Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[Slant]

A better example as far as a bank robbery goes is if someone drove a friend to a bank because the friend asked them for a ride, said friend goes into the bank then robs it, hops in the car and tells the person driving the car to they want to go home and gets taken home. The person driving the car had no knowledge of it or anything. Said person, regardless if they knew or not, can be charged as an accessory to said crime because they helped the person that did the crime in some way to get away.

That is not an applicable analogy, either. If the guy didn't know about "giving a ride" and has no idea about what's going down (note: if the robber leaves with an empty bag in front of a bank and returns with a full bag after there's some commotion inside and alarms are going off, it's relatively simple to prove that he had an idea of something going on that he shouldn't be a part of), he would of course not be an accessory.

Or rather, you could charge him, but any two dime lawyer would get that trial tossed.

The analogy of a robbery is a bad one all around. You can't make it work unless you construct a very weird edge case. See, for example your case with the "friend that drives a friend somewhere" is not an applicable analogy because the police officers weren't "doing something innocent", they knew the situation that was developing. Moreover, it's their primary job to handle such situations. They have a heightened obligation to do something that goes beyond a "mere innocent and clueless friend being an accidental getaway driver". You guys need to look for a better analogy, the bank robbery so far isn't convincing.

However, what puzzles me is that you all want to snipe that accessory to murder. Negligience of duty doesn't seem to be good enough. Feels like y'all are out for blood and the actual justice system or legal idea of "justice" doesn't have anything to do with it. This feels more like revenge. The shooter is dead, so you can't exact your revenge on him, so you pick the next best guy and... basically charge him with the same thing so you can get closure.

That's not how law works. Charge them with what they ACTUALLY did. They neglected their duty. Very likely combined with criminal negligience leading to the death of those inside the school building. Btw, in the UK gross negligience manslaughter can result in life imprisonment. Since the US code is all kinds of fucked up and impossible to look up, I can only guess that it's not going to be a slap on the wrist. Knowing the incredibly outrageous prison sentences that US judges habitually award.

So what's the difference?

[Slant]

SCOTUS has ruled the cops don’t have a duty to intervene in an active crime unless it’s excessive force from another officer.

Fuck. I guess @Edge- is right and the police only exists to referee the modern hunger games/purge gladiatorial reality games you got going on in the US.

[D Luniz]

A better example as far as a bank robbery goes is if someone drove a friend to a bank because the friend asked them for a ride, said friend goes into the bank then robs it, hops in the car and tells the person driving the car to they want to go home and gets taken home. The person driving the car had no knowledge of it or anything. Said person, regardless if they knew or not, can be charged as an accessory to said crime because they helped the person that did the crime in some way to get away.

"The Hand of one is the hand of all"

[Poopymonster]

SCOTUS has ruled the cops don’t have a duty to intervene in an active crime unless it’s excessive force from another officer.

From Libertarian PBS:
Qualified Immunity!
It's not for you, it's just for me.
I shot your dog!
I shot your wife!
I get to go on with my life!
Qualified Immunity!

[Deus Mortis]

https://news.yahoo.com/uvalde-school...054019879.html
Uvalde school board decides against disciplinary action for police chief whose orders delayed a tactical response to shooting

The Uvalde School Board decided not to pursue disciplinary action against Police Chief Pete Arredondo.

On May 24, an 18-year-old gunman shot and killed 21 people in an elementary school in Texas.

Arredondo has been criticized for delaying action against the gunman.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Board declined to take disciplinary action against District Police Chief Pete Arredondo during a meeting on Friday, Axios reported.

Arredondo has been under fire since the May 24 shooting at Robb Elementary, during which an 18-year-old gunman left 19 children and two adults dead.

The gunman had barricaded himself inside a classroom with children while Arredondo and 19 other officers spent over an hour waiting in a hallway outside.

Officials later told reporters that Arredondo was the one who decided officers should not confront the gunman because he believed the gunman was barricaded alone.

The Texas Department of Public Safety also accused Arredondo of not cooperating with an investigation into the incident.

Parents who waited outside during the gunfire reportedly tried to enter the school and save their children were handcuffed by police.

One parent managed to grab her two kids during the shooting. She later told CBS News that she was handcuffed and threatened by police for talking to the media about her experience with officers while trying to escape arrest and save her kids.

During the district board meeting, officials announced that students and staff will not return to the Robb Elementary campus, which is set to permanently close.

