You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

Thank you for explaining. All I heard was "changed a 180 testimony from grand jury" and then I had to go.

Naw, I studied hard enough in school that I could get a better job. I'd recommend doing the same.

EDIT: Kind of funny you suggested I do what this guy was too afraid to do.

If the initail cop bust open the door and a shootout begins and doesnt go percectly, (quickly kills shooter, and no kid or teacher harmed) that cop will be prosecuted criminally and sued civily for any harm that happens.

I hate to see this thrown out due to a procedural error/ misconduct by prosecution. Would like to see a clean conclusion to the issue.

I agree that the Texas legislature has carved out a special relationship for ISD/public school police depts that goes beyond the 'general provisions' of the case law cited. In doing so they have said we will hold these depts. to a higher standard of conduct. Both of the cases in constitutional law cited allow for legislatures to say what they mean i.e. establish special circumstances. Since the Texas Law was adopted after the 1989 landmark decision it surly meets constitutional standards.

Perhaps we will yet see x-chief Arredondo in a court of law.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

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.

---

Her testimony from the stand was that she saw the shooter at a certain location. That testimony from the stand corroborated and bolstered the testimont/statements of 8 or 9 other witnesses. Whether she had ever told that to the prosecutors is in question. If any error, it would be harmless IMO. Defense wanted to use her Grand Jury testimony to refute what the other 8 or 9 witnesses saw.

I giggled when the judge asked the defense attorney what remedy they wanted. They had no answer for that. How is this harmful to the defense? What harm is shown when she now testifies the same as 8 or 9 other witnesses as to the shooter's location? That has nothing to do with what LE did or did not do to protect the children.

And part of what the defense is complaining about was provided to them in her Grand Jury testimony.

AND it is not unheard of for the prosecutor to have to testify, and certainly not since the Morton act became law.

Peter Tragos (Lawyer You Know) breaks it all down here.
https://www.youtube.com/live/N8RfgTlTcDo?si=VcZeRfmMHVRtBr40

Motion for mistrial denied.

Prosecution's conduct was negligent but not intentional.

I haven't been able to watch any today. Did the judge order a remedy at all?

AtticusMatlock said:

---

I haven't been able to watch any today. Did the judge order a remedy at all?

---

Like what?

50 push ups?

fc2112 said:

---

Naw, I studied hard enough in school that I could get a better job. I'd recommend doing the same.

EDIT: Kind of funny you suggested I do what this guy was too afraid to do.

---

Glad I don't know ya. I get it...you're smart...not heroic...or caring.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

I haven't been able to watch any today. Did the judge order a remedy at all?

---

I only watched a little bit myself, but I believe the teacher's testimony was going to be excluded.

One thing I haven't seen pointed out yet: although police don't have a common law duty to protect citizens nor is there a criminal statute that unambiguously creates that duty, our state legislature could pass such a law today which creates an affirmative duty for officers to protect the public.

It's crazy we haven't done that. Sure, that will weed out some officers, but those are going to be the worthless ones self-selecting their way out.

The law should be implemented so that no good cop should have to worry much about it.

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

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.

---

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that all the officer would have to show was that he followed the protocol right up to the point of him entering that room and putting his own life at risk. Seems like a pretty easy case from that perspective.

Like I've repeatedly said, I'm not a fan of molding law to your needs bc there is no current law in place. The abandonment/endangering laws were put in place to hold parents accountable.

As a police officer under this interpretation, if I arrive on campus am I now responsible for the safety of every single child in the building? Doesn't that seem like an impossible standard to you?

I would honestly rather put cowardice under the scope of law in the penal code than try to bend other unrelated penal code in an attempt to punish officers. You would definitely have less people applying to be police officers but maybe that is not a bad thing.

lb3 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

---

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.

---

Agreed, and you will never hear me argue differently. There are bad people who wear the uniform just like there are bad people in every profession.

GisselMcDonald said:

---

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 just don't want to invent law bc you're all up in your feels, but you do you snowflake.

Eliminatus said:

---

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.

---

Although I don't agree with it, that's where I believe the case law is on the side of inaction.

A cop watching blatant crime happen in front of him is disgusting to me, but there are bigger issues that drive this also...
- cops are mostly a reflection of the population, albeit generally speaking more of the center to right leaning populace. There are cowards and bad actors amongst the force. Some don't know they are cowards yet.

