By Matt Underwood Uvalde trial: Former school police officer Adrian Gonzales found not guilty on all counts. It’s tough to digest, isn’t it? The news that Adrian Gonzales, a former school police officer involved in the Uvalde tragedy, was found not guilty on all counts. A lot of people are grappling with this, and understandably so. It seems many are surprised, even shocked, by the verdict.
The focus of the charges against Officer Gonzales, it turns out, was very specific. The prosecution zeroed in on his actions, or lack thereof, during the *first three minutes* of the event. They argued he should have immediately charged the shooter solo. The prosecution faced a challenge right out the gate in needing to prove Gonzales knew exactly where the shooter was during that very short window of time. That’s a high bar to clear.
However, the bigger picture, the widespread condemnation surrounding the 77-minute delay, that will be the focus of the upcoming trial of the sheriff. That’s where a lot of the anger and frustration really lies. Many feel this 77-minute delay is a clear violation of a “duty of care.” The evidence suggests a much stronger case can be built around the delayed response.
The reaction here suggests a deep-seated distrust of the system. The fact that the police, who are meant to protect and serve, can seemingly avoid accountability when children die is a hard pill to swallow. There’s a feeling that nobody is held responsible and that’s precisely why trust is eroded. The notion that the police are not held to a standard of care is a major source of outrage.
Several people mentioned how police are not legally obligated to protect citizens. This stems from Supreme Court rulings, which, to put it mildly, have infuriated many. There are very specific legal precedents that have set this as the law of the land.
There’s the sense of being betrayed, feeling like the police are not held accountable. If this is the current state of affairs, the rulings, it is inevitable there will be a lack of trust and even anger. The fact that an officer could face a trial for a delayed response, while others can seemingly act with impunity, highlights a glaring discrepancy in how the system operates. The situation is completely messed up.
In fact, the backup and the chief are the actual problem. The public’s perception is that this particular officer was singled out while other higher-ups avoided responsibility. This perspective is that this one guy was the designated fall guy.
One name that keeps popping up is Pete Arredondo, the chief. He’s facing separate charges. But the sentiment is that even he will somehow skate through the process. It’s a sad state of affairs when people feel the system is rigged to protect some while sacrificing others.
Many people also feel that although Gonzales wasn’t convicted of a crime, he will forever be seen as a coward. While not a crime, cowardice isn’t something one can easily shake off, especially in this context. And the question remains: Can police really uphold their duty to protect and serve? It’s hard to believe when police can’t be held accountable.
There is also the idea of a double standard. The level of condemnation felt by many here, is much higher than what Texas seems to expect of its officers. There is a sense of the officer being labeled a failure and a coward. He’ll have to live with that every day.
The responses are varied, of course, with some suggesting that the circumstances make the verdict understandable. The argument being that rushing in alone would be reckless. However, even if the verdict is legally sound, many are left with a bitter taste in their mouths. A lot of people are saying this all points to a larger problem: the failure to protect the innocent.