18 ms·

Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

279 points by codechicago277 4y ago

Arrath 4y ago
I think the 'weakness' of their response is plainly obvious. If criminals can find advantages in this footage, its an opportunity to overhaul training programs and response plans. The training and response was woefully inadequate for this crisis, after all. There should be no reasonable reality in which the release of this footage is suppressed. This is an undeniable tragedy, battening down the hatches and obstinately trying to weather the storm will do no favors for anyone.
- akira2501 4y ago
  That leads to the most obvious question: "Are your training manuals and materials as closely guarded of a secret?" If not, then your implementation of them, however compromised, is not a secret either.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    I've seen some of them passed around. They're not secret as far as I can tell. They pretty obviously are just embarassed by their failure.
    - WaxProlix 4y ago
      There's an outside chance it's even worse than what we know now - maybe they killed a kid or two, or did something otherwise more shameful than expected.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        Yeah, the _best_ attempt at devils advocate I could give them would be that it should be secret just how crappy they are at following their own training/guidance. That's basically complete bullshit though, that's no reason for secrecy.
      - Arrath 4y ago
        > maybe they killed a kid or two This is my sneaking suspicion.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        I mean, they kinda-sorta already did... >“When the cops came, the cop said: ‘Yell if you need help!’ And one of the persons in my class said ‘help.’ The guy overheard and he came in and shot her,” the boy said. “The cop barged into that classroom. The guy shot at the cop. And the cops started shooting.” The police got a student killed, according to the survivor’s story. https://www.vox.com/2022/5/27/23143997/the-uvalde-police-keep-changing-their-story https://www.vox.com/2022/5/27/23143997/the-uvalde-police-kee...
        squarefoot 4y ago
        "Other parents were pinned to the ground, pepper sprayed, or tasered, said Gomez, who said she managed to run into the school and save her child after convincing the officers to uncuff her." Seriously... WTF! If only they showed the same balls when dealing with the gunman.
  - nathantotten 4y ago
    > Are your training manuals and materials as closely guarded of a secret? It seems not: https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/CourseCMU/Active%20Shooter%20-%20SBLE%202195%20course%20Final%201-30-20.docx https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/CourseCMU/Ac...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - panarky 4y ago
    Eventually they will be ordered to release the video, at which point we will learn that much of it is missing, from multiple officers and from the school's cameras simultaneously. We will be expected to believe that officers weren't wearing cameras, or cameras were turned off, or a computer error lost the footage.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    It's actually more along the lines of counter-intelligence. You have printed manuals and materials that get leaked so the attackers study those tactics. Then, during the attack, there is total confusion when the police do not react as thought by those training materials. The upper hand now resides with the police /s
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. This is extremely at odds with how the police want to be perceived, and managing that contradiction is certainly their biggest concern right now. From that perspective it's easy to understand why they want to suppress this information, and who benefits if they get to. These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. This sort of thing is a predictable result of the training and prioritization police act on every day.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    Agreed on all points, and I absolutely abhor the cynical reality. Its why I'm not above calling for purges and complete overhauls of the approach to policing.
  - bongoman37 4y ago
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat immediately. "The official narrative has shifted from a story of swift response by the local police to one of hesitation and delay that deviated from two decades of training that instructs officers to quickly confront a gunman to save lives, even at a risk to their own."[1] >These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. Except that, from everything we've learned about this event in the weeks since, they literally were not equipped to deal with it. Police chief didn't bring a radio, their own radios didn't work in the school, they bungled getting a key to the room, they didn't have their tactical materials arrive in a timely manner, I can go on and on. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- donmcronald 4y ago
