Eliminatus said:

---

Quote:

---

Although I don't agree with it, that's where I believe the case law is on the side of inaction.

A cop watching blatant crime happen in front of him is disgusting to me, but there are bigger issues that drive this also...
- cops are mostly a reflection of the population, albeit generally speaking more of the center to right leaning populace. There are cowards and bad actors amongst the force. Some don't know they are cowards yet.

- the Pareto principle is also applicable to cops.

- IMO, most police management takes the view of "big cases, big problems, little cases, little problems and no cases, no problems." Their goal is to get to their retirement unscathed ie. no problems, and so they prefer officers that feel the same way.

-Many of these blue cities have a blue DA and a blue jury pool. One of the reasons I left DC is because if I got into a use of force incident, no way I was going to get a fair trial. And Lord help you if it's a national news issue.

The instructors at ALERRT, and I've met many of them over the years, represent many of the officers that will go in harms way. A better representative is the many cases where officers do acts of bravery and self sacrifice, but it doesn't make the national news.

I don't know if inaction is fixable though.

---

Agreed. We have over a million uniformed peace officers in America, not including feds. The overwhelming majority of them are good to great citizens who want to do their jobs and serve their communities in an honorable fashion. They are also the ones called upon to intercede with every single one of our society's breakdowns. We literally tell them to go to every worst case scenario and deal with it. And they do it to the best of their ability. But they are also human.

That being said, every job does have it's limits of course and this man should no longer work in LE. I am perfectly fine with him losing his career over this. That is the accountability the public should have for loss of confidence in his abilities moving forward. Anything past that is just a witch hunt for a man who was found wanting at the worst time in his life. Which I am positive so many also would have failed at. Which is why I don't hate him. I pity him instead, which might be worse maybe.

---

I hope people who think as logically as you do are on the jury.

Got a Natty! said:

---

Not sure what you mean by "Bootstrap ".

Many DA offices, especially in rural Texas, don't have the experience to handle lengthy, high profile cases. Bill Turner has the trial knowledge and experience to handle such cases. More importantly he still has the desire to go into the courtroom and do battle.

---

Bootstrap is the nickname of Bill Turner from Pirates of the Caribbean.

I wasn't trying to insult the real version of him.

I did not see what happened in the trial today but attorneys online are chattering about the defense knocking it out of the park and knocking the prosecution on their butts. Runkle thinks by the end of this the officer may end up looking like the hero.

Man, Nico LaHood and his team are just walking into the courtroom day after day and eating the prosecutor's lunch.

— Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube (@IanRunkle) January 13, 2026

Pouring one out for the prosecutor for today's day of trial. pic.twitter.com/pxGrAD6VCq

— Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube (@IanRunkle) January 13, 2026

Lawyer You Know has a live stream coming up about the case. Runkle will be live later tonight.

One of the greatest witnesses I’ve ever seen in a trial testified in the Uvalde case today.

Hero. Honest. Humble.

— Lawyer You Know (@LawyerYouKnow) January 13, 2026

And apparently there was a big outburst in the courtroom from a family member of one of the victims.

Watching LYK now. Wonder if he'll bring that up.

Thx for the update

Bocephus said:

---

GottaRide said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

---

Yes, he did. He shot at an officer outside of the school. Then he entered the school through the side door that was propped open.

---

Pretty sure the door lock was actually broken, and not propped open.

InfantryAg said:

---

To expound (or maybe expand is more appropriate) on your post...

There is no general duty to protect. The police aren't any one individuals armed security / bodyguard. That is established. It makes sense because the cops can't be everywhere or be held help responsible for every crime committed.

What I think makes this case different is along the lines of what you posted but, more specifically, is there a "special" relationship between students / teachers and the SCHOOL DISTRICT police or even an SRO? Those police are hired specifically to ensure the safety of said students/teachers.

A cop on patrol has general duties, a cop on a specific assignment has a duty to complete the assignment. If that is a protection detail, and his principle is attacked, him standing by and doing nothing, seems to be a breach of duty; he has a "special" relationship with that principle.

Is the POTUS is attacked and Secret Service runs away, there is no legal (criminal) recourse? Seems crazy to me. And maybe that's what the courts need to clarify.

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

agracer said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

GottaRide said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

---

Yes, he did. He shot at an officer outside of the school. Then he entered the school through the side door that was propped open.

---

Pretty sure the door lock was actually broken, and not propped open.

---

It wasn't broken, it just wasn't locked- just like the other two doors to that building. The broken lock part comes from the male teacher who said his class door sometimes wouldn't lock. He has said some conflicting things and I'm pretty confident that he just never kept it locked at all. The sad part of that is that Bortac wouldn't enter until they had a key, which took 40 minutes or so. They didn't think of other methods and fixated on getting a key. That classroom door was probably unlocked the whole time. Bortac listened to four shots from the classroom while they were in the hallway, but froze up and didn't try to get in.

GottaRide said:

---

agracer said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

GottaRide said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

---

Yes, he did. He shot at an officer outside of the school. Then he entered the school through the side door that was propped open.

