DA Won’t Refer Officers Who Took Down Austin Shooter to Grand Jury
Good. These officers are heroes and saved many lives.
Travis County District Attorney José Garza won’t drag the three officers who took down the Austin shooter to a grand jury.
On Sunday, Ndiaga Diagne, a naturalized citizen from Senegal, opened fire in Austin. Three people have died, and two remain in critical condition.
Jorge Pederson, 30, was taken off life support on Monday.
Ryder Harrington, 19, and Savitha Shan, 21, also passed away.
I covered the story on Tuesday, explaining why Garza brings any officer who uses force to a grand jury. It’s disgusting and contains the usual suspects.
Garza dismissed the accusations.
“These officers are heroes, and it should go without saying that my office is not seeking any charges and would not seek charges,” Garza’s office said, according to KXAN. “The accounts to the contrary are false, intentionally false, and are being peddled for obvious political purposes.”
Oh, honey. As I wrote in my piece, Garza listens to the far-left group the Wren Collective, which has forced him to put officers who use force in front of a grand jury.
We also know it was a possibility because the police association asked lawyer Doug O’Connell to represent the officers.
“It’s my belief that the Wren Collective has directed the district attorney to review officer-involved cases this way,” O’Connell told Fox News. “It seems they’re very anti-law enforcement officers.”
Garza literally has had that policy since 2021. Last month, a grand jury refused to indict four officers involved in a 2024 fatal shooting.
“Every time an officer is dispatched to a violent criminal call, they’ve got to be thinking: ‘I could be killed, or, depending on how this goes, I could be indicted,'” O’Connell added.
Austin Police Association President Michael Bullock posted on X that the officers are not currently facing any charges and have not been referred to Garza’s office.
“However, the DA seems to still intend to put this before a grand jury where anything can happen as the DA controls that process and doesn’t allow APD involvement,” Bullock added.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called the officers heroes.
“Whatever the DA does, I will have the final say in the fate of these police officers,” said Abbott.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It was getting a little too hot, and little too clear, what the hell his normal practice is! Good!
They say ‘wren collective’, but I smell George Soros.
I hasten to add that the useful idiots that go around calling anyone and everyone they disagree with “Literally (word used incorrectly) Hitler” and “Nazi” have zero problem associating with organizations that are funded by someone who literally (word used correctly) aided and abetted the real Adolph Hitler and the real Nazi Party.
That is a fucking lie, and the most disgusting thing you could allege against an actual survivor. He did not do that, he did not “admit” or “brag” about doing it, not on 60 minutes or anywhere else, and anyone who says he did is the worst scum possible. Worse even than Soros himself. Just because someone is bad doesn’t mean you can make stuff up about him, especially such disgusting stuff. It crosses every possible red line. Condemn Soros for what he actually is, and for what he has funded and inspired, not for a blood libel.
Milhouse don’t smell nuthin’.
It’s insane that this is considered a ‘win’.
Oh, great, the DA was forced to do THE ACTUAL NORMAL THING and not try to throw police in prison because they happened to need to fire their weapons on duty.
The general idea of sending all officer-involved shootings to a grand jury, and the sending of this shooting in particular to a grand jury, were both vigorously defended by a certain person in the comments to the last article on this subject. It seems even Garza has disagreed with that defense, having folded like a cheap suit, instead of defending his own policy as correct and proper. Garza didn’t have any faith in his own correctness. Why would anyone else believe these grand jury reviews of all officer-involved shootings are defensible? If they are as eminently defensible as a certain person seems to have believed, why didn’t Garza similarly defend his own policy? Because of public outcry? Possibly. But if the public was critical, it was because a grand jury review of all officer-involved shootings is both extraordinary (who else has ever had such a policy?) and unnecessary (when there is no evidence that a crime was committed). The public is no longer deceived by Leftist manipulation of the law, not for the law’s sake but for its corruption in service of the Left’s agenda.
Not an expert on Texas law, but have some vague memories that there may be some benefit of putting officer (or others involved in a self defense shooting) to going to the grand jury. Something along the lines that if a grand jury provides a “no bill” outcome, that “no bill” provided a greater degree of protection from civil suits.
