carlson1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:26 pmI think a conviction is unlikely. It will be like the SRO from Parkland, Florida.
I think that a conviction is highly likely unless they can get the venue changed out of the county. It might need to go out of the state to be honest.
For those who do not know, the law is Penal Code Section 22.041(c), which says:
(c) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.
To me, in my legal thinking type mind, the only question is if "places" includes leaving a child that is already in a dangerous situation there. If you read section (c-1), it gives the distinct impression (c) only applies to case of having or using drugs near the children.
Steve do you think that there a big difference in Deputy Scot Peterson in Florida and Chief Pete Arredondo in Uvalde? Or do you think there is a huge difference in our laws?
Former police chief indicted for child endangerment.
Also another Officer. They way they announce this as if there will be more to follow. There should be for sure.
The tough thing will be differentiating which officers were told "This is a barricaded subject" vs having active intelligence that shots were fired or had been fired in the room. If no shots had ever been fired in that room, then not making entry immediately is SOP. Who knew and who didn't know that the shooting had already happened. Definitely the 5 to 7 that were there when shots blasted through the door (then shots were continuing to occur in the room), but there were dozens of follow-on officers that had no idea that people were dying because when they arrived it was described as a barricaded subject.
I think a conviction is unlikely. It will be like the SRO from Parkland, Florida.
He could have resigned and had a “Honorable Discharge” (all though that would be a joke) from TCOLE. I think he wanted terminated so he could file a lawsuit.
From Chief Arredondo’s attorney. This is part of a letter thr attorney sent to the school board before the so-called “firing” of Chief Arredondo.
Hyde said Arredondo was a "courageous officer" who should be "celebrated for the lives saved, instead of vilified for those they couldn’t reach in time."
That was the one of the worst parts of the video I seen. DPS took him outside and took his gun away. I would have been livid and that would not have stopped me from getting to my precious wife. My heart goes out to him.
carlson1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:36 pm
No one has answered this so I will throw it out one more time. Once the DPS Lieutenant arrived could not the State Police take over and settle this? If that is true then why is Colonel McGraw the top cop running this investigation? Our State Troopers obviously failed. You would not have put 19 Troopers and one DPS Lieutenant on a scene in thr 80’s and them not take over.
Next if the Sheriff is the highest law Enforcement Officer in the County why did the Sheriff’s Office not attempt to take charge?
One of the flaws of the law enforcement system in the US is that each agency is independent and has no authority over other agencies. A city officer is neither above nor below a county officer or a state officer. The general rule is that the first agency on the scene has control over it. Any other officer responding is an assisting officer. There have been many known cases of arguments over which officer is responsible for handling what call, but they are almost always officers saying "Not Me." For example, officers may argue that an accident is in the city limits or in the county, with the county officer saying it is the city officer's jurisdiction and the city officer saying it is not in the city and the county officer has to handle it.
I should point out that these are almost never emergency calls and officers will work as needed to get the emergency handled and then argue about the report being written later.
In the instant case, I don't know whether the Uvalde City Officer was first or the ISD officer was. Either way, other responding officers would not have authority to order anyone to do anything other than when protecting a crime scene and telling them to get out of it. For complex incidents like this, there is a system the feds have produced (ICS) that is supposed to resolve who is in charge and set up a command post to run things. of course, it was designed for disasters like floods or tornadoes, where the incident takes a lot of time and agencies working together to resolve. It was not designed for the short time emergency of a shooting in progress. In theory, the incident should have been handled before there was enough time for a command post to be set up and take over command.
This was a complete breakdown of how a police response should be. I have tried a few times to explain possible causes of how this came to be so messed up, but I truly do not understand it. It truly should have been the first officer on scene handling and giving instructions. I assume some supervisor made the scene from one of the first agencies and that is what led to part of the confusion. If they did not take charge, who will?
As you might be able to tell, I do not believe a true "what happened and why" after action analysis has been done yet. This turned into a political cover-up and blame game too quickly to let the analysis go. ALERRT is who i would trust the most for this normally, but they got talked into doing an investigation first, instead of waiting and analyzing the results of the other investigations and an after action analysis. They were not allowed to consider some of the things that are not politically popular to look at, like why officers are not taking pro-active action. I am hoping they get to go back later and do a better analysis so that we can do training on avoiding this kind of mess up again.
I have one question Steve. Are you telling me when the DPS Lieutenant and the two of the Texas Rangers arrived on scene they could not have taken over?
