Elie Mystal: The Disturbing Reason the Uvalde Police Won't Be Held Accountable

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/uvalde-police-supreme-court/

The massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., has exposed one of the Republican Party’s favorite pro-gun talking points—the “good guy with a gun” refrain—as a fraudulent gun lobby ad campaign that will not protect our children. There were many police officers on the scene in Uvalde, yet these alleged good guys with guns did nothing to stop the mass murder of children. Instead, the officers used their armaments and training to prevent parents from saving their own kids. I guess all the military-style equipment Republicans constantly funnel to the police really is just meant to shoot gas canisters at unarmed protesters outside a Target, not to subdue a lone gunman systematically executing children and teachers.

Republicans are reluctant to blame the overfunded, heavily armed police for their cowardice in the face of actual danger. Instead, they’ve blamed just about everything else (except guns, of course, never guns). Cancún Senator Ted Cruz traveled to Texas to blame Robb Elementary for having too many doors, which should give people a sense of how unserious the Republican Party is when it comes to protecting children.

Of course, there are others, including some in the Uvalde community, who want answers and accountability. The police response (or lack thereof) to the shooting is already being investigated by the Texas state police, and the Department of Justice is going to review the incident as well.

But the sad reality is that police chief Pete Arredondo (currently in hiding) and his officers will likely escape any legal accountability or even punishment for their actions. That’s because in the United States, the police have no duty to protect children, even when they are the only ones who can. That sorry fact isn’t the fault of Congress, or even the state or local governments, which are primarily responsible for policing. The blame lies, once again, with conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

*snip*

[dchill]

1. Police - can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em.

[inthewind21]

2. So

Defund the police isn't such a bad idea after all huh. If they aren't there to protect the public, I see no reason the public should fund them.

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

[Jedi Guy]

5. Yes, the Uvalde cops' lack of action was reprehensible.

And yes, there needs to be a full investigation into who made the call for them to stand down, why that call was made, why no one else on the scene (like an officer from a different agency who was higher in rank) didn't take over the incident commander spot when it became plain that Arredondo had no clue what the hell he was doing. And yes, Arredondo should be held accountable, at the very, very least.

But good grief, people are behaving as if no police officer anywhere in the country has ever stopped a mass shooter when anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that's not the case. We've had enough of these damn shootings that people should be familiar with reading "[insert jackass's name here] was shot and killed by police."

[onecaliberal]

8. Read about Parkland, and no we're not acting like police have never stopped a shooter.

This has ZERO to do with my intellect. If this was your child, I'm sure you'd want their life to mean something by NEVER allowing a 10 year old to get their face shot off because they went to school. These cops went through training a few weeks before this predictable awful thing. They knew a man with an AR 15 was in a classroom with students and THEY DID NOTHING for an hour.

[Jedi Guy]

13. I already said the Uvalde cops' inaction was reprehensible.

I already said that whoever made that decision, and whoever had the power to overturn it and yet did not, needs to be held fully responsible for those decisions. You're right, if it was my child, I would absolutely have wanted the Uvalde cops to go in and kill the worthless wretch doing the shooting and I would absolutely have been enraged at their inaction.

I don't know why you're acting as if I defended the Uvalde cops when I did no such thing, except that you have no rebuttal to what I actually said and must therefore engage in a straw man argument.

But yes, people are acting as if cops have never stopped an active shooter before. The very article in the OP refers to "the police" in general terms, not specifically referring to the cops in Uvalde. How many comments have we seen here on DU in the last two weeks to the effect of "cops are cowards"? A couple dozen? A hundred? More?

I find it very peculiar because broad brush attacks on a group are indicative of a lazy thought process, and people here on DU rightfully castigate conservatives for thinking in those ways... and then turn around and engage in the exact same lazy thought processes any time the police are brought up.

[onecaliberal]

14. So just more insults? Enjoy the dust bin.

You’re making excuses. PERIOD.

[Jedi Guy]

17. Insults? Please point out precisely where I insulted you.

And how am I making excuses for the Uvalde cops when I very clearly condemned them? Please point out precisely where I did that, as well.

