- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury Acquits Uvalde police officer who refused to engage with school shooter
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:59 pm to Kenna City Solja
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:59 pm to Kenna City Solja
These are the times when there’s never any accountability for your actions, or in this case inaction. It’s sickening.
0
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:03 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What a disgusting verdict.
I mean it was kind of BS. They only charged him with all the others being pussies?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:10 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Most of us didn't raise our hand and swear an oath. If you do, you'd better be willing to dance when the band starts to play. I didn't follow the trial, so I don't know what evidence was presented. On the face of it he seems derelict in his duty.
Not sure, but wasn’t there a case that said “Protect and serve” was not a duty of police
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:13 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
He's a pussy who should never wear a uniform again, but it's not a criminal act to not engage.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that Law Enforcement has "no duty to act/protect" in non-custodial situations. These charges and this trial was ridiculous from the start.
**I'm talking about the law, not what he should have done - as a police officer and as a fricking man.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that Law Enforcement has "no duty to act/protect" in non-custodial situations. These charges and this trial was ridiculous from the start.
**I'm talking about the law, not what he should have done - as a police officer and as a fricking man.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:17 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
I don't know. School with children is a pretty strong motivator to try to stop the murdering of innocent children.
What if your own kids don't go to that school?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:18 pm to Kenna City Solja
quote:
Now he can get a job doing real police work in Golden Meadow
I laughed at this and I live a few miles from Golden Meadow.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:24 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
I'd like to say I'd run in guns a blazin', but I don't know. I know I'd do more than check my phone and put on hand sanitizer.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:39 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Oof. Just another reminder that LEO don't have nearly the same level of oversight, responsibility, or legal standards that military members do under UCMJ for far better wages than your average junior enlisted soldier. Dereliction of duty (article 92), desertion (article 85), misbehavior before the enemy (article 99)... These charges don't exist for modern LEO. Instead at best, they resign, and get hired on by the next dept down the street until a bigger scandal emerges.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:46 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
On the face of it he seems derelict in his duty.
Sure- but we both know that's not part of any legal requirement for LEO.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 12:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Out of the dozen cops that didn’t go in, why was this guy the one on trial?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 12:39 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Police Officers, whether state, federal or local, can and should have absolute immunity for everything they do or don’t do.
This is a good day for America. And therefor the world.
This is a good day for America. And therefor the world.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 4:46 am to EastWestConnection
quote:
yeah but hopefully not a single one of us is ever in that position. And it's very easy to say that youd do it online, but none of us know how wed act in the moment. You can say, "of course id run in" but you do not know that.
You're correct. I don't know.
I can only say I've risked my life for a lot less noble reasons than saving children. I hope I'd be willing to test it one more time.
I think my one reason for not going in, my son, is the one reason I'd have to.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 6:06 am to Lawyered
quote:
coward of the highest order
All of that.
Not guilty though. Those families are trying get something they’ll never get. Shooter is dead. Like a drunk driver who kills people and dies in the wreck and they charge Budweiser and the beer truck driver. “Justice” was handed out in the same school those kids died in and that’s too soon. Unsatisfying is not the right word but I can’t think of another.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 6:07 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
HH2M is king of the wrong reaction
Posted on 1/22/26 at 6:10 am to Trevaylin
quote:
well heilheil, you riding the wrong horse. the guy on trial was one person out of the 350 cops attending that day. His sin, he was one of the first, did not know what was going on, hesitated for 3 whole minutes, trying to understand if there was one shooter, or 3 or 4. Did not know where the person/persons were. The 2 week trial was appropriately settled by the jury in 1 hour .
The specific facts always matter. I cannot accept, however, that at least ONE officer should not face criminal liability consequences. Which one? On exactly what charge? That is for the prosecutor to get right.
But if we are to say from the SCOTUS case years ago that officers are not affirmatively obligated to come to any specific call and thus are not civilly liable for crimes that happen to individuals, and if we cannot get criminal liability in this case, then NEVER again can an officer prevent a citizen from attempting to stop a crime again.
To be held back outside a school while knowing my baby is crying inside and wondering where her hero daddy is to come save her while she bleeds out alone with her dead teacher because some robo cops want to prep some more is an unimaginable horror, an unforgivable sin.
Officers either have an obligation or not. Do the duty or let the parents do their job.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 6:15 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 6:12 am to ned nederlander
quote:
Police Officers, whether state, federal or local, can and should have absolute immunity for everything they do or don’t do.
Hard disagree. I don't know the specifics of this case, but I know we shouldn't give blanket immunity to police either.
Scenario: Your neighbor is a drug dealer. The police make a mistake and raid your house. They permanently blind your son with a flashbang and some of the police pocket a stash of cash you have in your house. You think they should be immune from prosecution?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 7:23 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
He’s forever branded a coward.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 7:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
He may be acquitted but he will always be a coward.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 7:40 am to biglego
quote:
Out of the dozen cops that didn’t go in, why was this guy the one on trial?
This guy was the school resource officer and first on the scene.
The police captain, the one who made the call for SWAT and treat the situation as a barricaded subject rather than an active shooter situation is also charged and slated for a trial.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 7:47 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Police aren’t military under the law. They can’t be ordered on a suicide mission. They also have no duty under the law to protect specific people. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and the prosecution was a waste of money done only for public attention.
The most you can do is fire them. But they are probably Union members and will get their jobs back.
The most you can do is fire them. But they are probably Union members and will get their jobs back.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 7:52 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News