The school, Axios reported, will be moved to a new address, while the existing building would be turned into "something other than a school site," Superintendent Hal Harrell said.

How does a school board not punish the person who lets 19 of your students die....

[Poopymonster]

https://news.yahoo.com/uvalde-school...054019879.html
Uvalde school board decides against disciplinary action for police chief whose orders delayed a tactical response to shooting

How does a school board not punish the person who lets 19 of your students die....

Before we vote on whether or not to punish him.
Be a real shame if another shooter popped in, and no one stopped them. Wow, it might take an hour for someone to respond. Maybe longer. THEN imagine how long they'd be outside the school waiting. You have kids who still go there? Be a damn shame.
Now, let's vote on whether or not to punish him.

Fucking LOVE small town politics.

[Captain N]

https://news.yahoo.com/uvalde-school...054019879.html
Uvalde school board decides against disciplinary action for police chief whose orders delayed a tactical response to shooting

How does a school board not punish the person who lets 19 of your students die....

Easy. It's Texas.

[gondrin]

https://news.yahoo.com/uvalde-school...054019879.html
Uvalde school board decides against disciplinary action for police chief whose orders delayed a tactical response to shooting

How does a school board not punish the person who lets 19 of your students die....

Question I have is what does a school board have anything to do with the police chief? Wouldn't that be the city council job to issue discipline?

- - - Updated - - -

That is not an applicable analogy, either. If the guy didn't know about "giving a ride" and has no idea about what's going down (note: if the robber leaves with an empty bag in front of a bank and returns with a full bag after there's some commotion inside and alarms are going off, it's relatively simple to prove that he had an idea of something going on that he shouldn't be a part of), he would of course not be an accessory.

Or rather, you could charge him, but any two dime lawyer would get that trial tossed.

The analogy of a robbery is a bad one all around. You can't make it work unless you construct a very weird edge case. See, for example your case with the "friend that drives a friend somewhere" is not an applicable analogy because the police officers weren't "doing something innocent", they knew the situation that was developing. Moreover, it's their primary job to handle such situations. They have a heightened obligation to do something that goes beyond a "mere innocent and clueless friend being an accidental getaway driver". You guys need to look for a better analogy, the bank robbery so far isn't convincing.

However, what puzzles me is that you all want to snipe that accessory to murder. Negligience of duty doesn't seem to be good enough. Feels like y'all are out for blood and the actual justice system or legal idea of "justice" doesn't have anything to do with it. This feels more like revenge. The shooter is dead, so you can't exact your revenge on him, so you pick the next best guy and... basically charge him with the same thing so you can get closure.

That's not how law works. Charge them with what they ACTUALLY did. They neglected their duty. Very likely combined with criminal negligience leading to the death of those inside the school building. Btw, in the UK gross negligience manslaughter can result in life imprisonment. Since the US code is all kinds of fucked up and impossible to look up, I can only guess that it's not going to be a slap on the wrist. Knowing the incredibly outrageous prison sentences that US judges habitually award.

So what's the difference?

If the police just stood around(like most of them did), then so be it. Most that can be done is a firing at best. However, and this is why I state accessory or something of that nature, when they actively hindered anyone else from going in to help(there is video footage of that), it changes things to an extent. I figure this will go nowhere as far as the cops go outside of the police chief getting fired and a payout from the city to the victims families.

EDIT: BTW, I am not out for blood. I am out for people being held accountable for their actions is all. This situation is one I wouldn't put in the hands of any anyone as it is easy to say "You should run in and risk your life." However, the public expects the police to do just that(the emblem for the Uvalde Police force even says "To Serve and Protect"), they basically were lied to. If a police officer doesn't want to risk his life for another, fine. That officer should be terminated for dereliction of duty or find another job that suits their tastes. However, as we will see with this, most will still have their jobs as the police union will prevent a large amount from losing their jobs.

[Slant]

Question I have is what does a school board have anything to do with the police chief? Wouldn't that be the city council job to issue discipline?

- - - Updated - - -



If the police just stood around(like most of them did), then so be it. Most that can be done is a firing at best. However, and this is why I state accessory or something of that nature, when they actively hindered anyone else from going in to help(there is video footage of that), it changes things to an extent. I figure this will go nowhere as far as the cops go outside of the police chief getting fired and a payout from the city to the victims families.