---

Pretty sure the door lock was actually broken, and not propped open.

---

It wasn't broken, it just wasn't locked- just like the other two doors to that building. The broken lock part comes from the male teacher who said his class door sometimes wouldn't lock. He has said some conflicting things and I'm pretty confident that he just never kept it locked at all. The sad part of that is that Bortac wouldn't enter until they had a key, which took 40 minutes or so. They didn't think of other methods and fixated on getting a key. That classroom door was probably unlocked the whole time. Bortac listened to four shots from the classroom while they were in the hallway, but froze up and didn't try to get in.

---

Maybe I'm conflating things, but I thought a border patrol tactical unit made entry after one of the members received a phone call from his wife who was a teacher inside the school? The people at the door focusing on the key were the chief and other Uvalde officers. Haven't read about it in a while so my recollection may be off.

agracer said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

GottaRide said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

---

Yes, he did. He shot at an officer outside of the school. Then he entered the school through the side door that was propped open.

---

Pretty sure the door lock was actually broken, and not propped open.

---

That teacher was cleared.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/uvalde-educator-falsely-accused-leaving-door-open-shares/story?id=96600654

GottaRide said:

---

agracer said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

GottaRide said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

To make decisions more difficult for the jury, prosecutors have determined how many shots were fired in what time frames.

These numbers are not specific but the lead prosecutor told me about a year ago that the bad guy fired approximately 107 shots. 96 of these shots were fired in the first 3 minutes. The last app. 10 shots were fired after LE arrived and some of these last shots killed the teacher. Whether any of the children who did not die immediately would have lived had LE breached the door and gotten the mortally wounded kids immediate medical care is speculative.

These numbers are precise but I don't remember the specific numbers that were told me. I think there will be evidence that at least one child was shot after LE arrived but just about all the children were shot before LE arrived.

This was an absolutely horrific incident and, from a legal perspective, the outcome of the trial will be very interesting. I could certainly argue, as I am sure the lead prosecutor will, that the OIC charge had a moral AND legal obligation to protect these children. And I believe the jury will agree. BUT, the evidence might show that all the children were shot before LE arrived.

And remember he is being tried for injury to a child by omission and not for the death of the teacher.

---

LE was on site from the second the sick SOB started shooting.

---

Correct. He exchanged gunfire with an officer before he went into the school

---

No he didn't. So much wrong information is out there because everyone involved- media, law enforcement, politicians, families, grifters, all spin to their benefit.

---

Yes, he did. He shot at an officer outside of the school. Then he entered the school through the side door that was propped open.

---

Pretty sure the door lock was actually broken, and not propped open.

---

It wasn't broken, it just wasn't locked- just like the other two doors to that building. The broken lock part comes from the male teacher who said his class door sometimes wouldn't lock. He has said some conflicting things and I'm pretty confident that he just never kept it locked at all. The sad part of that is that Bortac wouldn't enter until they had a key, which took 40 minutes or so. They didn't think of other methods and fixated on getting a key. That classroom door was probably unlocked the whole time. Bortac listened to four shots from the classroom while they were in the hallway, but froze up and didn't try to get in.

---

No, one BORTAC agent waited for his partner before going in. They were a team that trained together.

Driving force means you go, team members/partner present or not. ALERRT is painfully clear on this.
Shots are obviously a driving force.

Watch the videos and do some research. There were several Bortac along with other BP and DPS tactical guys forming up. The Bortac team leader (Guerrero) was told to his face that there were kids calling from inside, wounded. This is on video. Then the four shots are fired. They start toward the door and then stopped. Then waited for 30 -40 minutes before they finally entered. No, his whole team wasn't there. That doesn't excuse it.

Bocephus said:

---

lb3 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable

---

I understand the law but it stings to pay a lavish pension to someone who's inability to do their job results in the death of innocent people.

When my daughter was abducted her friends went to the San Antonio west side police station and officer B. Mussey refused to make a welfare check by phone or even so much as record my daughter's name in an incident report.

Some officers are pieces of **** and leaches waiting to draw a pension.

---

Agreed, and you will never hear me argue differently. There are bad people who wear the uniform just like there are bad people in every profession.

---

You keep quoting the law that law enforcement has no duty to put their lives in danger. Regardless of laws, there is just flat out humanity. This was posted by one of the most far-right, MAGA people I know "Every federal agent on the ground had a duty to defend others lives by taking life way. Not because they want to, but because it is asked of them to protect Americans in dangerous situations." Regardless of "laws" this is the expectation of the American people and if you put on a badge you better live up to this. Heck, I'm not law enforcement and my own daughter told me when we discussed this that she could never look me in the eyes ever again if I just sat by while someone else's children were being murdered and didn't try to do something.

**** what's on the books. One police officer freezing is chalked up to the fog of war. The entire department is a case of ….no words can describe this…and they deserve to rot in jail. Big shots giving out speeding tickets with a gun but children in danger….oh, oh, I'm scared.

agracer said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

To expound (or maybe expand is more appropriate) on your post...

