Probably going to get appealed. There’s precedent that police are not legally required to do anything.
This dude straight up admitted he didn’t know he was in charge… Gun shots going off, each one another dead child, listening to the chaos, and his excuse was, “It wasn’t clear who was in charge.”
Someone take charge! Fuck these cowards.
In before, “Would you run into gun fire?!” Yes. I would and I have. In the military you learn to never leave a fallen soldier and I’d certainly rank dying children higher than an adult soldier.
Nah. This is some midwit Reddit bs that keeps getting repeated.
First off, this was ruled by the Appeals Court of DC, not SCOTUS. Not a national law ruling, and debatable if it’s relevant at all in Texas.
Warren v DC’s ruling is that the police have a duty to the public at large, and not to a specific individual at a specific time. The cops, even if well funded, can’t be everywhere, all the time, and stuff will slip through. That is, if there are 20 cops on duty and 40 crimes happening by definition someone won’t get get served; they can only be in so many places at once, and you’re not able to sue because of that.
Same way you’re not able to sue the Ambulance if the only free one is on the other side of town and grandpa died of a heart attack before the arrive.
Warren v DC is also a civil liability thing, while the former Police Chief is looking at Criminal Negligence. He can certainly try and appeal the ruling if he is found guilty, but Warren v DC won’t have shit to do with that.
The entire incident is well documented through recorded 911 and response calls and tons of witness testimony. He’s gonna eat shit, for sure. IMO it’s not if he’ll catch guilty, but how tough the sentence will be.
The former chief was booked on 10 counts of child endangerment and known criminal negligence, according to an official at the Uvalde County Jail.
Depends on what the statutes cover. For example, you can be charged with “Serious Bodily Injury to a Minor” by way of direct action or failure to act to try to prevent the injury. It’s broad and open to interpretation for a reason, and that’s where juries come in.
I imagine they’ll use that particular legal precedent you mentioned as part of their defense strategy, though. It’s almost like a loophole, except it’s literally just a gaping hole in police oversight.