My objection is that people are tarring all cops with the same brush. But as I pointed out, that's by no means a novel occurrence.

[Stallion]

10. They Were Rational Enough to Be Scared Shitless

the bigger question is why we allow weapons that cause police to wait an hour to protect 8-10 year olds.

The gunman reportedly had 375 rounds of ammunition. The police are outgunned in America during these types of incidents-I just wish they would recognize that point by strongly advocating for gun control

[Jedi Guy]

16. Many cops do advocate for gun control, just not necessarily all the measures popular here.

As a for instance, in many states where concealed carry has been legalized without requiring a permit, police organizations spoke out against those laws because they don't want it to be legal.

Having worked with them, please let me assure you that cops are very cognizant of how prevalent guns are in America. The department I worked for crunched the numbers and determined that of all traffic stops conducted by officers in a calendar year (this was better than ten years ago, mind), 70% of the time a gun was present in the car or on one of the occupants. Every officer in the department was very aware of that little statistic.

And yeah, cops with handguns are outgunned when going up against someone armed with an AR-15 or similar. This is one reason many agencies try to get long guns for their officers. Even in a situation where they don't have access to those guns, or don't have a tactical team present, officers can and should still enter and engage the shooter. They have the advantage in numbers and training, if not in firepower.

From what I've read and gathered, the issue in Uvalde was threefold.

One, Pete Arredondo had no business being the incident commander after other agencies arrived. He's the chief of a six-person school police department. Once an officer (i.e., lieutenant or above) was on scene, incident command should have passed to him/her because that person would have been vastly more qualified to direct the police response.

Two, Arredondo revealed his incompetence and treated this incident, for some bizarre reason, as a barricaded suspect or hostage situation rather than the active shooter situation it clearly was.

Three, if Arredondo refused to cede incident command to a more qualified person, then that person (or people) should have simply taken it. I'm astounded that this didn't happen at some point before the BORTAC team said, "the hell with it, we're going in." If the investigation determines that qualified leaders declined to take command when it became clear Arredondo was not competent out of misguided concerns about jurisdiction, then those qualified leaders need to go down with him. Full stop. Matters of jurisdiction can't be a concern while kids are being killed.

That's my reading of the situation based on my experience in the world of law enforcement and what I've been able to find out after the fact. At this point, we'll see what the investigation turns up and who goes down in flames as a consequence.

[gldstwmn]

6. It will be up to the Feds to pursue civil rights

violations. I don't even see know if that is possible.

[onecaliberal]

7. Can the parents sue?

[NullTuples]

9. We're heading toward a very dangerous situation...

Another sign of an impending possible American Fascist Government would be law enforcement that comprises a single subculture that holds the same values as the fascist leader, and is not accountable to anyone except through the subculture’s loyalty to said leader.

We’ve reached the point where the Roberts Court has crafted doctrines that say two things: law enforcement is not to be held liable for their choices and actions against individuals, and they have no responsibility or duty to any given individual, only a vague nebulous duty to protect and serve the society as a whole. That’s a situation just waiting for a despot to move in and define what serving the society really means.

In addition, that law enforcement subculture over the years has been reshaped into a insular society of its own. It started as slave patrols, but later absorbed the values of the so-called Wild West. It’s now a society outside of our main one that subscribes to the beliefs of the Constitutional Sheriffs, that law enforcement comprises the only valid source of law in America, based on their reading of the Constitution. Not the legislators or the courts. And that society — that Brotherhood, if you will — has turned out to be white Christian nationalist, another quality easily blended with the values of the most likely despot.

Currently, most elected Sheriffs and their officers are accountable to no one. Not the city, as they are typically a county agency. But they’re most often not accountable to the county government, either. At best county board of supervisors can make requests of them, but have no levers to pull. And though most sheriffs are elected, they nearly always come from police departments. Speaking of which, they have the only unions loved and supported by Republicans. Mostly because those unions have gathered so much political power they can and do threaten local politicians who don’t bend to their will.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is if America slides into being a fascist state, law enforcement will be there waiting to assist the fascists. Also, they’ve got guns, military equipment, military training and often having been trained in the Mideast, already see most citizens as “civilians” to be subjugated. Especially but not exclusively the dark skinned ones. American law enforcement is just so much fuel stacked up and waiting for a match.

