Got a Natty! said:

---

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.

---

Was there already case law in place stating that one parent did not have a duty to risk their life to protect the child?

If we are just going to invent law to assuage our emotions, why have any law written down in the first place?

Bocephus said:

---

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.

---

A very strong argument could be made that the kids in the school were, by definition, under the care of the LEO on campus and because A) they were minors and B) the school and law would not allow them the capability to defend themselves with any weapon, that they were unable to defend themselves.

Of course not.

I don't know of any case law, one way or the other, regarding LE's duty to protect children. Like I stated, I never had to cross that bridge.

But I think a jury will find that duty exists. If there is established case law that no duty exists then think the defense attorneys would have tried getting the case dismissed without having a jury trial. To my knowledge that did not occur. And he has good lawyers.

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.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

I am honestly surprised none of these coward officers have killed themselves.

---

One of those situations where the Japanese had it right. These guys should fall on their sword (literally) out of shame. They have dishonored themselves, their profession, and their community.

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

I am honestly surprised none of these coward officers have killed themselves.

---

I'm not. They're cowards

InfantryAg said:

---

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.

---

IIRC, the shooting never really stopped. First 3-4 mins were when the majority of shots were fired but once the SOB barricaded himself in the room he never really quit shooting as several more shots were fired over the subsequent minutes.

And I think we can all agree that part of the best practices/SOP for any situation like this does not include preventing any form of help until a LEO arrives that has the wherewithall to make combat decisions.

Massive failure all around. Is this guy guilty of a criminal offense? Part of me says no, because sometimes situations are beyond anybody's control and you should not be held criminally liable for something outside of what you can manage and control like this.

But the other part of me says that I send my kids to school every day, and as a parent I have an expectation that part of the job of the school admin and law enforcement is to ensure to the best of their ability that my kids aren't going to be systematically executed in a classroom by a psychopath while the school cop sits outside and listens.

Biggest frustration with this whole situation is that these police officers were training other units earlier that year on how to respond to school shooters, 'go in and get the guy' and they not only failed to do any of it, they actually did things antithetical to their own training.

So yeah, the public is going to extract their pound of flesh. Not too many sympathies here. Sorry that being a small town cop still comes with risks you have to take that come with PDs paychecks, authority and public trust.

The only positive I could possibly see is this show trial is a chilling effect on future PDs that yes, bungling a school shooting response is absolutely going to cost you everything - so make sure to get it right and have the conviction to follow through. And for the love of God don't deny other people access if that guy is still in there shooting and you're sitting on your ass. I still can't believe that.

I see this case as a rebound off of the extreme that the supreme court ruled that the police have no duty to protect and serve. From then on the legal obligations of the police were to write speeding tickets and just take notes at crime scenes after the fact. Police departments had no legal obligation to the public safety after that ruling.

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable

---

My problem with them is that not only did they fail to act, they actively prevented anyone else from acting. Basically an accessory to the crime at that point.

---

You would have to prove the officers on the perimeter knowingly helped the guy. It's like arguing the manufacturer of the gun is an accessory. It's a silly argument that's based on emotion and not logic.

---

They knew he was alive and actively still shooting people for like an hour while they kept anyone and everyone else away. Plenty of people would say that fits the bill of knowingly helping.

---

You are wrong. After the shots fired through the wall and door at the first officers there, there were no more shots fired until BORTAC was there and in the hallway. Four shots were heard, BORTAC started toward the door but then backed off for another 30-40 minutes before they finally went in.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Biggest frustration with this whole situation is that these police officers were training other units earlier that year on how to respond to school shooters, 'go in and get the guy' and they not only failed to do any of it, they actually did things antithetical to their own training.

So yeah, the public is going to extract their pound of flesh. Not too many sympathies here. Sorry that being a small town cop still comes with risks you have to take that come with PDs paychecks, authority and public trust.

The only positive I could possibly see is this show trial is a chilling effect on future PDs that yes, bungling a school shooting response is absolutely going to cost you everything - so make sure to get it right and have the conviction to follow through. And for the love of God don't deny other people access if that guy is still in there shooting and you're sitting on your ass. I still can't believe that.

I see this case as a rebound off of the extreme that the supreme court ruled that the police have no duty to protect and serve. From then on the legal obligations of the police were to write speeding tickets and just take notes at crime scenes after the fact. Police departments had no legal obligation to the public safety after that ruling.

---

The chief wrote their protocol on how to handle a school shooter. Then completely ignored the training manual that he wrote, went into the school, and shockingly did not have a police radio nor a cell phone on his person. He was supposed to set up a command post outside the school and run the scene from there.

If interested, you can watch the trial on the KSAT.com website.

Also on CourtTV on YouTube.

