Got a Natty! said:

---

I would think a timeline spreadsheet would be done at the request of the prosecutors. That would help the prosecutors keep up with testimony. And therefore would be work product.

But I didn't watch any of this the last 2 days so maybe not.

---

That was my thought as well. Aggregating evidence is work product, not Brady material.

When my daughter's killer was going through his retrial I used some educational timeline software to put all the evidence from the previous trial in a manageable format. Every location, movement, photo, phone call, video, statement, blood draw, IV bag changeout, blood pressure reading, etc. I was shocked the prosecutor's office didn't already have the evidence organized in a searchable hyperlinked format.

I shared tons of work product with the prosecutor only to have the defense claim I was conducting an independent investigation outside of disclosure requirements and the Judge ordered all my emails handed over to the defense.

I went statement by statement through all 1800 pages of the first trial's transcripts and highlighted every statement from the defense's medical expert's testimony that could be refuted by the medical record. I aggregated the data, put it in graphs or tables, included transcript page numbers, emailed the prosecutor the copies and put them in color coded binders. On the final day of the trial the defense rested without calling their medical expert because he knew the prosecutor was going to eviscerate him on the stand.

I can't even imagine. You're a badass and she's lucky to have had you. So sorry.

I hope the animal is locked away forever or better yet not using our oxygen.

Eligible for parole in May 2033. He won't be paroled.

The case that involved your daughter was in San Antonio, right?

Yes. Sorry for the derail. The initial point was my initial understanding that aggregating evidence was work product but judges can do crazy things.

Quote:

---

Why is Bortac getting a pass when they were the most trained people there but still didn't act? Yet this low on the totem pole guy is getting scapegoated? The Bortac commander got a medal, instead.

---

This is what I've been wondering since this whole matter started. Find the most defenseless guy available and put him on trial for all the parents/public to show that "we are really horrified by these inactions." Meanwhile, the people ACTUALLY responsible who could have ACTUALLY done something (or at least, they share SOME culpability here to the extent there is ANY wrongdoing), get a pass because they're too high on the food chain.

What's worse is NO ONE is asking WHY?

Forget the caselaw on an officers' duty to act; this is NOT what our justice system is supposed to be about.

I've been a jury foreman twice. My experience is that juries don't care about the facts or the law. They just want to know who's the *******.

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

agracer 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 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.

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

---

Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

---

Protect the students? Really?

Not arguing the law here but don't pretend these officers gave a **** about those kids.

TRX said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

agracer 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 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.

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

---

Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

---

Protect the students? Really?

Not arguing the law here but don't pretend these officers gave a **** about those kids.

---

He was asking about the job duties of SROs. That's what I answered. You're welcome to spread your outrage in the appropriate context. This is not it.

Quote:

---

Bocephus said:


Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

---

My goodness this was the point I brought out on page 1. Don't understand the intervening pages. I understand that not all officers can be a Frank Hamer or Manuel Gonzaullas. But I don't expect them to be a Buford t T. Justice or Barney Fife either. Perhaps Uvalde in unique in selection of officers, you know mi cunado or primo needs as job,,, I don't know.

Since LEO work is a volunteer job perhaps, we need a standard of conduct like an Article 99 UCMJ. That serves another volunteer job well I hear.

Depending on what the jury does or what an appellate court does, we could have legislation the next session that establishes and defines what duties LEO must adhere to.

Got a Natty! said:

---

Depending on what the jury does or what an appellate court does, we could have legislation the next session that establishes and defines what duties LEO must adhere to.

---

We already have that.

I think it would be more impactful if they could put a law on the books stating that if you are an SRO and fail to act in any way during a shooting, then you violate said law and receive said penalty. The issue in Uvalde was not only that the officers did not go in and challenge the shooter, it was that they did nothing. If they had attempted to do ANYTHING else (break windows, enter through neighboring walls, enter through the roof) it could have distracted the shooter and ended the conflict earlier and saved lives. I think a "failure to act" law would be appropriate for mass casualty events. JMo

Bocephus said:

---

TRX said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

agracer 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 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.

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

---

Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

---

Protect the students? Really?

Not arguing the law here but don't pretend these officers gave a **** about those kids.

---

He was asking about the job duties of SROs. That's what I answered. You're welcome to spread your outrage in the appropriate context. This is not it.

---

Then don't lie about SROs duties.