Any Texas experts knowledgeable about how this works?
There are several reasons.
1) A grand jury is neutral in their evaluation of the evidence.
2) Police shootings are investigated by other police officers. There is an inherent perception of bias there.
3) Police are given protection from investigations that every day citizens are not given. For example, while suspects in a shooting are immediately questioned, police are not. While citizens are often questioned immediately while dealing the enormity of the event, police officers are allowed days and sometimes weeks to get their story “straight.”
4) While citizens and police are both allowed lawyers, police are allowed a union rep in the interrogation room. That is a rep that can and will interrupt questions. The police have an asset that regular citizens do not.
5) There have been cases where the police were “cleared” by their peers only to find that the investigation was botched, reports falsified, etc.
Certainly there are going to be cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no need for a grand jury.
That doesn’t mean that a policy of “go to a grand jury (unless the evidence is overwhelming)” is not a good policy.
Exposure to a grand jury could result in an indictment. In the absence of any video or testimony/statements providing evidence a crime was committed, why should the issue be brought to the jury? Bringing an issue to a grand jury for an exercise in hand-waving and innuendo doesn’t seem like justice to me.
Let’s start with the idea that a homicide was committed.
Let’s continue with the idea that as police always say, “if they didn’t do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.”
I really do understand what you are saying, but police need oversight as well,
And while I respect your statement that it “doesn’t seem like justice,” I don’t think it is “justice” that police are treated differently in investigations. I don’t think it is justice that “qualified immunity” exists to the extent it does. I don’t think it is “justice” that the “blue wall of silence” exists.
I truly believe that the vast majority of police are good cops. But a grand jury investigation seems like one way to catch the bad cops that shoot people without cause.
He folded because there was a fake and unjustified public outcry deliberately ginned up by his political enemies. Which I’m generally fine with because he’s a bad DA (as were all of his predecessors for a long time).
But the policy isn’t inherently a bad one. Taking the case to the grand jury, for it to officially decide that there’s no case, would be at worst a waste of some time and effort. Not doing it in this case, where the absence of any case is blindingly obvious, does no harm.
As Mike Thiac commented below, from his personal experience, it’s been the policy there since long before Garza’s time.
And on the other post Chewbacca wrote the same thing: “Been a cop here for 22 years. Every shooting gets presented to the grand jury.”
nopeee hold your applauses for this seemingly pro maga move by a hard leftist
I said it the other day
they dont want this can of islam opened up for public debate
the more you /we find out about the murderer the more CAIR and others will be exposed
the network of anti maga bloodlines is running deep from the north of minnesomali to the nyc den of mammadami to its cohorts on the west coast
this is a victory for the left
they shot up people
they caused more chaos
their hero ..like lugi ..is being worshipped
just like the daniel penny saga exposed the corruption of the nyc
nyc is already a lefty stronghold
anymore info getting out from this senegal heor will damage any pr the texas contingents put out saying otherwise
How much was him seeing the returns from the primaries come in (or the polls) and thinking he might not be as safe as he was a year ago (politically)?
Ms. Chastain, I have to say I’m surprised. I’ve been a cop in the Houston area for over 25 years and anyone using deadly force (police or civilian) is referred to the grand jury as a matter of policy, just a check to insure it was justified, or (sorry for the double negative) not an unjustified use of deadly force. But I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth, with that DA wanting to charge cops for handcuffing suspects (slight exaggeration), those Austin officers are breathing a sign of relief.
José can you see must be up for election soon. Regardless it is a good move on his part so he should be applauded for it.
That’s ridiculous. Wren can’t force him to do anything he doesn’t want to do. He chooses to listen to their advice.
You also confused him with the Bexar County DA, and haven’t acknowledged that. To repeat, you wrote: “Garza has claimed that the Wren Collective provides him with advice on messaging, not on prosecution decisions.” That is just not true. He hasn’t claimed that. You linked to a story about someone completely different, who may well have been telling the truth about his own practice, but it has nothing to do with Garza. It’s completely possible that Garza does take advice from Wren on prosecutorial decisions, while Gonzales doesn’t.