- the Pareto principle is also applicable to cops.

- IMO, most police management takes the view of "big cases, big problems, little cases, little problems and no cases, no problems." Their goal is to get to their retirement unscathed ie. no problems, and so they prefer officers that feel the same way.

-Many of these blue cities have a blue DA and a blue jury pool. One of the reasons I left DC is because if I got into a use of force incident, no way I was going to get a fair trial. And Lord help you if it's a national news issue.

The instructors at ALERRT, and I've met many of them over the years, represent many of the officers that will go in harms way. A better representative is the many cases where officers do acts of bravery and self sacrifice, but it doesn't make the national news.

I don't know if inaction is fixable though.

fc2112 said:

---

You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

---

you can sure tell the posters who love confirmation bias.

explaining the legalities of an action, isn't saying you would do the same course of action.

InfantryAg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

---

you can sure tell the posters who love confirmation bias.

explaining the legalities of an action, isn't saying you would do the same course of action.

---

Do you know who the tunnel rent a cop he was referring to is?

I don't know that he committed a crime, although inaction in the face of a threat should mean something. He should lose his job and pension at the very least.

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

---

you can sure tell the posters who love confirmation bias.

explaining the legalities of an action, isn't saying you would do the same course of action.

---

Do you know who the tunnel rent a cop he was referring to is?

---

no idea

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

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

---

Surprised there wasn't more mention of that here. He was Brazos Co. DA when a lot of us were in school.

AtomicActuator said:

---

One thing I haven't seen pointed out yet: although police don't have a common law duty to protect citizens nor is there a criminal statute that unambiguously creates that duty, our state legislature could pass such a law today which creates an affirmative duty for officers to protect the public.

It's crazy we haven't done that. Sure, that will weed out some officers, but those are going to be the worthless ones self-selecting their way out.

The law should be implemented so that no good cop should have to worry much about it.

---

If they do that, you will have mass retirement and resignation state-wide. Its a bad enough environment for police when they can be prosecuted for what the public thinks is a bad shoot (or not even a shoot in the case of Floyd). Add an affirmative duty and people will say, no thanks.

I've gone back and forth on this one. On one hand I wonder what the job entails if not public protection. On the other, I realize when there's too much of a duty added there won't be a sufficient supply of trained officers.

Ol Rock said:

---

I don't know that he committed a crime, although inaction in the face of a threat should mean something. He should lose his job and pension at the very least.

---

He lost his job.

whatthehey78 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Naw, I studied hard enough in school that I could get a better job. I'd recommend doing the same.

EDIT: Kind of funny you suggested I do what this guy was too afraid to do.

---

Glad I don't know ya. I get it...you're smart...not heroic...or caring.

---

And apparently these cops weren't either - well, except for the being smart part.

fc2112 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Naw, I studied hard enough in school that I could get a better job. I'd recommend doing the same.

EDIT: Kind of funny you suggested I do what this guy was too afraid to do.

---

Glad I don't know ya. I get it...you're smart...not heroic...or caring.

---

And apparently these cops weren't either - well, except for the being smart part.

---

I work with officers who have PhDs so it's not studying. The two officers facing charges were definitely not heroic. There are a lot of people across this state and country judging these officers for not running at a guy with an AR-15, who refused to leave their house during Covid and double masked when they went anywhere. The instinct of self preservation is a powerful one.

I give you the actions of Detective Senior Constable Cesar "Cess" Barraza in a similar situation. Look him up.

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

---

you can sure tell the posters who love confirmation bias.

explaining the legalities of an action, isn't saying you would do the same course of action.

---

Do you know who the tunnel rent a cop he was referring to is?

---

I m pretty sure he is talking about the cop who became relatively infamous for bowing up to a South Carolina player at the Texas A&M vs South Carolina game.

https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/46978031

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

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

---

Bootstrap?

fc2112 said:

---

You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

---

I mean, yes? Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? Because I assure you, it is not. Personal safety is paramount, always. You surely don't think civilians are legally bound to lay down their lives in the course of their duties, do you? Some do lose their lives. Kudos and utmost respect to them. We can even have an expectation of such yet nowhere is it written that they are lawbound to do so. Affirmed several times over.