EDIT: BTW, I am not out for blood. I am out for people being held accountable for their actions is all. This situation is one I wouldn't put in the hands of any anyone as it is easy to say "You should run in and risk your life." However, the public expects the police to do just that(the emblem for the Uvalde Police force even says "To Serve and Protect"), they basically were lied to. If a police officer doesn't want to risk his life for another, fine. That officer should be terminated for dereliction of duty or find another job that suits their tastes. However, as we will see with this, most will still have their jobs as the police union will prevent a large amount from losing their jobs.

I get your argument about hindering people from going in. But ludicrous as that may look to you, that is also part of their job. Protecting civilians from going into harms way. You want to get at them for partially doing their job. If they had truly done nothing, you'd not feel as outraged, it seems.

So, partially doing your job gets a higher penalty than not doing your job at all. Not really the message I would want to take out of this discussion. Think about it.

I get what you're saying, they shouldn't stop people from doing what needs to be done if they don't do it... but legally speaking, it's not as easy to make something out of that.

[Gabriel]

https://news.yahoo.com/uvalde-school...054019879.html
Uvalde school board decides against disciplinary action for police chief whose orders delayed a tactical response to shooting

How does a school board not punish the person who lets 19 of your students die....

>schools have any say what so ever in how police should respond to crimes within the school
America is having a retard moment.

[gondrin]

I get your argument about hindering people from going in. But ludicrous as that may look to you, that is also part of their job. Protecting civilians from going into harms way. You want to get at them for partially doing their job. If they had truly done nothing, you'd not feel as outraged, it seems.

So, partially doing your job gets a higher penalty than not doing your job at all. Not really the message I would want to take out of this discussion. Think about it.

I get what you're saying, they shouldn't stop people from doing what needs to be done if they don't do it... but legally speaking, it's not as easy to make something out of that.

If the police were in the building actually trying to deal with the shooter, I would agree that nobody should be let in as it would create a worse situation(if you could even call it that). The problem is, that didn't happen. They refused to go in(either by order from a CO or just in general), people came that could help out when the police didn't want to(they were even refusing to let parents knock out windows of classrooms which doesn't require anyone to go into the building) and they actively prevented those people from helping.

They even tried to stop a Border Patrol agent(the one who shot the suspect) from going in.

[Unholyground]

Sounds like private citizens may need to go destroy the gun manufacturing plants. If the government isn't going to do anything the people have no choice.

[gondrin]

Sounds like private citizens may need to go destroy the gun manufacturing plants. If the government isn't going to do anything the people have no choice.

I've said(and this isn't the right thread for this so sorry for the derail) that people who sell guns to others without doing their due diligence(this also pertains to cars, knives and the like) as far as checking to see if a person has a history of mental problems, history of violence or anything of the sort and actively sells someone who has a history of those things knowing said things could happen, that seller should be charged with a crime. We expect bartenders to cut off people that are too drunk from drinking anymore. We should also expect gun shop owners from not selling to someone that has a history of violence or shows intent to commit violence(outside of self-defense).

- - - Updated - - -

A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes

While this is something, especially with the election close by, it would get overturned very quickly if the GOP takes control again.

[Endus]

I get your argument about hindering people from going in. But ludicrous as that may look to you, that is also part of their job. Protecting civilians from going into harms way. You want to get at them for partially doing their job. If they had truly done nothing, you'd not feel as outraged, it seems.

So, partially doing your job gets a higher penalty than not doing your job at all. Not really the message I would want to take out of this discussion. Think about it.

I get what you're saying, they shouldn't stop people from doing what needs to be done if they don't do it... but legally speaking, it's not as easy to make something out of that.

The problem is that what they did was protect the shooter to try and ensure he could shoot as many innocent people as he wanted to. They were ignoring their training and policies, directly, which explicitly state that their first obligation in a mass shooter situation is to confront the shooter, even at risk of being shot, even if their fellow officer gets shot and needs medical attention; first obligation is to confront the shooter.

And they didn't. And they tried to ensure no one else did. While fully aware of what the shooter was doing. That's why people think they should be charged as accessories; because their actions were not simply passively being chickenshit cowards who couldn't bring themselves to do their duty (which should be seen as criminal neglect and so forth, which should also be charged), but because they actively acted to protect the shooter.

