Give them a medal, not a hearing.
By now I’m sure you know all about the horrific terrorist attack in Austin, Texas over the weekend. A gunman opened fire on a popular bar on the trendy West 6th Street in downtown Austin, killing three people and wounding over a dozen more.
The shooting erupted around 2 AM on Sunday, March 1 outside of Buford’s bar, after the gunman reportedly circled the block and began shooting with a pistol before returning and opening fire with a rifle. Two victims passed away at the scene, and have since been identified as 19-year old Texas Tech student Ryder Harrington and 21-year old University of Texas student Savitha Shan. The third victim, 30-year old Jorge Pederson, was taken off life support last night.
The gunman has been identified as 53-year old Ndiaga Diagne, a US citizen who immigrated to the United States from Senegal in 2000 before being granted citizenship in 2013. Photos show the shooter wearing a sweatshirt that said “Property of Allah,” and photos released after his death show that he was wearing a t-shirt underneath with the Iranian flag. (The shooting came the day after the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran).
As tragic as the whole situation is, it could have been so much worse if not for the heroic actions of the officers who responded to take down the shooter. Austin Police Department officers on routine assignment in the area responded to the gunshots in less than a minute, no doubt preventing the death toll from being higher than it was.
After the shooting, Austin mayor Kirk Watson praised officers for saving lives with their quick response:
“I’m very thankful for the speed with which our officials responded to this. I don’t think there’s any question: It saved lives.”
But unfortunately, now the officers will be forced to defend their heroic response in court.
Austin district attorney José Garza follows the directive of the left-wing “criminal justice reform” organization the Wren Collective to present all cases involving use of force by officers to a grand jury to determine whether to bring criminal charges against the officers. That means the case of the officers will go before a grand jury, despite the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any argument that their actions saved lives and were not only necessary, but heroic.
Now, there’s a common saying in the legal world that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they really wanted an indictment, but there’s basically zero chance that a grand jury returns an indictment against these officers. But still, even the fact that they’re going to be forced to defend themselves in grand jury proceedings is enough for some Texas lawmakers to call for change.
On social media, Texas state representative Mitch Little said that he would be looking into legislation for situations like this, calling for a “cultural reset.”
And the attorney hired by the Austin Police Association, Doug O’Connell, welcomed the opportunity to work with him while blasting the policies of the District Attorney:
“Sad but true, in Austin the Wren Collective requires the DA to have a Grand Jury consider charges every time a police officer uses force. And the DA completely controls the Grand Jury & decides what evidence they see and what they’re prohibited from seeing.”
Since January 2021, at least 94 cases against law enforcement have been presented to a grand jury in Travis County, with 61 of those declining to indict. And even in cases where there was an indictment, there have been multiple instances where charges were ultimately dismissed or where the trial resulted in a hung jury.
In one case, Officer Christopher Taylor was indicted back in 2019 for shooting a man who was wielding a knife. Taylor was originally indicted for murder, but the charges were downgraded by district attorney Garza to deadly conduct. The officer (who was also represented by O’Connell at trial) was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two years in prison, but immediately appealed his conviction. Then last year, a Texas appeals court overturned the conviction and cleared Taylor, finding that the guilty verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial.
Garza blasted the appeals court for clearing Taylor in the shooting:
“The conservative Amarillo-based 7th Court of Appeals judges think they know better than the Travis County jurors who heard the case and convicted Taylor. The basis for the reversal—that no reasonable juror could have convicted—is absurd. We will continue fighting to uphold the jury’s conviction.”
It just goes to show that even when a court finds there’s no evidence to convict an officer, a District Attorney with an agenda can still put together a case and convince a jury to find them guilty.
Seems like there needs to be some reform in the system – and these officers should be given medals, not dragged before a grand jury.