Bocephus, you keep saying that the law is decided on this mattter and that the law does not allow for the defendant officers to be prosecuted. However, the cases you are relying upon for this position are civil cases not criminal cases and these cases do not provide for any immunity from criminal prosecution. You may disagree with the decision to prosecute these defendants, but there does not appear to be a legal impediment to the prosecution. Maybe the Corpus Christi appellate court or Court of Criminal Appeals will create an immunity, but it doesn't look like one exists today.

I like the information Bill Turner elicited from a teacher. The teachers had a plan, put kids under their desks AND got scissors to protect themselves and the kids. The kids, mimicking the teacher, grabbed their safety scissors so they could protect themselves from the shooter.

Teachers and kids were readying themselves to engage the shooter.

What happened at the end? Did the teacher say something wrong?

Lawyer crap.

Defense or Prosecution?

If some wildcat PO ran into that classroom, saved countless kids lives by getting into a guy fight with the guy but one innocent child was hit and killed by his bullet he would be in the electric chair.
Armchair quarterbacking this thing from our safe spaces is just crazy!

I didn't realize former Brazos County District Attorney Bill Turner was the prosecuting attorney.

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

Tee said:

---

Bocephus, you keep saying that the law is decided on this mattter and that the law does not allow for the defendant officers to be prosecuted. However, the cases you are relying upon for this position are civil cases not criminal cases and these cases do not provide for any immunity from criminal prosecution. You may disagree with the decision to prosecute these defendants, but there does not appear to be a legal impediment to the prosecution. Maybe the Corpus Christi appellate court or Court of Criminal Appeals will create an immunity, but it doesn't look like one exists today.

---

Please show me in the Texas penal code where it states a peace officer must risk their life to save another citizen and the penalty for failure to do that. That would be the criminal law you're referring to.

As I've stated numerous times, the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

GottaRide said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

---

Yes, he did. He shot at an officer outside of the school. Then he entered the school through the side door that was propped open.

Please post your source, then. The guy shot into the building from the outside before entering the unlocked exterior door (all three of the exterior doors of that building were unlocked, btw).

The door wasn't propped open, either. It had been but the teacher removed the rock and pulled it closed, thinking it would lock. It didn't because they were all kept unlocked. That teacher was dragged through the dirt by the DPS leadership and then the media. The correction barely got reported. The school admin are the ones who should also be on trial for endangering those kids. The culture of leaving doors unlocked hasn't faced real scrutiny though. Watch the videos- they show the cops arriving and entering all three main doors on three sides of that building. All were unlocked.

A UPD officer who arrived at the initial crash scene reported seeing a male in black outside of the building but wasn't certain if it was the shooter or not, so he didn't fire. It is reported that this might have been one of the school employees that was seen and not the shooter.

You are the one that is taking the position that this prosecution is contrary to the law, not me. In response to my question as to what this law may be, you directed me to civil cases, not criminal cases. The defendants are being prosecuted for violating the criminal code. If you are aware of some immunity to this prosecution, you need to reveal it, not me. You will not be able to because it apparently does not exist.

From ChatGPT so take this for what it's worth:

2) IS THERE A FEDERAL DUTY TO RISK YOUR LIFE?
In U.S. constitutional and criminal law, police generally do not have a broad legal duty to protect individual members of the public this includes duties like putting themselves in harm's way to save others. That's been established in several court rulings (e.g., in similar cases and related Supreme Court principles).

The most well-known legal doctrine is that there is no constitutional "duty to protect" ordinary citizens from harm by others under the U.S. Constitution, even if police could have acted differently. For example, courts have said that officers are not legally required to protect an individual's life in every situation.

That's why prosecutions for inaction by officers especially in chaotic active-shooter situations are extremely rare and legally complicated.

3) SO WHAT MAKES THIS CASE DIFFERENT?

Texas prosecutors aren't trying to make the officer criminally liable simply for not confronting danger. Instead, they're arguing that:
The officer had specific training and duties as a school police officer,
Yet he failed to follow active-shooter response protocols or intervene in a way that could have impeded the shooter,
And this alleged failure recklessly placed children in danger under state law's child endangerment/abandonment statutes.

In contrast to a constitutional "duty to protect," this is a statutory duty under Texas law related to child safety, not a general constitutional requirement for all police officers everywhere.

The Supreme Court said that police officers are not liable under a 1983 claim (civil claim not criminal). In other words, police officers are not liable for money damages for failing to protect someone. These defendants are not being sued under 1983, but being prosecuted under Texas criminal law. The 1983 claim defenses are not applicable ( unless an appellate court following a conviction finds an immunity or other defense).

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable

---

I understand the law but it stings to pay a lavish pension to someone who's inability to do their job results in the death of innocent people.

