A special grand jury was chosen in Uvalde, Texas, Friday to investigate the response to the 2022 massacre at Robb Elementary School, according to area newspapers.
A grand jury investigation would represent the first publicly known development within the criminal justice system amid all the investigations into the botched police response.
The San Antonio Express-News reports District Attorney Christina Mitchell told them the grand jury would review evidence related to the mass shooting, but declined to comment on any focus of the grand jury investigation. Jurors are expected to spend at least six months investigating the case, according to The Uvalde Leader-News.
Didn’t the corrupt as fuck supreme court say that cops are under no obligation to protect anyone?
Unpopular opinion: I think it’s somewhat reasonable to say that the cops shouldn’t be punished legally if their protection or level of service to any particular person wasn’t sufficient. I get why there’s so much anger at this ruling, but I don’t think it’s a statement about what the police are “supposed to do” so much as a statement about what they can be held liable for within the justice system.
Uvalde is a whole different situation. They actively prevented people from going in to rescue their own kids, including handcuffing, tackling, pepper-spraying, and tasering them, while doing nothing at all effective about the shooter for an absolutely inexcusable length of time. They said hey, if you’re in there say something, and one of the kids said something, and the guy heard her and shot her, and they didn’t intervene at any point to prevent that outcome. They’re directly responsible for the deaths of quite a few people. At that point, I think the legal system is well within its rights to say they’ve crossed the line from being simple bad cops into being liable for the criminal-justice consequences of their actions. Honestly? I hope a bunch of them go to prison for a long time; it’d be a better outcome for everyone involved.
Like that lady who they handcuffed and then when they let her go, she went around the back to go in and get her kids out, and then they harassed her afterwards because she was giving interviews that made them look bad. Charge them with harassment. It’s not some feedback about their job performance; it’s a class B misdemeanor. “Oh no… but, I, um, I thought that was part of my police duties. I can’t, um, be held liable if I’m just doing, um, my job I guess, to go after this lady and punish her for what she did…”
It is absolutely unreasonable for them to have no consequences for failure to protect. They chose that profession. And they have been allowed to put themselves above the law for far too long.
Cops who want to shirk any duty to protect should not be cops. There are plenty of job openings in the world for garbage men, street cleaners, ditch diggers, crop pickers, and burger flippers if they’d like to remain employed and maybe make a positive contribution to society for a change.
For your unpopular opinion…
Read up on Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. It’s the case that said there is no duty to protect. It’s also an example of why there should be a positive duty to protect in some cases.
I hereby nominate you to the Supreme Court
🙂
This makes a lot of sense and got me through my first, often wrong impression… which in my fantasyland was “Oh for sure they’ll make cops actually Protect and Serve now!”
Yes, but the school district police chief actively kept other officers from intervening.
I’ll assume they’re looking into that one person’s actions.
Yes, exactly. The chief kept other officers from intervening, and various officers kept parents from intervening. They assaulted and detained people attempting to rescue others, contributing to the perpetrator’s unlawful acts, and increasing the harm to his victims.
On the civil side, the chief and many of these officers will likely lose their qualified immunity.
I bet that these officers could be charged under the laws prohibiting interference with emergency responders.
This could actually create some interesting legal precedent. The court has ruled police don’t have a general duty to protect, but they also have ruled schools take the role of parents and have a duty to protect and act in the best interests of children. With a school employed police force, these two decisions are in conflict. Cases like this are practically Supreme Court bait.