There is no general duty to protect. The police aren't any one individuals armed security / bodyguard. That is established. It makes sense because the cops can't be everywhere or be held help responsible for every crime committed.

What I think makes this case different is along the lines of what you posted but, more specifically, is there a "special" relationship between students / teachers and the SCHOOL DISTRICT police or even an SRO? Those police are hired specifically to ensure the safety of said students/teachers.

A cop on patrol has general duties, a cop on a specific assignment has a duty to complete the assignment. If that is a protection detail, and his principle is attacked, him standing by and doing nothing, seems to be a breach of duty; he has a "special" relationship with that principle.

Is the POTUS is attacked and Secret Service runs away, there is no legal (criminal) recourse? Seems crazy to me. And maybe that's what the courts need to clarify.

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

Tecolote said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

lb3 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable

---

I understand the law but it stings to pay a lavish pension to someone who's inability to do their job results in the death of innocent people.

When my daughter was abducted her friends went to the San Antonio west side police station and officer B. Mussey refused to make a welfare check by phone or even so much as record my daughter's name in an incident report.

Some officers are pieces of **** and leaches waiting to draw a pension.

---

Agreed, and you will never hear me argue differently. There are bad people who wear the uniform just like there are bad people in every profession.

---

You keep quoting the law that law enforcement has no duty to put their lives in danger. Regardless of laws, there is just flat out humanity. This was posted by one of the most far-right, MAGA people I know "Every federal agent on the ground had a duty to defend others lives by taking life way. Not because they want to, but because it is asked of them to protect Americans in dangerous situations." Regardless of "laws" this is the expectation of the American people and if you put on a badge you better live up to this. Heck, I'm not law enforcement and my own daughter told me when we discussed this that she could never look me in the eyes ever again if I just sat by while someone else's children were being murdered and didn't try to do something.

**** what's on the books. One police officer freezing is chalked up to the fog of war. The entire department is a case of ….no words can describe this…and they deserve to rot in jail. Big shots giving out speeding tickets with a gun but children in danger….oh, oh, I'm scared.

---

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. NO ONE agrees with what those officers did that day. In stating the law, I'm not defending the actions of the officers who stood by while children were bleeding out.

I do have empathy for officers who were outside the school and had no knowledge of what was going on inside. There were 400+ there which means a lot of people showed up to help, assumed the officers inside the building had it under control/knew what they were doing and just helped maintain a perimeter. They will be lumped on with the officers who failed to act for a lifetime. This single incident will make all school shootings harder to handle going forward bc parents will distrust the officers on the scene and attempt to go inside.

The people who failed to act have to live with that. You cannot invent law bc it makes you feel better. If you put law in place, then you will never excuse the fog of war for the one guy who freezes up. You also have unintended consequences of forcing officers to be too aggressive.

Everyone has to look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and live with what they see staring at them. Doctors take a Hippocratic oath, I did not. I think some people deserve to die and I'm not going to try to save those people. I'm thankful that I'm not legally bound to do so by some law that was put in place bc people got in their feels over a horrific incident and failed to use logic.

InfantryAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

To expound (or maybe expand is more appropriate) on your post...

There is no general duty to protect. The police aren't any one individuals armed security / bodyguard. That is established. It makes sense because the cops can't be everywhere or be held help responsible for every crime committed.

What I think makes this case different is along the lines of what you posted but, more specifically, is there a "special" relationship between students / teachers and the SCHOOL DISTRICT police or even an SRO? Those police are hired specifically to ensure the safety of said students/teachers.

A cop on patrol has general duties, a cop on a specific assignment has a duty to complete the assignment. If that is a protection detail, and his principle is attacked, him standing by and doing nothing, seems to be a breach of duty; he has a "special" relationship with that principle.

Is the POTUS is attacked and Secret Service runs away, there is no legal (criminal) recourse? Seems crazy to me. And maybe that's what the courts need to clarify.

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

---

Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

---

Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

---

Is not preventing fights and protecting the teachers and students, ensuring their safety?

I also don't need cops in schools to enforce the school rules, unless it is also a law. But I'm not going to hire one to sit at a school all day to do that.

InfantryAg said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

Ensure:to make certain something happens (verb)

IS that really their job description? I find that hard to believe. There is NO WAY any SRO can ENSURE the safety of students. It's impossible.

---

It may not be implicitly in a job description, but what is the point of an SRO or school district police? If they are not there to protect lives, why even have them? I mean if that's not their primary function, I don't want to be paying to have them there, they can go back to the streets.

Ensure may be a strong word, but it rings better than "ensure within you capability, understanding that some things may be out of your control."

---

Prevent fights, enforce laws/rules at the school, protect the teachers, protect the students.

---

Is not preventing fights and protecting the teachers and students, ensuring their safety?

I also don't need cops in schools to enforce the school rules, unless it is also a law. But I'm not going to hire one to sit at a school all day to do that.

---

What is your point?