  I think the problem is that no one wants to take the blame for being wrong or unprepared and the media won't pass up an opportunity to sensationalize mistakes as incompetency, maliciousness, etc.. I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity to lay blame. I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone directly impacted to expect there to be consequences for the lack of preparedness, etc., but I think the big picture needs to be more along the lines of realizing that kind of unpreparedness isn't part of some grand plan or conspiracy and that working to improve the system for next time gives us better overall value (long term) than punishing the people involved. At least for government institutions, I think that kind of system could be mandated as long as employees get the same deal as pilots. In exchange for willful participation, with the goal of improving the overall system, you aren't punished for anything that was an honest mistake, misunderstanding, lack of training, etc..
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity to lay blame. Unfortunately, the nature of US politics is such that it's impossible to have reasoned conversations about how to alter these extremely complex and dynamic systems. Entire areas of the solution space are rejected because of ideology, and those rejections, themselves, are highly politically charged. In what should be no great surprise, later, when the problem isn't resolved, fingers get pointed at those who rejected those alternative solutions or pushed for solutions that did not work, while those who previously got in the way of a more fulsome discussion continue to do so because the foundation of their ideology cannot be shaken by real world data. So, yes, it would be nice if the world could function as a reasonable and rational place, but when it comes to wedge issues like this, that simply will not happen without fundamental structural changes to the nature of US politics. All that being said, given Boeing's recent performance, I'd be a little careful to hold up the airline industry as a paragon of rationality and preparedness...
  - GloriousKoji 4y ago
TillE 4y ago
The language quoted looks like some absolutely generic form response that they probably give to every request. Pretty wild to send that garbage in a high-profile case like this.
phnofive 4y ago
I don't think the fifth amendment applies to videotape.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Even if it did: the courts have repeatedly held (to my disdain) that the police are not required to enforce the law. My guess is that they're trying to hedge against the inevitable wave of civil suits against them, which will ultimately compel the release of the bodycam footage. But their hope is to run out the clock on public outrage.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
No cover-up here, please go about your business.
smm11 4y ago
Will it show even more of them running away from the school?
EricE 4y ago
It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This is not, to my knowledge, an argument that anybody who is serious about gun control uses.
  - drugstorecowboy 4y ago
    Isn't it implied? If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Unless they are arguing that gun control will solve all future violent crime I don't see how you could say this with a straight face. If they are "serious" about gun control or not would certainly be up for debate, but I have heard this argument many many times.
    - threatofrain 4y ago
      In this case you would've needed enough guns to subdue the police, as the police were threatening to taser and arrest parents who wanted to save their kids. There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already at the scene.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        Saying that you shouldn't interfere with an ongoing crime implicitly assumes the police are doing something about the crime and not just watching children be murdered. Best case is parents stand back while the police engage - but if the police aren't doing that then all bets are off.
        threatofrain 4y ago
encryptluks2 4y ago
Did people expect them to incriminate themselves?
- kube-system 4y ago
  incriminate? What laws did the police break?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    In the court of law? Maybe none. In the court of public opinion? Maybe quite a bit.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    I can think of a few crimes that they could be charged with, but without evidence it certainly makes it harder.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      Without legal requirement to protect anyone, probably no actual liability, besides being accused of wrong job syndrome or cowardice