[keithbvadu2]

11. Defunding? Is there any reason to further fund training for the Uvalde police?

Defunding?

Is there any reason to further fund training for the Uvalde police?

Higher echelon Texas LEOs?

Put the money where it might be effective.

Border Patrol was effective in this case.

[milestogo]

12. Can we defund the Supreme Court?

Just the conservatives, I mean.

[Celerity]

15. the money shots

https://archive.ph/EEo58#selection-1307.0-1313.245

The reason for that goes back to a case called DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The case, decided in 1989, didn’t deal with the police specifically but rather with child protective services, which the court ruled had no affirmative duty to protect children from harm, and thus no legal culpability for the failure to do so.

That is some cursed logic. The state does, or should, have a duty to prevent crime when it is aware that crime is being committed and it is the only entity that can step in and stop it. In the DeShaney case, DSS knew the child was being abused and put itself in the only position to stop it. Remember, DeShaney was granted custody by the state in the first place.

If the Supreme Court didn’t like how its opinions were being used to protect cops from accountability after school shootings, it had a chance to correct itself in the 2005 case called Castle Rock v. Gonzales. That case addressed police inaction directly. There, Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order preventing her estranged husband from seeing their three children except in the case of pre-arranged visits. But Gonzales’s husband abducted the children. Gonzales asked police to find her husband and bring her children back, as her husband was in violation of a court order. But police in Castle Rock, Colorado, told her to wait until the evening to see if he brought the children back. He did not. Instead, that night, he murdered all three children, then went to a police station and open fired. He was shot and killed by police.

Gonzales sued, arguing the police violated her constitutional rights by failing to protect her due process interests: specifically her “property” interest in having the restraining order she obtained against her husband enforced. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but the Supreme Court shut her down. Writing for a 7-2 majority (John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were the dissenting votes), Antonin Scalia ruled that the restraining order conferred no property interest the police were bound to protect, and that Colorado law did not entitle holders of restraining orders to any “specific mandatory action” by the police. Essentially, Scalia found that the police had no specific duty to find and protect the children. Once again, we see that the Supreme Court is unwilling to find any constitutional violation when confronted with police inaction or incompetence. (I say “once again,” because we can’t forget the awful specter of qualified immunity, which protects cops from civil lawsuits that arise out of their constitutional violations while on the job). Thanks to the Supreme Court, the police have no affirmative duty to protect children, even when they know that children are in danger or when they are the only people available who can save them.

[TigressDem]

18. How many Uvalde Police does it take to change a lightbulb?

Who knows? They are still arguing about it.

[uponit7771]

19. Hmmm, in the case of Uvalde the caps *ACTIVELY STOPPED* people from protecting their own ...

... interest when Uvalde cops were unwilling to act.

Would that fact be a difference in Uvalde case?

thx in advance

[Novara]

21. That's a good point.

If the cops had no duty to protect the children and they stopped parents trying to protect their children, can they be held liable somehow for the deaths of the children?

If there isn't precedent already, look for this to go all the way to the SCOTUS. And with this SCOTUS, fuck all help us, man. They'll probably rule that cops stopping parents from protecting their children is hunky dory, and that no one has a duty to protect children. Probably even in child abuse situations.

[uponit7771]

22. +1, yep ... when I saw your reply that's the first thing I thought that this ultra fucked up MAGA ..

... court would still rule in the cops favor making it easier for them to prevent citizens acting in their own interest.

[yardwork]

20. The role of the police seems to be to protect the property of white men.

There's not a lot of evidence that their priorities lie beyond that. I know that many individual police officers work very hard and try to protect people, but their leaders are mostly focused on protecting white men's property, because that's what the leaders of their communities want.

The problems with our police are symptoms of the larger problem, which is that our society is designed to protect the rights of only certain people.