Plan B Forum

There is currently a trial underway that, in my view, tortures the memory of Hammurabi, the great Babylonian king. For a reason that should be obvious, he had his laws carved on a stone stele so everyone could read them and know what the law required; the laws were publicly displayed so no one would be punished for rules they did not know.

In Uvalde, Texas, prosecutors have tried to use those principles in a way that twists the law to punish law‑enforcement officers for failing to act during the Robb Elementary School shooting several years ago. That is not justice. If a system will punish police officers for failing to act, then there must be a special code of law that applies only to officers and that clearly states what they are required to do and what the penalties are for failing to do so. Furthermore, every officer should acknowledge, when they take the job, that they understand and accept these standards, which would be different from the duties of ordinary citizens.

If the law can be twisted that way, then it becomes a tool anyone can wield — even Donald Trump.

Sounds like something for the courts to decide.

Hammurabi would approve.

From the Code of Hammurabi:

218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.

Note that punishment does even require negligence, merely the failure to save a life.

I would think there could be a parallel drawn to police, who are hired to protect lives and, in this case, attended the scene but utterly failed in that duty.

Scot Peterson - the other notorious one - was acquitted by a jury after four days of deliberations over whether he was criminally culpable for hiding in a corner with his firearm while the kids at Stoneman School in Parkland, Florida were slaughtered by a deranged school shooter.

No prison for Peterson, just the infamy of being one of the most famous cowards in history.

Whatever way the case turns out, Gonzales also lives the rest of his life on this rock under the cloud of having been in a position to save dozens of 4th graders and their teachers, and having failed to even try.

Not just failing to save them, but failure to DO the very job he agreed to take, did the training, and showed up for work that day. He was not just somebody who happened to have a gun and just happened to be in the area. But this is the real modern American community, not a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie. My own faith community has accepted the world as we find it today. All is relative, contextual, no-one is really expected to do anything that makes them uncomfortable. My faith community has a sacrament of marriage. The formal, required words for the couple (no specified gender requirement) getting married includes the phrase, "for as long as you both shall live." But we really don't expect that. A promise, a covenant, a contract, an oath, is only expected to be a a guideline, a suggestion, an aspiration. Not something that is actually lived out.

Yes, so police are expected 'to serve and protect' but not really to put their own life at risk.

snailgate.

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 07, 2026 8:13 pm

Sounds like something for the courts to decide.

Hammurabi would approve.

I would not be so sure of that, Joe. True, we really don’t know what Hammurabi’s motivations were for erecting and writing these laws, and we don’t even know exactly where they were originally displayed. All we really know is that we didn’t even know they existed until the turn of the 20th century, when they were found in the ancient capital of the Elamites, who had conquered the Babylonians.

But it’s fair to infer, from the very fact that he displayed these laws, that he was a ruler who believed in fairness. Of course, he may also have had political and military considerations. Still, if he did believe in fairness, I don’t think he would approve of prosecuting these police officers for something they didn’t know was a crime at the time.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

Yeah, that's not what that clause means.