Your disdain and arrogance over the profession is also noted however so I can only really chalk up this line of thinking to ignorant biases and not worthy of actual discussion.

Not sure what you mean by "Bootstrap ".

Many DA offices, especially in rural Texas, don't have the experience to handle lengthy, high profile cases. Bill Turner has the trial knowledge and experience to handle such cases. More importantly he still has the desire to go into the courtroom and do battle.

Bocephus said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Naw, I studied hard enough in school that I could get a better job. I'd recommend doing the same.

EDIT: Kind of funny you suggested I do what this guy was too afraid to do.

---

Glad I don't know ya. I get it...you're smart...not heroic...or caring.

---

And apparently these cops weren't either - well, except for the being smart part.

---

I work with officers who have PhDs so it's not studying. The two officers facing charges were definitely not heroic. There are a lot of people across this state and country judging these officers for not running at a guy with an AR-15, who refused to leave their house during Covid and double masked when they went anywhere. The instinct of self preservation is a powerful one.

---

Yes, and also no.

This whole thread smacks of keyboard warrior talk and it's hard to take seriously. Self preservation is powerful but in sudden, very traumatic situations some people also just shut completely down. I mean straight up power down. Like a deer in the road. Something so far outside of the range of the norm can overload a person's mind that they can't handle it and more or less just short circuit. I did EMS for a bit and have seen big manly cowboys that are bubbly incoherent messes while their wives take over accidents. Been in full on firefights with civilians caught in the middle and some just literally freeze. Like a demented Simon Says game. Some panic so badly they run directly INTO danger, all coherent thought just gone. Soooo many Iraqis died in the early years at vehicle checkpoints because of this.

My point is, absolutely no one has any clue how they will react until the metal meets the meat. No one. And us pampered Americans have an extremely limited exposure to that world. Even more so I would imagine among the educated middle to upper class that frequents this board. So it is just hard for me to listen to people wax on about a coward, knowing that they haven't faced the test themselves.

Quote:

---

Although I don't agree with it, that's where I believe the case law is on the side of inaction.

A cop watching blatant crime happen in front of him is disgusting to me, but there are bigger issues that drive this also...
- cops are mostly a reflection of the population, albeit generally speaking more of the center to right leaning populace. There are cowards and bad actors amongst the force. Some don't know they are cowards yet.

- the Pareto principle is also applicable to cops.

- IMO, most police management takes the view of "big cases, big problems, little cases, little problems and no cases, no problems." Their goal is to get to their retirement unscathed ie. no problems, and so they prefer officers that feel the same way.

-Many of these blue cities have a blue DA and a blue jury pool. One of the reasons I left DC is because if I got into a use of force incident, no way I was going to get a fair trial. And Lord help you if it's a national news issue.

The instructors at ALERRT, and I've met many of them over the years, represent many of the officers that will go in harms way. A better representative is the many cases where officers do acts of bravery and self sacrifice, but it doesn't make the national news.

I don't know if inaction is fixable though.

---

Agreed. We have over a million uniformed peace officers in America, not including feds. The overwhelming majority of them are good to great citizens who want to do their jobs and serve their communities in an honorable fashion. They are also the ones called upon to intercede with every single one of our society's breakdowns. We literally tell them to go to every worst case scenario and deal with it. And they do it to the best of their ability. But they are also human.

That being said, every job does have it's limits of course and this man should no longer work in LE. I am perfectly fine with him losing his career over this. That is the accountability the public should have for loss of confidence in his abilities moving forward. Anything past that is just a witch hunt for a man who was found wanting at the worst time in his life. Which I am positive so many also would have failed at. Which is why I don't hate him. I pity him instead, which might be worse maybe.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

You sure can tell who the cops/retired cops are on this thread.

Highest goal - above all else - come home safe. And get that pension, of course. Screw what it says on the door of the squad car.

Same guys who were defending Tunnel Rent-A-Cop.

---

you can sure tell the posters who love confirmation bias.

explaining the legalities of an action, isn't saying you would do the same course of action.

---

Do you know who the tunnel rent a cop he was referring to is?

---

I m pretty sure he is talking about the cop who became relatively infamous for bowing up to a South Carolina player at the Texas A&M vs South Carolina game.

https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/46978031

---

Ohhhh. Will be interesting to see what kind of discipline he receives from the DPS.