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        If you block an ambulance and someone dies that can be considered manslaughter. Likewise, if a cop prevents people from trying to save others which they obviously aren't going to do, then that would be very similar.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Like what?
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        Like a lesser degree of manslaughter. If they prevented people from entering that could have saved lives.
jmpman 4y ago
I’ve wondered if someone could run for mayor of Uvalde on the simple platform of firing everyone in their police force, and eliminating pensions for any police officers deployed to the school.
- manquer 4y ago
  In Texas ? Likely not. we are here in this debate over and over after columbine, sandy hook and countless others because there is strong minority who either don’t care or believe gun freedom is worth the cost. I don’t think uvalde is going to change that overnight
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    They were talking about taking the police to task for cowardice or incompetence, not running for gun control.
    - manquer 4y ago
      I misread that, the point is still the same though, Police reformation[1] is even more murky in terms of support than gun control, proposals for changing qualified immunity, national background check for officers, privatization, use of force , no knock warrants have gone nowhere for the most part. [1] What defund the police really is or should be about
      - jmpman 4y ago
        A police force of cowards? Texans will vote to get rid of them.
- clint 4y ago
  There would be a very real chance the police would simply just murder you and your family. There is ample precedent, in the united states, in most of our lifetimes.
- sokoloff 4y ago
kingcharles 4y ago
I'm a serial litigator of Freedom of Information requests. The reason I have to even litigate is because the public bodies believe every tiny thing they do is not disclosable. I'm about 6 years into one lawsuit to disclose the contents of a jail Policy and Procedures manual. The AG ruled that it was all subject to disclosure except the bits about locks and keys and where the weapons are stored. The jail is free to ignore the AG ruling and continues to maintain that even the sections on how the jail library books are top secret. It's absolutely impossible to know if the jail employees are doing their jobs as they are supposed to without the public knowing what those roles are and what the job requirements are. You can't keep these people honest without knowing if they are abusing their positions. Public disclosure should be the mandatory default for public bodies.
- orzig 4y ago
  Thank you for your work
  - kingcharles 4y ago
    No problem. I wish what I didn't wasn't necessary. I'm helping others to try to make changes to the FOIA laws to fix the slew of problems. It's baby steps. It's like hacking - laws are written, the bugs are found, they are fixed, it's just that it takes decades to make the change, unlike coding where it takes 2 minutes to recompile.
- hibern8 4y ago
  Thank you for your work. How is the jail able to ignore the AG ruling?
  - kingcharles 4y ago
    The AG's legal team in Illinois can issue binding or non-binding rulings. So, even though they gave a detailed legal breakdown of their ruling and why it applied, and (bless them) having read through the entire 800 page manual, they still only issued a non-binding ruling which the Sheriff's office just laughed at. For some reason they only issue binding rulings in a tiny fraction of very contentious cases. It sucks. It doesn't make any sense to me. It can take two years to get a non-binding ruling on a case just for the public body to ignore it.
SrslyJosh 4y ago
Yeah, sure. The "weakness" they don't want exposed is them standing around in the hallway doing nothing while the murderer took his time in a classroom full of kids.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rasz 4y ago
  Some went in for their own children https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officers-rescued-own-children-texas/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officers-rescued-own-child... at this point I assume cops shot those children
  - rickeydidio 4y ago
    I don't want to be Conspiracy Guy here but I read that the officers on the scene fired 26-27 shots into the classroom where the shooter was. 26-27 sounds like a LOT of shots. I get it that this isn't some sniper rifle on Call of Duty but is this going to end up like a Pat Tillman situation where we find out later that one of these kids was hit by friendly fire? Where did those 26-27 shots end up? Sounds a bit reckless in those close confines without more details.
