The trial of former Uvalde school officer Adrian Gonzales has opened on 29 counts of child endangerment tied to the Robb Elementary massacre that killed 19 students and two teachers. Prosecutors say Gonzales knew the shooter’s location and failed to act; the defense contends omissions are not criminal absent a clearly established legal duty to intervene. Past rulings—including Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and decisions tied to the Parkland shooting—show courts' reluctance to impose affirmative policing duties. The case will turn on whether a jury finds a legal duty and that the prosecution has proven the statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did a Uvalde School Officer’s Inaction Amount to a Crime? The Gonzales Trial and the Legal Question of Duty
A School District Cop Allegedly Did Nothing To Stop the Uvalde Mass Shooting. Was That Failure a Crime?
After the May 2022 attack at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, law-enforcement officers were widely condemned for their response. Nineteen fourth-grade students and two teachers were killed, and the shooter was not neutralized until U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit agents breached a classroom door and shot him 77 minutes after the assault began.
Charges and Allegations
Public outrage over the response led prosecutors to charge Pete Arredondo, the school district's police chief, and former officer Adrian Gonzales. Gonzales's trial opened this week in Corpus Christi. He faces 29 counts of child endangerment—one count for each of the 19 children who died and one count for each of the 10 students who survived—each a state-jail felony punishable by six months to two years in jail.
The June 2024 indictment cites Article 22.041(c) of the Texas Penal Code, which criminalizes conduct by a person who "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child" in "imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment." Prosecutors say Gonzales, one of the first officers on scene, heard gunfire outside the school, knew the general location of the shooter, and had time to respond but "failed to engage, distract or delay the shooter" and did not follow his active-shooter training.
Prosecutor's Account
Special prosecutor Bill Turner told jurors that a school coach pointed Gonzales toward the shooter, that Gonzales "knew where [the shooter] was," but remained on the south side of the school while the gunman moved along the west side toward the fourth-grade classrooms. Turner said Gonzales stayed put even after the shooter fired into classrooms from outside and after the shooter entered the building during a pause in the gunfire.
Defense, Legal Context, and Precedent
Defense lawyers and legal scholars argue the indictment raises novel and difficult legal questions because it relies on omission-based criminal liability. Austin attorney Sam Bassett, a longtime criminal-defense lawyer, says an omission is not criminal unless a specific legal duty to act exists. "It is a very novel prosecution," Bassett told the court, adding that proving a duty to intervene in this fact pattern is a legal leap.
U.S. courts have repeatedly been reluctant to impose an affirmative duty on police to protect particular individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Circuit held police owed "no specific legal duty" to three women who were kidnapped and assaulted after officers failed to respond effectively. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman could not bring a due-process claim against a municipality for failing to enforce a restraining order, emphasizing long-standing traditions of police discretion.
A 2020 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that negligence or incompetence by officials during a mass-shooting response generally does not constitute a violation of substantive due-process rights. And a closely related criminal prosecution from the 2018 Parkland shooting—against former school resource officer Scot Peterson—ended in acquittal in June 2023 after jurors rejected similar omission-based charges.
What To Watch In the Trial
The trial is expected to last a couple of weeks. Key issues will include whether a jury finds that Gonzales owed a legal duty to act under Texas law and whether the evidence proves the elements of child endangerment beyond a reasonable doubt. At the close of evidence, the defense may ask Judge Sid Harle for a directed verdict of not guilty on the ground the prosecution's evidence is legally insufficient.
Whatever the outcome, the case sits at the intersection of deep public anger, administrative failure, and an unsettled area of criminal law: when, if ever, an officer's failure to act becomes a criminal omission rather than grounds for civil discipline or dismissal.
Quote: "It's definitely an emotional situation," Bassett said. "The police response can be criticized, but to say he's guilty of a felony in this context is another fence to leap over."
Reported originally by Reason.com; this article summarizes the charges, legal arguments, and precedent relevant to the Gonzales prosecution.
Help us improve.
