They prosecuted him because of rage and injustice. The rage of the parents of victims, the rage of the victims who survived. They did it because it was JUST to prosecute him. The prosecutors knew they wouldn’t win.
But in the meantime’ that coward’s life has been shit. It’s awful being on trial. A small punishment, but one that is routinely used against BIPOC.
More importantly, prosecuting him spread the rage. There are more news stories. More people thinking “wait. If he had no duty to protect children from violent death, what the fuck are cops for?” More people understanding the injustice of his actions, the injustice of him not being held to account. And the injustice of a country that keeps allowing this to happen.
This is how laws and standards get changed. Awful shit happens and people raise a ruckus. Until the momentum is enough to make a change.
And even if it wasn’t, putting that coward on trial, even knowing he wouldn’t get convicted, was the only justice the prosecutors could offer. They did their job, the important part that too many prosecutors don’t do. They pursued justice.
Yup. Here in Oz, we’re looking at this guy and thinking he fucked up to an incredible degree and should never have been a cop, but the legal attention on him should really be elsewhere. Why did the shooter have access to all those weapons?
Right - and we all know that, and we know the prosecutors didn’t have that in mind as a result. That being the reality, this particular approach is doomed to failure, so other approaches are required, if one is serious about it.
I feel like that’s a charitable interpretation of what they were going for - certainly it’s the only impact the prosecution would have. Hopefully it’s true. Hopefully they actually were trying to stoke widespread anger that would spark some real changes in policing. I only doubt it because prosecutors are normally firmly in the police camp (and reformers get quickly pushed out by the cops), and they only prosecute police when they’re forced to by overwhelming public sentiment, so it usually falls short as the primary purpose is performative.
I read in an article in The Guardian, printed before the verdict, that part of the prosecution argument was that the policeman had a duty of care towards the children, and the problem with this was that if he were found guilty of violating it, that would create a precedent to legally force teachers to carry guns and engage in firefights, or be similarly liable, since they already have an established duty of care.
The last thing anyone in America needs is moar guns, especially in schools.
They don’t like being forced into that position for sure. When they are, though, they’re extra pissed off.
Both groups may have a duty of care, but only one of them has been granted a legitimate monopoly on violence by the state. In contrast , public school teachers aren’t allowed to employ corporal punishment to maintain order in the classroom (although, yes, changing that is on the conservative wish list too).
Yeah. I’m pretty sure the law around duty of care doesn’t force people to do things they aren’t trained to do competently. Teachers aren’t required to perform surgery if a student has a medical emergency in class. They just have a duty to call 911.
Oh, there’s a lot we can do. It’s not hopeless at all. But futile actions, such as trying to convict this former cop in a criminal case, do nothing.
He had a contract. If his contract didn’t have any way for his employer to cancel his pension, then he keeps getting it. It’s amazing how iron-clad these pensions can be. Convicted former Sheriff Bacca actually went to prison for on-the-job misconduct and kept his pension. This seriously needs to be reformed - by the political process. Some grievous level of misconduct or non-performance should allow the employer to cancel the pension. Unions are very effective and have fought against clauses like that, but that’s something that needs to be done.
They absolutely should play a role. Quite a few cops (see Sheriff Baca above for example) have ended up in prison for committing crimes. But civil court… well, the court isn’t going to void a contract just because it was boneheaded and resulted in an idiotic outcome, as in the case of this cop and Sheriff Baca keeping their pensions. The employers in this case need to be smarter about what contracts they sign and voters (us) need to be a lot smarter about this issue.
As they should! But their employers (public entities in this case) need to do a better job in representing the other side. Such as making sure pensions can be canceled in cases of serious on the job misconduct.
Thank you for this excellent point. Police in general don’t have much firearms training. SROs have even less to do with firearms. It’s the opposite end of the spectrum from SWAT team. As you say, they get trained on policy. As you also say, they are there mainly as security theater. I would say the other thing they are there for is that they can go hands-on if there’s a fight on campus. Teachers cannot / should not try to get involved in fights or anything else that’s hands-on, whereas SROs have that legal authority. But why do they carry guns? They really shouldn’t. They should act more like bouncers - big guys who can break up fights if needed. Dealing with an active shooter is far beyond what they have trained for. Anyone who wants to deal with active shooters goes for SWAT, not SRO!!
That is exactly correct and why I was saying it’s futile. Edit: beyond being futile and performative, it’s also misconduct of a prosecutor to pursue a case that has no merit. Really, this prosecutor should be disciplined for doing this.
The civil suit the status of which I enquired about was a wrongful death one brought by some of those who lost their children, not one brought by the town to deny him his pension.
Surely anyone would not deny bereaved parents the opportunity to file such a civil suit against the pants-pissing coward with a uniform and gun. Surely anyone would acknowledge that a jury might see this an opportunity to send a message to cowardly cops who don’t do their job of enforcing the law. Surely anyone would not deny the justness of every dime of the pension collected by the pants-pissing coward going to the parents (or, more likely, to a charitable foundation).
Well, surely almost anyone. We must always allow for the presence of those who are content with this status quo – often cowards who carry gun themselves – and who will twist themselves into disingenuous pretzels to discourage avenues for change to a situation they pretend to deplore.
Ah, well, that suit brought a gigantic settlement for the parents. I don’t think the town / school district wanted to dig in and fight that one, because obviously.
That certainly isn’t me. A lot of things can and should change. A futile, performative, unethical prosecution doesn’t change a thing. This former cop’s legal bills were paid by his union. The prosecutor’s bill were paid by the taxpayers. There was no chance of conviction, it was just a giant charade at a cost of probably over a million dollars. Losing a hopeless prosecution like this isn’t going to make other SROs perk up, get in shape, and get that extra active shooter training they should be getting. It will mean that some other real criminal case which should have been prosecuted, wasn’t.
The gigantic settlement to the parents probably will change things. I won’t go through and list what I think should change but it’s plenty of things.