throw0101a 4y ago
Meh: > [the videos] just show the parking lot. how is that useful * https://twitter.com/darth/status/1536387368101416961 https://twitter.com/darth/status/1536387368101416961
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Videos establish a chronology, and precise locations for each officer. Even if it's an hour of them sitting on their hands, it's important (and rightfully public) evidence.
jmyeet 4y ago
Are we afraid won't actually do their job when it actually involves putting themselves in danger? I think the cat is out of the bag on that one. Quite famously, the police are much better at shooting children [1] than they are at shooting to protect children. The Uvalde PD consumes 40% of the town budget ($4m of $10m exclusive of a $500k grant they got from the state of Texas months earlier). 19 police officers were on scene and sat twiddling their thumbs for an hour despite repeated 911 calls from students inside. Oh actually not quite nothing: they threatened to violate the probation of a mother on scene [2]. There's an obvious upside to this particular shooter dying but it has one unfortunate side effect: Texas allows information to be suppressed when the suspect is deceased [3]. Had he lived it would've been inevitable this bodycam footage and other evidence would've come out. Now? We'll see. I've now lost count of the number of times to story has changed from the Uvalde PD. But nothing here will change. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tamir_Rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tamir_Rice [2]: https://sports.yahoo.com/uvalde-mom-ran-school-save-025748850.html https://sports.yahoo.com/uvalde-mom-ran-school-save-02574885... [3]: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/22/texas-law-allows-police-keep-details-about-deceased-suspects-confident/ https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/22/texas-law-allows-pol...
- maybelsyrup 4y ago
  > But nothing here will change. It's hard but it's important to keep faith, and to keep working to change people's minds about police. Even your comment can make a difference: a place like HN is full of intelligent people who generally come here fairly open minded. Maybe your comment - the top one right now - can open someone's eyes to what cops really are. Stay in the fight!
  - kdkslqlqo 4y ago
    - kdkslqlqo 4y ago
  - 4y ago
sokoloff 4y ago
They're not wrong; I'm fairly sure that that bodycam footage would show nothing but weakness.
1024core 4y ago
"weakness" of character, that is.
doodlebugging 4y ago
I thought body cam footage was public data, discoverable and releasable under the law. There is no one left to prosecute here since they killed the shooter so there is no reason to delay disclosure. That thin blue line looks more and more like a line for cowards to hide behind while they seek to escape accountability for actions they know would have them arrested if they had no badge. Simply holding their noses while a colleague escapes prosecution for criminal acts by hiding behind a badge or a brotherhood of LEO is about as chickenshit as it gets.
- pigtailgirl 4y ago
  -- bottom link in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31729913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31729913 :=) --
  - calibas 4y ago
    So if the person ends up dead, the police can hide the videos. That seems ripe for abuse...
- philistine 4y ago
  Imagine a group of hired goons, in a medieval setting, who are paid in pillaged goods to maintain a certain group of people in power. Can you transpose those goons to modern police officers?
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > That thin blue line looks more and more like a line for cowards to hide behind while they seek to escape accountability for actions they know would have them arrested if they had no badge. Half the country has known this for a couple years now. It's a shame it took the deaths of children for the rest to start to figure it out.
  - clint 4y ago
    Half the country has known this for ~CENTURIES~
Vladimof 4y ago
We all know that they were weak... the question is if they will be held accountable, somehow.
lobocinza 4y ago
"Security" through obscurity.
PointyFluff 4y ago
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed The only time this should ever be legal is if the footage is of the officer using the restroom. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, even requesting that body cam footage be suppressed is a blatant admission of guilt.
susiecambria 4y ago
Knowing a lot of police officers and having worked with them for years to address gangs/gang violence among other things, I have to say that painting all law enforcement with one brush is not helpful or useful.

