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.

I see that the Uvalde police officer was acquitted; that’s what I expected. I don’t think you should be able to twist the law to the point where you can force a civilian to engage in combat; the only people in our society who are required to do that are military personnel. In a blue state you can twist a law to do anything you want, but this is Texas.

There’s a big difference between a duty to report and a duty to intervene. A cop can be charged if he fails to report child abuse, robbery, or bribery, but he can’t be charged with a crime for not engaging in combat, at least not as a civilian.

If you want police to have that obligation, you’d need to change the law and also provide them with certain protections.

The decision had nothing to do with anyone expecting police to engage in combat. It had to do with the prosecution not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was guilty of child endangerment and abandonment.

liberty wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 24, 2026 12:59 am

In a blue state you can twist a law to do anything you want, but this is Texas.

As you said, this is Texas ... a state that is redder than the cover of Chairman Mao's little book, a state that cherishes their right to carry arms under the Second Amendment, filled with people who firmly believe and proudly proclaim that all that is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

So here we HAD a good guy with a gun who declined to get involved.   What good is a gun in the hands of a good guy — especially a good guy who has been TRAINED to use it — if he ISN'T going to use it?

-"BB"-

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 24, 2026 1:22 am

The decision had nothing to do with anyone expecting police to engage in combat. It had to do with the prosecution not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was guilty of child endangerment and abandonment.

It wasn’t the cop who had placed the children in danger; that was the gunman. And the cop didn’t flee the scene, so he didn’t abandon the children. I’m not saying what he did was honorable; I’m just saying it wasn’t criminal. In the civilian world, failure to act gets you fired, not imprisoned.

The trial was of Gonzalez, who was the LEO on duty at the school who failed to prevent the shooting. I have not followed his trial; but it seems to me that the much bigger fuckup at Uvalde was the failure of the assembled cops to act and curtail the shootings for, IIRC , something like 70 minutes. Eventually it was cops from the Border Patrol (whom, in other circumstances, we love to hate) who acted and took down the killer.

The trial of the incident commander awaits. I think - I don't know of course because I wasn't there and I don't know what the charges will be or how vehemently prosecutors plan to follow them - it is more likely that some sort of guilty verdict comes from that.

Andy, I ask you a few simple questions. Is this trial in Texas? Is the incident commander a sworn police officer?

Considering these two questions, the answer is clear--whatever the incident command does is perfectly ok. Perfectly. Just like the national C-in-C has declared that anything ICE does is perfectly. perfect.

Any investigation is a waste of taxpayer money.

snailgate

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:01 pm

The trial was of Gonzalez, who was the LEO on duty at the school who failed to prevent the shooting. I have not followed his trial; but it seems to me that the much bigger fuckup at Uvalde was the failure of the assembled cops to act and curtail the shootings for, IIRC , something like 70 minutes. Eventually it was cops from the Border Patrol (whom, in other circumstances, we love to hate) who acted and took down the killer.

The trial of the incident commander awaits. I think - I don't know of course because I wasn't there and I don't know what the charges will be or how vehemently prosecutors plan to follow them - it is more likely that some sort of guilty verdict comes from that.

How would that be? Would the same principle not apply there, punishing someone for a failure to act? Just because you can’t punish the suspect doesn’t mean you should take it out on the police or use them as a scapegoat. When a civilian, generally speaking, fails to do his job, he gets fired; he doesn’t go to prison.