And if you're gonna contest their intent to try and dispute mens rea, I'm gonna ask the critical points again; did they know what the shooter was doing, and were they actively preventing people from stopping him? Cause "I can't let you try and help because you might die" is not an argument when the result of no one stopping the shooter is more kids dying. The choice isn't to minimize unlawful deaths, there, it's to give an active shooter time to kill more victims.

[Slant]

The problem is that what they did was protect the shooter to try and ensure he could shoot as many innocent people as he wanted to. They were ignoring their training and policies, directly, which explicitly state that their first obligation in a mass shooter situation is to confront the shooter, even at risk of being shot, even if their fellow officer gets shot and needs medical attention; first obligation is to confront the shooter.

And they didn't. And they tried to ensure no one else did. While fully aware of what the shooter was doing. That's why people think they should be charged as accessories; because their actions were not simply passively being chickenshit cowards who couldn't bring themselves to do their duty (which should be seen as criminal neglect and so forth, which should also be charged), but because they actively acted to protect the shooter.

And if you're gonna contest their intent to try and dispute mens rea, I'm gonna ask the critical points again; did they know what the shooter was doing, and were they actively preventing people from stopping him? Cause "I can't let you try and help because you might die" is not an argument when the result of no one stopping the shooter is more kids dying. The choice isn't to minimize unlawful deaths, there, it's to give an active shooter time to kill more victims.

You're arguing from an emotional point of view. This is what you admonish people for all the time. I'm surprised you do this here. "I can't let you help because you might die" is exactly why this doesn't constitute accessory, their intent and their motivation is clearly something completely different than that of the shooter, whose goal supposedly is to take as many souls as he can before he suicides.

This wouldn't hold up in court. Criminal negligience, perhaps even hindering assistance instead of just not providing it, sure. But not accessory to murder. You'd charge them with the same crime the shooter did. Just as a layman that should make you stop and think if they actually deserve the exact same punishment as the actual shooter himself.

And if you agree with that, I'll have to ask... are you sure you're not just out for blood? Revenge? And that's not good enough in modern justice systems (although, philosophically speaking, retribution is part of the punishment).

- - - Updated - - -

If the police were in the building actually trying to deal with the shooter, I would agree that nobody should be let in as it would create a worse situation(if you could even call it that). The problem is, that didn't happen. They refused to go in(either by order from a CO or just in general), people came that could help out when the police didn't want to(they were even refusing to let parents knock out windows of classrooms which doesn't require anyone to go into the building) and they actively prevented those people from helping.

They even tried to stop a Border Patrol agent(the one who shot the suspect) from going in.

The question you have to ask is: Why did they stop people from entering. Is it to save more lives or is it to assist the shooter? Anyone who claims the latter, should by default support overthrowing the US Government, because a Government that even remotely condones those actions should not be allowed to exist in the modern Western understanding.

[Endus]

You're arguing from an emotional point of view. This is what you admonish people for all the time. I'm surprised you do this here. "I can't let you help because you might die" is exactly why this doesn't constitute accessory, their intent and their motivation is clearly something completely different than that of the shooter, whose goal supposedly is to take as many souls as he can before he suicides.

That's not a reasonable interpretation of their motivations. They were arresting and tazing people who wanted to help those kids.

Also, my argument isn't based on emotion at all. You don't even make that case, you just try and declare it and move on, skipping over the actual argument I made.

This wouldn't hold up in court. Criminal negligience, perhaps even hindering assistance instead of just not providing it, sure. But not accessory to murder. You'd charge them with the same crime the shooter did. Just as a layman that should make you stop and think if they actually deserve the exact same punishment as the actual shooter himself.

See, this is an emotional argument. You're asking me to emotionally react to the supposed severity of the punishment and feel that it's unjust, somehow.

If I have a problem with the severity, it's a problem inherent to Texas law and an issue that would apply to any and every case where someone was charged as an accessory to a murder. But debating whether the law itself has reasonable and defensible penalties is a completely different argument from the question of whether these officers committed that particular crime. You're trying to focus me on the former and shock me with how overly punitive Texas law is, but that's emotion, not reason.

And if you agree with that, I'll have to ask... are you sure you're not just out for blood? Revenge? And that's not good enough in modern justice systems (although, philosophically speaking, retribution is part of the punishment).

And here, you're just leveling baseless accusations.

I'm out for justice, and part of justice involves penalizing people appropriately for their actions.