I think the 'weakness' of their response is plainly obvious. If criminals can find advantages in this footage, its an opportunity to overhaul training programs and response plans. The training and response was woefully inadequate for this crisis, after all. There should be no reasonable reality in which the release of this footage is suppressed. This is an undeniable tragedy, battening down the hatches and obstinately trying to weather the storm will do no favors for anyone.

akira2501 4y ago
That leads to the most obvious question: "Are your training manuals and materials as closely guarded of a secret?" If not, then your implementation of them, however compromised, is not a secret either.
- kadoban 4y ago
  I've seen some of them passed around. They're not secret as far as I can tell. They pretty obviously are just embarassed by their failure.
  - WaxProlix 4y ago
    There's an outside chance it's even worse than what we know now - maybe they killed a kid or two, or did something otherwise more shameful than expected.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      Yeah, the _best_ attempt at devils advocate I could give them would be that it should be secret just how crappy they are at following their own training/guidance. That's basically complete bullshit though, that's no reason for secrecy.
    - Arrath 4y ago
      > maybe they killed a kid or two This is my sneaking suspicion.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      I mean, they kinda-sorta already did... >“When the cops came, the cop said: ‘Yell if you need help!’ And one of the persons in my class said ‘help.’ The guy overheard and he came in and shot her,” the boy said. “The cop barged into that classroom. The guy shot at the cop. And the cops started shooting.” The police got a student killed, according to the survivor’s story. https://www.vox.com/2022/5/27/23143997/the-uvalde-police-keep-changing-their-story https://www.vox.com/2022/5/27/23143997/the-uvalde-police-kee...
      - squarefoot 4y ago
        "Other parents were pinned to the ground, pepper sprayed, or tasered, said Gomez, who said she managed to run into the school and save her child after convincing the officers to uncuff her." Seriously... WTF! If only they showed the same balls when dealing with the gunman.
- nathantotten 4y ago
  > Are your training manuals and materials as closely guarded of a secret? It seems not: https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/CourseCMU/Active%20Shooter%20-%20SBLE%202195%20course%20Final%201-30-20.docx https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/CourseCMU/Ac...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- panarky 4y ago
  Eventually they will be ordered to release the video, at which point we will learn that much of it is missing, from multiple officers and from the school's cameras simultaneously. We will be expected to believe that officers weren't wearing cameras, or cameras were turned off, or a computer error lost the footage.
- dylan604 4y ago
  It's actually more along the lines of counter-intelligence. You have printed manuals and materials that get leaked so the attackers study those tactics. Then, during the attack, there is total confusion when the police do not react as thought by those training materials. The upper hand now resides with the police /s
giraffe_lady 4y ago
They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. This is extremely at odds with how the police want to be perceived, and managing that contradiction is certainly their biggest concern right now. From that perspective it's easy to understand why they want to suppress this information, and who benefits if they get to. These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. This sort of thing is a predictable result of the training and prioritization police act on every day.
- Arrath 4y ago
  Agreed on all points, and I absolutely abhor the cynical reality. Its why I'm not above calling for purges and complete overhauls of the approach to policing.
- bongoman37 4y ago
- jjulius 4y ago
  >They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat immediately. "The official narrative has shifted from a story of swift response by the local police to one of hesitation and delay that deviated from two decades of training that instructs officers to quickly confront a gunman to save lives, even at a risk to their own."[1] >These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. Except that, from everything we've learned about this event in the weeks since, they literally were not equipped to deal with it. Police chief didn't bring a radio, their own radios didn't work in the school, they bungled getting a key to the room, they didn't have their tactical materials arrive in a timely manner, I can go on and on. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
donmcronald 4y ago
I think the problem is that no one wants to take the blame for being wrong or unprepared and the media won't pass up an opportunity to sensationalize mistakes as incompetency, maliciousness, etc.. I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity to lay blame. I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone directly impacted to expect there to be consequences for the lack of preparedness, etc., but I think the big picture needs to be more along the lines of realizing that kind of unpreparedness isn't part of some grand plan or conspiracy and that working to improve the system for next time gives us better overall value (long term) than punishing the people involved. At least for government institutions, I think that kind of system could be mandated as long as employees get the same deal as pilots. In exchange for willful participation, with the goal of improving the overall system, you aren't punished for anything that was an honest mistake, misunderstanding, lack of training, etc..
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity to lay blame. Unfortunately, the nature of US politics is such that it's impossible to have reasoned conversations about how to alter these extremely complex and dynamic systems. Entire areas of the solution space are rejected because of ideology, and those rejections, themselves, are highly politically charged. In what should be no great surprise, later, when the problem isn't resolved, fingers get pointed at those who rejected those alternative solutions or pushed for solutions that did not work, while those who previously got in the way of a more fulsome discussion continue to do so because the foundation of their ideology cannot be shaken by real world data. So, yes, it would be nice if the world could function as a reasonable and rational place, but when it comes to wedge issues like this, that simply will not happen without fundamental structural changes to the nature of US politics. All that being said, given Boeing's recent performance, I'd be a little careful to hold up the airline industry as a paragon of rationality and preparedness...
- GloriousKoji 4y ago