When my daughter was abducted her friends went to the San Antonio west side police station and officer B. Mussey refused to make a welfare check by phone or even so much as record my daughter's name in an incident report.

Some officers are pieces of **** and leaches waiting to draw a pension.

Agzonfire said:

---

If some wildcat PO ran into that classroom, saved countless kids lives by getting into a guy fight with the guy but one innocent child was hit and killed by his bullet he would be in the electric chair.
Armchair quarterbacking this thing from our safe spaces is just crazy!

---

Maybe in Travis County, but not in any sane county.

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

I didn't realize former Brazos County District Attorney Bill Turner was the prosecuting attorney.

---

The DA in Uvalde had been assistant DA for a while but was newly elected DA when this shooting occurred. Many people pushed her to get Bill involved. Great decision by her. I watched Bill question one of the teachers. He is already building his closing argument and rationale for why this LEO should be convicted.

Bill is a VERY good prosecutor and great guy. Outcome will be interesting.

To expound (or maybe expand is more appropriate) on your post...

There is no general duty to protect. The police aren't any one individuals armed security / bodyguard. That is established. It makes sense because the cops can't be everywhere or be held help responsible for every crime committed.

What I think makes this case different is along the lines of what you posted but, more specifically, is there a "special" relationship between students / teachers and the SCHOOL DISTRICT police or even an SRO? Those police are hired specifically to ensure the safety of said students/teachers.

A cop on patrol has general duties, a cop on a specific assignment has a duty to complete the assignment. If that is a protection detail, and his principle is attacked, him standing by and doing nothing, seems to be a breach of duty; he has a "special" relationship with that principle.

Is the POTUS is attacked and Secret Service runs away, there is no legal (criminal) recourse? Seems crazy to me. And maybe that's what the courts need to clarify.

So for those of you who don't know what happened in court today, the prosecutor was put under oath on the witness stand. Let's just say it's never a good sign when the freaking prosecutor is put under oath on the witness stand.

One of the key witnesses in the trial appears to have changed her testimony about key facts from her grand jury testimony, the prosecutors knew about it and never informed the defense.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the difference is, but apparently it has something to do with where she alleges the shooter was in comparison to the officer when he entered the building and what direction the shooter came from. The officer was in a specific location at a specific time.

Defense had a very detailed timeline in their opening statement which was based in part on this woman's testimony in front of the GJ.

Defense is alleging violation of the Michael Morton Act. Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife and served 25 years in prison due to prosecutorial misconduct. I'm sure I'm missing a few things in this list but the law named after him requires prosecutors in Texas to turn over all exculpatory, inculpatory, relevant, and (most importantly to this case) impeachment evidence. The defense was not prepared to impeach this key witness on her change in testimony because the prosecutors never informed them.

This whole thing could be thrown out as soon as tomorrow.

Again, Bocephus wants officers to be able to sleep in their squad car and avoid helping the public without repercussion or only a slap on the wrist.

I don't know how this won't be tossed out quickly. Trying to snake in something lesser than what has already been ruled on in the past won't be successful IMO. Though admittedly IANAL.

I don't hate this man. I pity him. He was caught in the worst scenario possible and ended up found wanting. I promise yall at least one person reading this thread, and maybe even someone who has responded, would have froze up exactly like he did. Nobody KNOWS they are coward or not until their life is on the line. Everyone likes to think they aren't but so, so few are actually put to that test. Either way, as pointed out several times now, no citizen can be law bound to put their life in danger for another life. Upheld several times and at the highest level possible. I don't see anything superseding that.

InfantryAg said:

---

To expound (or maybe expand is more appropriate) on your post...

There is no general duty to protect. The police aren't any one individuals armed security / bodyguard. That is established. It makes sense because the cops can't be everywhere or help responsible for every crime committed.

What I think makes this case different is along the lines of what you posted but, more specifically, is there a "special" relationship between students / teachers and the SCHOOL DISTRICT police or even an SRO? Those police are hired specifically to ensure the safety of said students/teachers.

A cop on patrol has general duties, a cop on a specific assignment has a duty to complete the assignment. If that is a protection detail, and his principle is attacked, him standing by and doing nothing, seems to be a breach of duty; he has a "special" relationship with that principle.

Is the POTUS is attacked and Secret Service runs away, there is no legal (criminal) recourse? Seems crazy to me. And maybe that's what the courts need to clarify.

---

Life threatening situations should supersede all of that, no? I don't understand why it wouldn't. I truly don't.

If someone is employed to protect but fails to do so, fire them, sue them civilly, etc, but criminal charges? For a civilian employee? I just can't see it with all the case law already established. Just my opinion though.