will you feel better? Should we then go after the officer who engaged him in gunfire outside the school but missed? Should he commit suicide bc his aim sucks? Should the teacher who left the side door ajar be harassed until they commit suicide? How many more people have to die until you feel better about all these children being murdered?

---

Absurd response. Do you feel better having made the stupidest post on F16 for at least the last week?

---

actually, this one is a lot dumber....

Bocephus said:

---

...he is incompetent and likely a coward but that is still not a crime.

---

Well, I guess a jury of his peers will decide that.

Bocephus, can you tell us the name of the case that exonerates this defendant?

laavispa said:

---

Pablo,

As cited above Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.13 establishes a Duty to Act for 'most LEO'.

*Warren v. District of Columbia* established that police generally owe no specific duty to individual citizens, as their primary responsibility is to the broader community. Others here are correct but for the 'generally owe' provision.

HOWEVER Texas Education Code Ch 37 establishes a specific not general obligation on officers assigned to schools. This is a recognized statuary exception to Warren in that "Duty may exist in specific circumstances, such as when there is a special relationship." or laws requiring officers to act.

---

The special relationship they're referring to is between an officer and someone they arrested who are now in handcuffs and unable to defend themselves. That's how I read it anyways. Since they're your prisoner, you have a greater responsibility to them at that time than a random citizen walking down the street. Anyways, violating code of criminal procedure or education code does not have a criminal penalty. It says in CCP that you cannot lie to a cop. That is violated every single day.

Tee said:

---

Bocephus, can you tell us the name of the case that exonerates this defendant?

---

Castle Rock v Gonzales & Deshaney v Winnebago County

The officer may not be suited to being an officer based on lack of action, but let's not forget that the bad guy was the bad guy. The bad guy chose to be the bad guy, not the officer. What the bad guy did was by his own doing. We can be disappointed in how the officer reacted but he isnt the bad guy. The bad guy is the bad guy.

All this trial will serve to do is deter people from signing up to potentially be the good guy, because what if in the moment they pause? What if they take less action that the mob retroactively requires? We want good people to be in position to be the good guy, even if some fail.

Ragoo said:

---

The officer may not be suited to being an officer based on lack of action, but let's not forget that the bad guy was the bad guy. The bad guy chose to be the bad guy, not the officer. What the bad guy did was by his own doing. We can be disappointed in how the officer reacted but he isnt the bad guy. The bad guy is the bad guy.

All this trial will serve to do is deter people from signing up to potentially be the good guy, because what if in the moment they pause? What if they take less action that the mob retroactively requires? We want good people to be in position to be the good guy, even if some fail.

---

I'm quite sure there are people on this board who served our country and saw combat. I'm sure they saw people they thought would be excellent in a firefight shrink away, and were surprised by how others stepped up and fought like hell. It is the same way in policing. You don't know until you're in that position. If you're lucky you never have to see that question answered.

GisselMcDonald said:

---

Basically, Bocephus wants officers to sleep in their squad car and avoid helping the public.

---

pretty sure he is a retired policeman

DPS has now changed their policy on these situations.
I don't know if DPS policy now mandates that DPS take command or that DPS take command if the OIC is indecisive.

The former would be better but that could inhibit a local LE agency from calling DPS for help.

Ragoo said:

---

GisselMcDonald said:

---

Basically, Bocephus wants officers to sleep in their squad car and avoid helping the public.

---

pretty sure he is a retired policeman

---

Maybe he slept in his squad car before (or after) retirement?

Ragoo said:

---

The officer may not be suited to being an officer based on lack of action, but let's not forget that the bad guy was the bad guy. The bad guy chose to be the bad guy, not the officer. What the bad guy did was by his own doing. We can be disappointed in how the officer reacted but he isnt the bad guy. The bad guy is the bad guy.

All this trial will serve to do is deter people from signing up to potentially be the good guy, because what if in the moment they pause? What if they take less action that the mob retroactively requires? We want good people to be in position to be the good guy, even if some fail.

---

It certainly could create a slippery slope.

Thanks, Bocephus. Those cases appear to involve 1983 claims, not criminal prosecutions. Do these two cases create an immunity to the claims asserted in the criminal matter arising from the Uvalde shootings?