TillE 4y ago

The language quoted looks like some absolutely generic form response that they probably give to every request. Pretty wild to send that garbage in a high-profile case like this.

phnofive 4y ago

I don't think the fifth amendment applies to videotape.

woodruffw 4y ago
Even if it did: the courts have repeatedly held (to my disdain) that the police are not required to enforce the law. My guess is that they're trying to hedge against the inevitable wave of civil suits against them, which will ultimately compel the release of the bodycam footage. But their hope is to run out the clock on public outrage.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

No cover-up here, please go about your business.

smm11 4y ago

Will it show even more of them running away from the school?

EricE 4y ago

It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p

woodruffw 4y ago
This is not, to my knowledge, an argument that anybody who is serious about gun control uses.
- drugstorecowboy 4y ago
  Isn't it implied? If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Unless they are arguing that gun control will solve all future violent crime I don't see how you could say this with a straight face. If they are "serious" about gun control or not would certainly be up for debate, but I have heard this argument many many times.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    In this case you would've needed enough guns to subdue the police, as the police were threatening to taser and arrest parents who wanted to save their kids. There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already at the scene.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      Saying that you shouldn't interfere with an ongoing crime implicitly assumes the police are doing something about the crime and not just watching children be murdered. Best case is parents stand back while the police engage - but if the police aren't doing that then all bets are off.
      - threatofrain 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago

Did people expect them to incriminate themselves?

kube-system 4y ago
incriminate? What laws did the police break?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  In the court of law? Maybe none. In the court of public opinion? Maybe quite a bit.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I can think of a few crimes that they could be charged with, but without evidence it certainly makes it harder.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    Without legal requirement to protect anyone, probably no actual liability, besides being accused of wrong job syndrome or cowardice
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      If you block an ambulance and someone dies that can be considered manslaughter. Likewise, if a cop prevents people from trying to save others which they obviously aren't going to do, then that would be very similar.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Like what?
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      Like a lesser degree of manslaughter. If they prevented people from entering that could have saved lives.

jmpman 4y ago

I’ve wondered if someone could run for mayor of Uvalde on the simple platform of firing everyone in their police force, and eliminating pensions for any police officers deployed to the school.

manquer 4y ago
In Texas ? Likely not. we are here in this debate over and over after columbine, sandy hook and countless others because there is strong minority who either don’t care or believe gun freedom is worth the cost. I don’t think uvalde is going to change that overnight
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  They were talking about taking the police to task for cowardice or incompetence, not running for gun control.
  - manquer 4y ago
    I misread that, the point is still the same though, Police reformation[1] is even more murky in terms of support than gun control, proposals for changing qualified immunity, national background check for officers, privatization, use of force , no knock warrants have gone nowhere for the most part. [1] What defund the police really is or should be about
    - jmpman 4y ago
      A police force of cowards? Texans will vote to get rid of them.
clint 4y ago
There would be a very real chance the police would simply just murder you and your family. There is ample precedent, in the united states, in most of our lifetimes.
sokoloff 4y ago

kingcharles 4y ago

I'm a serial litigator of Freedom of Information requests. The reason I have to even litigate is because the public bodies believe every tiny thing they do is not disclosable. I'm about 6 years into one lawsuit to disclose the contents of a jail Policy and Procedures manual. The AG ruled that it was all subject to disclosure except the bits about locks and keys and where the weapons are stored. The jail is free to ignore the AG ruling and continues to maintain that even the sections on how the jail library books are top secret. It's absolutely impossible to know if the jail employees are doing their jobs as they are supposed to without the public knowing what those roles are and what the job requirements are. You can't keep these people honest without knowing if they are abusing their positions. Public disclosure should be the mandatory default for public bodies.

orzig 4y ago
Thank you for your work
- kingcharles 4y ago
  No problem. I wish what I didn't wasn't necessary. I'm helping others to try to make changes to the FOIA laws to fix the slew of problems. It's baby steps. It's like hacking - laws are written, the bugs are found, they are fixed, it's just that it takes decades to make the change, unlike coding where it takes 2 minutes to recompile.
hibern8 4y ago
Thank you for your work. How is the jail able to ignore the AG ruling?
- kingcharles 4y ago
  The AG's legal team in Illinois can issue binding or non-binding rulings. So, even though they gave a detailed legal breakdown of their ruling and why it applied, and (bless them) having read through the entire 800 page manual, they still only issued a non-binding ruling which the Sheriff's office just laughed at. For some reason they only issue binding rulings in a tiny fraction of very contentious cases. It sucks. It doesn't make any sense to me. It can take two years to get a non-binding ruling on a case just for the public body to ignore it.

