TexasCHLforum.com

Police who responded to Uvalde shooting ordered to testify before a grand jury

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/st ... 692396007/

I saw the Uvalde principal reinstated at Robb Elementary School following suspension

Uvalde principal placed on leave pushes back against investigation’s findings about school security

The Texas and DOJ reports contradict the principal's statement.

Uvalde Police Arrest Complainers about their dead children
https://www.captainsjournal.com/2024/02 ... -children/

If you’re offended by the “f” word don’t watch.

The Uvalde police who stood in the hall for over an hour as over 40 children and teachers were shot (21 died) were quick to arrest parents of the victims like Brett Cross for making public outbursts at County Commissioners they accuse of a coverup.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... -response/

Former police chief indicted for child endangerment.

philip964 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2024 11:14 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... -response/

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.

carlson1 wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 1:36 am

philip964 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2024 11:14 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... -response/

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.

PriestTheRunner wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2024 8:43 pm

carlson1 wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 1:36 am

philip964 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2024 11:14 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... -response/

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.

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.

Last time I went through some legal decisions there was SCOTUS handed down decisions upholding immunity for a refusal to respond and refusal to intervene in an ongoing incident by policeman or fireman. This immunity applies regardless of their paid status.

srothstein wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 11:13 pm

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?

Thanks
Carl

carlson1 wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 10:50 pm

srothstein wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2024 11:13 pm

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?

Thanks
Carl

I think there may be a difference in the two but I am not sure. Peterson heard the shots and was afraid to even enter the building. Arredondo got the report of the shooting and at least entered the building with the team to try to do something. He stopped when the suspect barricaded himself inside a room while firing out the doorway at the officers. At that point, he decided that the situation had changed from an active shooter to a barricaded subject. That requires a different protocol as a response.

My question is what he knew at that point in time. If he knew there were still living kids in the room, he mad a bad decision. If he thought the kids were all already dead, it might not have been a bad decision.

Of course, we have some advantage of hindsight now and there were other tactics even he could have used. Two officers could have kept the suspect bottled up in the room, and he could have sent two others out to look in and shoot through the windows if they saw him shooting kids.

In this respect, there is a difference. Peterson was a coward who refused to even try to engage. Arrendondo might not be a coward and was just incompetent in his response. I am not ruling out that Arredondo might also have been a coward, but I don't know it for a fact. Part of the problem is that Abbott ran his mouth within an hour of the shooting saying someone was wrong. This changes the investigation from an honest and unbiased one into a witch hunt looking for a scape goat. And it changes everyone's responses in the investigation from what happened to "not my fault and you aren't going to blame me".