In fact, Texas still maintains the death penalty, and this shooter might have faced it had they lived. So let's use that as a basis for a hypothetical. I oppose the death penalty, categorically. So I don't support Texas law on that level of punishment. However, that wouldn't make me argue that the shooter here was "not a mass murderer", because I think the death penalty is egregious. Nor would me seeking to have them charged with those murders be me being "out for blood or revenge".

The severity you're pointing to is a problem inherent to the Texas legal system. That's an unrelated issue to whether these officers committed this particular crime. I'm able to separate these two because I'm not making an emotion-based argument. Unlike you, here.

[Lynarii]

A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes

This is the kind of bill that bothers me. It's targeting the AR-15 over brand recognition, which I think is a really shitty way to draft a bill. Problems with the AR-15 should be due to physical characteristics. Rounds in clip, rate of fire, safety features, things like that and should apply to any weapon that shares the characteristics in question. But explicitly targeting it as a brand name is the kind of reactionary emotional response that leads to poorly written laws. And I don't think it will impact anything in the slightest, because there are plenty of other guns that do the exact same things as the AR-15 and are only in the news less because of marketing. People who can't get an AR-15 aren't going to just abandon their plans when there is a gun that does all the same things that they can get sitting right there for sale.

[Breccia]

How does a school board not punish the person who lets 19 of your students die....

Easily, they're looking for another issue to blame. I've posted that they're trying to blame the 911 call system, you know, the parts without humans you can throw money at to have no effect.

If that stated reason was true, "working on bad intel", I get the decision. But I believe the stated reason is only true because he didn't answer the phone or use a radio. Which means he should be fired for that, instead.

[PhaelixWW]

Easy. It's Texas.

Sadly, it's not just Texas. Nor is it even just red states.

Question I have is what does a school board have anything to do with the police chief? Wouldn't that be the city council job to issue discipline?

>schools have any say what so ever in how police should respond to crimes within the school
America is having a retard moment.

He's not the town's police chief, he's the school district's police chief, so his employment is under their purview. He was the incident commander of the shooting because the school is basically his jurisdiction.

Houston Chronicle: Why was the head of a six-person force for Uvalde CISD in charge of the mass shooting response?

Uvalde police officers, Texas state troopers and members of the U.S. Border Patrol’s elite BORTAC squad all responded to the massacre at Robb Elementary a week ago. All were apparently brought to a standstill under the command of Uvalde CISD Police Chief Pete Arredondo, who officials say believed the shooter was no longer a risk to people in the school.

But why was the school police chief, who oversaw, by far, the smallest law-enforcement agency that responded, in charge of the situation response in the first place?

When it comes to who’s in charge, a department’s size doesn’t matter. In mass casualty events in which multiple agencies respond, the highest ranking officer from the agency that has jurisdiction over an emergency usually assumes control.

...

Because the shooting occurred on school property, Arrendondo — the top officer at the school’s small police department — would have been in charge of coordinating the response, handling communications and making decisions about how to stop the shooter.

...

Arredondo could have given control to the Uvalde Police Department — the school lay in their jurisdiction. Or he could have turned it over to DPS, which has law enforcement authority across the entire state. Or even to BORTAC operators, who are the Border Patrol’s most highly trained agents.

There's no shortage of people to whom he could either have turned over command, or at least gotten a second opinion.

A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes

Punitive firearm taxes have been struck down as unconstitutional before. I wouldn't expect this to last long at all, even were it to pass.

[gondrin]

Sadly, it's not just Texas. Nor is it even just red states.




He's not the town's police chief, he's the school district's police chief, so his employment is under their purview. He was the incident commander of the shooting because the school is basically his jurisdiction.

Houston Chronicle: Why was the head of a six-person force for Uvalde CISD in charge of the mass shooting response?

There's no shortage of people to whom he could either have turned over command, or at least gotten a second opinion.



Punitive firearm taxes have been struck down as unconstitutional before. I wouldn't expect this to last long at all, even were it to pass.

The way it was worded is why I asked. I personally find it weird that a school district has its own police force. As far as the tax goes, there was an idea I read that if we want to live with mass shootings and not try and pass any gun legislation as far as guns go, pass a tax on ammo sales to fund the reoccurring costs of needing a much higher school security along with other measures. Much like how a gas tax goes towards roads. Even word it as such. You'll get a lot more people on board with it that normally wouldn't.