Bocephus said:

---

IMO a waste of time and money. Case law has already decided that you do not have to risk your life to save another if you're an officer. He's a coward but that is not a criminal offense. We cannot let emotion drive us. The chief is more to blame, and he is incompetent and likely a coward but that is still not a crime.

https://www.kwtx.com/2026/01/05/trial-begins-officer-accused-failing-protect-children-during-uvalde-school-shooting/#fg465tdebktpcr3se26f1pwt6xw39u6i9

---

This. However, emotions are running very high and the families of those lost want blood and a pound of flesh and if they would have it, every officer there would be in prison.

This officer is being made the scapegoat for all the others.

And unfortunately, the court is having trouble finding an "impartial" jury.

Charged with 29 counts of abandoning or endangering a child. Yes this guy did that by failing his legal obligations and should be found guilty.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Charged with 29 counts of abandoning or endangering a child. Yes this guy did that by failing his legal obligations and should be found guilty.

---

What legal obligations would that be?

A very good prosecutor is trying these cases for the State. I am very interested in the outcome.But if I was betting, I would bet that Old Army Ghost is right. Guilty on "injury to a Child by Ommission" as he had a legal obligation to do what he could to protect the children.

But I don't know of any other case similar to this one that has been prosecuted in Texas, much less has gone to trial.

EDIT:

What legal obligations would that be? That is the legal issue in this case that the entire outcome hinges on.

My understanding is that the rules of engagement in mass shooting situations were forever changed after Columbine. These have not been treated as hostage situations for 25 years. Engagement and taking out the shooter should have been taught to every LEO by now. We don't need to even judge cowardice. Isn't it possibly criminal to prevent LEO from following their explicit training? Could the fire chief be prosecuted for forcing a pumper truck to dump water on a large electrical fire?

94chem said:

---

My understanding is that the rules of engagement in mass shooting situations were forever changed after Columbine. These have not been treated as hostage situations for 25 years. Engagement and taking out the shooter should have been taught to every LEO by now. We don't need to even judge cowardice. Isn't it possibly criminal to prevent LEO from following their explicit training? Could the fire chief be prosecuted for forcing a pumper truck to dump water on a large electrical fire?

---

There is a distinction between active shooter/killer and barricaded subject. They are treated differently. At some point this became a barricaded subject, at least in the eyes of the chief/ SRO that was in charge (I haven't refreshed the details in awhile, but it was the other guy facing charges).

When it's a barricaded subject, negotiations, etc are the preferred method UNTIL the killing is imminent or starts up again.

There isn't any law dictating what to do, it is more of a "best practices" and there different entities teaching it with different nuances. The principles are the same though.

There's still a boatload off officers who haven't been trained in it, or minimally trained. That is police training in general.


edit to add for clarification:
I'm not defending these officers. I carry my active shooter response stuff in my personal car, just in case. The first officers there were cowards, the follow on ones got caught up in a natural human phenomenon, where they deferred to the "authority" in charge, without having a complete picture of what was happening. After some time (unfortunately, too long), it clicked in some officers heads what a cluster this was, and that something had to be done.

Agzonfire said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Charged with 29 counts of abandoning or endangering a child. Yes this guy did that by failing his legal obligations and should be found guilty.

---

What legal obligations would that be?

---

Protect and serve???

Not really following this issue but let me add one thing - there are plenty of people in Uvalde and the surrounding area that would have been happy to go in there and take out that evil little POS …. There needs to be a way to let those that have the balls go in there and take that little weirdo out ASAP. Screw that scared cop who did nothing, yes he's not the villain and didn't do this but he also didn't help save any lives. I'm glad he's having to go through this, this will deter others in the future, I'm sure this guy needs to be run out of that town if he hasn't been already. There has to be a better way to handle these situations

One Eyed Reveille said:

---

Agzonfire said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Charged with 29 counts of abandoning or endangering a child. Yes this guy did that by failing his legal obligations and should be found guilty.

---

What legal obligations would that be?

---

Protect and serve???

---

So what is the punishment in the Texas penal code for failing to protect and serve?

No one is questioning whether what this officer and the chief did were wrong. I think everyone who has looked at this is disgusted by their actions. They deserve to be fired and they deserve ridicule. I will be the first to poky out that while you don't have to run at a shooter, their inaction was ridiculous. It is very likely that if they had done anything else except stand outside the room and wait for a key for an unlocked door to an alleged barricaded person, lives could have been saved.