SrslyJosh 4y ago

Yeah, sure. The "weakness" they don't want exposed is them standing around in the hallway doing nothing while the murderer took his time in a classroom full of kids.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rasz 4y ago
Some went in for their own children https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officers-rescued-own-children-texas/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officers-rescued-own-child... at this point I assume cops shot those children
- rickeydidio 4y ago
  I don't want to be Conspiracy Guy here but I read that the officers on the scene fired 26-27 shots into the classroom where the shooter was. 26-27 sounds like a LOT of shots. I get it that this isn't some sniper rifle on Call of Duty but is this going to end up like a Pat Tillman situation where we find out later that one of these kids was hit by friendly fire? Where did those 26-27 shots end up? Sounds a bit reckless in those close confines without more details.

throw0101a 4y ago

Meh: > [the videos] just show the parking lot. how is that useful * https://twitter.com/darth/status/1536387368101416961 https://twitter.com/darth/status/1536387368101416961

woodruffw 4y ago
Videos establish a chronology, and precise locations for each officer. Even if it's an hour of them sitting on their hands, it's important (and rightfully public) evidence.

jmyeet 4y ago

Are we afraid won't actually do their job when it actually involves putting themselves in danger? I think the cat is out of the bag on that one. Quite famously, the police are much better at shooting children [1] than they are at shooting to protect children. The Uvalde PD consumes 40% of the town budget ($4m of $10m exclusive of a $500k grant they got from the state of Texas months earlier). 19 police officers were on scene and sat twiddling their thumbs for an hour despite repeated 911 calls from students inside. Oh actually not quite nothing: they threatened to violate the probation of a mother on scene [2]. There's an obvious upside to this particular shooter dying but it has one unfortunate side effect: Texas allows information to be suppressed when the suspect is deceased [3]. Had he lived it would've been inevitable this bodycam footage and other evidence would've come out. Now? We'll see. I've now lost count of the number of times to story has changed from the Uvalde PD. But nothing here will change. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tamir_Rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tamir_Rice [2]: https://sports.yahoo.com/uvalde-mom-ran-school-save-025748850.html https://sports.yahoo.com/uvalde-mom-ran-school-save-02574885... [3]: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/22/texas-law-allows-police-keep-details-about-deceased-suspects-confident/ https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/22/texas-law-allows-pol...

maybelsyrup 4y ago
> But nothing here will change. It's hard but it's important to keep faith, and to keep working to change people's minds about police. Even your comment can make a difference: a place like HN is full of intelligent people who generally come here fairly open minded. Maybe your comment - the top one right now - can open someone's eyes to what cops really are. Stay in the fight!
- kdkslqlqo 4y ago
  - kdkslqlqo 4y ago
- 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

They're not wrong; I'm fairly sure that that bodycam footage would show nothing but weakness.

1024core 4y ago

"weakness" of character, that is.

doodlebugging 4y ago

I thought body cam footage was public data, discoverable and releasable under the law. There is no one left to prosecute here since they killed the shooter so there is no reason to delay disclosure. That thin blue line looks more and more like a line for cowards to hide behind while they seek to escape accountability for actions they know would have them arrested if they had no badge. Simply holding their noses while a colleague escapes prosecution for criminal acts by hiding behind a badge or a brotherhood of LEO is about as chickenshit as it gets.

pigtailgirl 4y ago
-- bottom link in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31729913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31729913 :=) --
- calibas 4y ago
  So if the person ends up dead, the police can hide the videos. That seems ripe for abuse...
philistine 4y ago
Imagine a group of hired goons, in a medieval setting, who are paid in pillaged goods to maintain a certain group of people in power. Can you transpose those goons to modern police officers?
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> That thin blue line looks more and more like a line for cowards to hide behind while they seek to escape accountability for actions they know would have them arrested if they had no badge. Half the country has known this for a couple years now. It's a shame it took the deaths of children for the rest to start to figure it out.
- clint 4y ago
  Half the country has known this for ~CENTURIES~

Vladimof 4y ago

We all know that they were weak... the question is if they will be held accountable, somehow.

lobocinza 4y ago

"Security" through obscurity.

PointyFluff 4y ago

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

> Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed The only time this should ever be legal is if the footage is of the officer using the restroom. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, even requesting that body cam footage be suppressed is a blatant admission of guilt.

susiecambria 4y ago

Knowing a lot of police officers and having worked with them for years to address gangs/gang violence among other things, I have to say that painting all law enforcement with one brush is not helpful or useful.