Ex‑Uvalde Officer Found Not Guilty of Endangering Children in Mass Shooting

g the May 24, 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School — one of the deadliest school shootings in modern U.S. history.

The verdict brings to a close the first criminal case tied to law enforcement’s response to the tragedy, where an 18‑year‑old gunman killed 19 fourth‑grade students and two teachers before being stopped by tactical officers.

The Defendant and the Charges

The former officer, Adrian Gonzales, 52, served with the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District (CISD) police department. He was one of the first officers to arrive at the scene on that tragic morning. Gonzales faced 29 felony counts of child abandonment and endangerment — one for each of the 19 children killed and the 10 children who survived but were injured. If convicted, he faced up to two years in jail for each charge, along with significant fines.

Prosecutors alleged that Gonzales acted negligently by failing to confront the gunman or otherwise stop or interrupt the attack as it unfolded. They maintained that although he had training and experience, including SWAT and active‑shooter protocols, he did not attempt to engage the shooter quickly enough to prevent further deaths.

The Trial: Arguments on Both Sides

The trial — which lasted roughly three weeks — centered on contrasting views of Gonzales’ conduct in the chaotic moments after the shooting began.

Prosecution’s View:
Prosecutors argued that Gonzales “failed to follow active‑shooter training” and could have done more to protect students and teachers. They portrayed his actions as negligent and harmful, asserting that his hesitation contributed to a delayed law enforcement response and more casualties than might otherwise have occurred.

They called numerous witnesses, including school staff and active‑shooter training experts, and presented emotional testimony about the scene as the attack unfolded. Prosecutors also highlighted moments where Gonzales briefly lingered outside the school before entering, and emphasized that hundreds of rounds had been fired before he made a move to stop the shooter.

Defense’s View:
In contrast, Gonzales’ defense team argued that he was unfairly singled out from among the many law enforcement officers present that day — over 370 across multiple agencies — and forced to bear the blame for systemic failures in the response.

Defense attorneys said Gonzales never saw the gunman immediately upon arrival and that he directed efforts to evacuate children toward safety rather than recklessly entering a dangerous situation without clear information. They also pointed out that other officers who arrived after him had similar opportunities to intervene.

The defense framed the prosecution’s case as requiring officers to be “perfect” in their reaction to a mass shooting — an “unrealistic standard” that could set a harmful precedent for police throughout the United States.

Deliberation and Verdict

After closing arguments, the jury — seated far from Uvalde in Corpus Christi, Texas, where the trial was moved to ensure greater impartiality — deliberated for just over seven hours before delivering a verdict of not guilty on all counts.

Judge Sid Harle presided over the case, and jurors were tasked with deciding whether Gonzales’ actions met the legal threshold for criminal culpability, beyond reasonable doubt — a high bar in situations involving split‑second decisions under extreme duress.

Gonzales appeared emotional as the verdict was read, hugging his defense team afterward. He declined to make a formal statement to victims’ families or reporters immediately following the decision.

Community Response and Broader Debate

The verdict has prompted deeply divided reactions both locally and nationally.

Victims’ Families:
Some family members of those killed or injured expressed profound disappointment, grief, and frustration, saying the decision sends the wrong message about accountability for those entrusted with protecting children. They voiced concern that no one involved in the slow and widely criticized response will be held responsible.

Law Enforcement Advocates and Defense:
Others, including law enforcement supporters and legal analysts, argue that the verdict reflects the reality that officers operating in active‑shooter environments face complex, rapidly evolving situations and cannot be reasonably expected to act with hindsight in ways that would guarantee different outcomes.

The Bigger Picture: Accountability and Future Cases

The Gonzales case is one of the rare instances where a law enforcement officer faced criminal charges for inaction during an active‑shooter scenario. The only other similar case involved an officer in the 2018 Parkland, Florida shooting, who was likewise acquitted by a jury.

Former Uvalde CISD Police Chief Pete Arredondo, who also faces child endangerment charges related to the shooting, has yet to be tried, and his attorneys have suggested the Gonzales verdict could influence that case.

The legal questions raised by these cases — about the line between professional judgment and criminal liability — are likely to resonate in ongoing debates about police training, accountability, and public safety. For many communities, especially those touched by mass violence, the hope for justice and meaningful systemic change remains a point of intense discussion.