I still see this much like I saw the civil lawsuits against Trump for his real estate dealings. You cannot invent law just bc it makes you feel better.

I guess a jury of his peers will decide.

That's going to be rough for everyone involved to go through again. Officers who show cowardice should lose their jobs, possibly be sued, but not jailed.

Natty,

As I understand it, the Omission issue under Texas Criminal Negligence also involves deviation from 'standard of care'. As I read this, I recalled the Santa Fe HS shooting and asked myself which 'standard' of action (care) is the benchmark we will follow in any future incidents.

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

Got a Natty! said:

---

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

---

Injury to a child by omission is for medical facilities and deals with mentally and physically disabled children. It has nothing to do with police. Luke I said, a huge stretch.

Btw, I would argue that if the officers had acted within the first 10 minutes, lives would have been saved bc children would not have bled out. Sometimes horrific things happen in life and there is no recourse.

Did they do a change of venue to Corpus?

Bocephus, it sounds like you know the law, at least where this is concerned. I'm not an attorney. I'm a father of three daughters. If for any reason at all, the failure to act by the police who sat around trying to figure it out while these kids died, the law doesn't hold these cops responsible for not acting, the laws need to be changed.

I don't think people send their kids to school thinking that nobody will protect them, or fail to go in and take out the murderer if it comes to that. The law should be very straightforward. Police should be required to go in and take the guy out, even if the cops are put in mortal danger by doing so.

I think average Joe citizen would be quite surprised to know that the law doesn't already require that kind of action.

I carried a rifle in the Marine Corps, and it was made very clear from the first day you arrived that you may be called on to take action that you may not come out of in one piece. Everybody hopes it won't come to that, but year after year it does. People make the ultimate sacrifice because they swore an oath to do so when necessary.

IMHO, being a cop should require the exact same thing. Defenseless children are being killed and cops deciding in the moment to not go in should not be acceptable or legal. Maybe you wait a minute for 2 or 3 other cops to get to you before you go so the chances of taking him down go up exponentially, but you have to go in quickly and the sooner the better.

I may be alone in thinking this way, but I seriously doubt it.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Did they do a change of venue to Corpus?

---

Yes. No way he could get a fair trial in Uvalde.

rwtxag83 said:

---

Bocephus, it sounds like you know the law, at least where this is concerned. I'm not an attorney. I'm a father of three daughters. If for any reason at all, the failure to act by the police who sat around trying to figure it out while these kids died, the law doesn't hold these cops responsible for not acting, the laws need to be changed.

I don't think people send their kids to school thinking that nobody will protect them, or fail to go in and take out the murderer if it comes to that. The law should be very straightforward. Police should be required to go in and take the guy out, even if the cops are put in mortal danger by doing so.

I think average Joe citizen would be quite surprised to know that the law doesn't already require that kind of action.

I carried a rifle in the Marine Corps, and it was made very clear from the first day you arrived that you may be called on to take action that you may not come out of in one piece. Everybody hopes it won't come to that, but year after year it does. People make the ultimate sacrifice because they swore an oath to do so when necessary.

IMHO, being a cop should require the exact same thing. Defenseless children are being killed and cops deciding in the moment to not go in should not be acceptable or legal. Maybe you wait a minute for 2 or 3 other cops to get to you before you go so the chances of taking him down go up exponentially, but you have to go in quickly and the sooner the better.

I may be alone in thinking this way, but I seriously doubt it.

---

I don't have a huge problem with cowardice as long as you're self aware and immediately resign.

Consider something though: Where does it end? Do I only have to risk my life for school children? What if they're juvenile delinquents at an alternative school? Do I have to risk my life to save a known felon? Who decides who police are legally required to save?

I don't think there is any shame in freezing up and not being able to do the job. There is shame in continuing to want to do it once you know you're not capable.

I used Injury to a child by omission several times to convict and 100% of them were sent to the pen.
My cases never involved kids with disabilities.
My defendants were always, IIRC, parents who did not protect their kids from another abusive parent.
I might have had a school bus driver who I prosecuted under this same principle as school employees have a legal duty to protect children in their care.

I don't know of any LEO in Texas prosecuted for injury to a child by omission. But this might be a case for its application to LE except for the timeline problems I set out above that the prosecution has to overcome.