If all of that is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt Mr. Rothstein, then something drastically needs to change regarding that. I was under the impression that the Rangers held jurisdiction anywhere in the state. Is that an inaccurate statement? And I also thought that the Sheriff was the highest LEO in any given county, is that also an inaccurate statement? Seems like there needs to be a long, deep look into the hierachy of law enforcement in this state, clear deliniation of jurisdiction, and laws clearly written to say who is in charge and under what circumstances. Obviously, there would be no need for a Ranger to override a local PD officer during a non-violent, typical traffic stop, just for an opposite example. I'm just talking about during emergency situations such as the vile crime in Uvalde.
I know for a fact in two County’s in East Texas that every time the deputy arrives on scene they take the investigation AWAY from the City Police who will always be on scene first. It has been that ways since the early 90’s and still is that way today. I am not for sure why the SO always do that in these two County’s, but they do. That is why I asked my question. I don’t know what happens in Uvalde.
carlson1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:36 pm
No one has answered this so I will throw it out one more time. Once the DPS Lieutenant arrived could not the State Police take over and settle this? If that is true then why is Colonel McGraw the top cop running this investigation? Our State Troopers obviously failed. You would not have put 19 Troopers and one DPS Lieutenant on a scene in thr 80’s and them not take over.
Next if the Sheriff is the highest law Enforcement Officer in the County why did the Sheriff’s Office not attempt to take charge?
One of the flaws of the law enforcement system in the US is that each agency is independent and has no authority over other agencies. A city officer is neither above nor below a county officer or a state officer. The general rule is that the first agency on the scene has control over it. Any other officer responding is an assisting officer. There have been many known cases of arguments over which officer is responsible for handling what call, but they are almost always officers saying "Not Me." For example, officers may argue that an accident is in the city limits or in the county, with the county officer saying it is the city officer's jurisdiction and the city officer saying it is not in the city and the county officer has to handle it.
I should point out that these are almost never emergency calls and officers will work as needed to get the emergency handled and then argue about the report being written later.
In the instant case, I don't know whether the Uvalde City Officer was first or the ISD officer was. Either way, other responding officers would not have authority to order anyone to do anything other than when protecting a crime scene and telling them to get out of it. For complex incidents like this, there is a system the feds have produced (ICS) that is supposed to resolve who is in charge and set up a command post to run things. of course, it was designed for disasters like floods or tornadoes, where the incident takes a lot of time and agencies working together to resolve. It was not designed for the short time emergency of a shooting in progress. In theory, the incident should have been handled before there was enough time for a command post to be set up and take over command.
This was a complete breakdown of how a police response should be. I have tried a few times to explain possible causes of how this came to be so messed up, but I truly do not understand it. It truly should have been the first officer on scene handling and giving instructions. I assume some supervisor made the scene from one of the first agencies and that is what led to part of the confusion. If they did not take charge, who will?
As you might be able to tell, I do not believe a true "what happened and why" after action analysis has been done yet. This turned into a political cover-up and blame game too quickly to let the analysis go. ALERRT is who i would trust the most for this normally, but they got talked into doing an investigation first, instead of waiting and analyzing the results of the other investigations and an after action analysis. They were not allowed to consider some of the things that are not politically popular to look at, like why officers are not taking pro-active action. I am hoping they get to go back later and do a better analysis so that we can do training on avoiding this kind of mess up again.
I have one question Steve. Are you telling me when the DPS Lieutenant and the two of the Texas Rangers arrived on scene they could not have taken over?
I don’t understand the Officer who’s wife had been shot that just stood in the hallway. I would have went through hell in gasoline soaked Pajamas to get to my wounded wife. I wouldn’t know have stood at ease checking text.
No one has answered this so I will throw it out one more time. Once the DPS Lieutenant arrived could not the State Police take over and settle this? If that is true then why is Colonel McGraw the top cop running this investigation? Our State Troopers obviously failed. You would not have put 19 Troopers and one DPS Lieutenant on a scene in thr 80’s and them not take over.
Next if the Sheriff is the highest law Enforcement Officer in the County why did the Sheriff’s Office not attempt to take charge?
I would like to see everyone of them relieved of duty. There were many Troopers on scene also. At one time I seen a Lieutenant from DPS. Why did they not take command? They are the State Police and certainly had authority. It is sickening to me.
The easiest and quickest way is to have everyone coming to school to have to enter through one door. I am not even against the “man cage” that they use at a lot of banks and like they use when going from sally port to inside the jail. One door has to close and lock before the next door will open. Not that hard.