January 7, 2026 • 23 mins
The jury has the day off, but it will be a critical day in the trial of Adrian Gonzales, the officer accused of failing to act during Uvalde school massacre. A teacher's testimony yesterday prompted numerous, strong objections from the defense. And today, lawyers and the judge will gather in the courtroom to determine if the trial that Uvalde parents have been anxiously awaiting for nearly 4 years, will continue.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hey there everybody. It is Wednesday, January seventh, and families
have been waiting for years for justice, for accountability after
that uvolda school massacre. But on day one of testimony
and the Uvaldi trial already a shocker and talk of
a mistrial, and with that, welcome to this episode of
(00:31):
Amy and TJ. Robes. We were getting set for weeks
of testimony, day one of testimony. I can't imagine what
these families are going through after all this. There is
real talk of a mistrial, yes there is. It's not
just speculation, this is for real.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
The headlines are took an unexpected turn. And that is
an understatement, because yes, testimony was underway.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
It was gutting.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
It was frankly shocking to rehear and to relive some
of those moments, and then to have a teacher who
is up on the stand say something that upset the
defense so much that arguments ensued, and then they now
had to remove the jury that they won't even come
(01:17):
back into the courtroom until Thursday while the defense and
the prosecution try to hammer it out with the judge.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
But yes, the defense has said they may ask for
a MISTRYNG.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Clear for what we're saying here, folks. On day one
of testimony in the trial, Day two of testimony was
canceled because there's a problem, and this is a really
big problem, a Brady violation. You might have even heard
of that. You hear it every now and again, even
if you can't recall what it is. But it's very
simple stuff. Hell, even in the movie My Cousin Vinnie,
they hit on this. The prosecution cannot withhold evidence that
(01:49):
could possibly help the defense, and it appears at this
point at least the defense is going to argue, you
all just ambushed us on day one of testimony, and
Rodes is hard to argue with the point they're making
right now.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Yes, so this was a former third grade teacher. She
was the third grade teacher at rob Elementary School on
the day of the Uvaldi shooting. She testified that she
saw the gunman on the same side of the building,
in the exact same area where the officer who was
on trial, Adrian Gonzalez, was. The defense said, that is
(02:26):
a completely different statement than what you gave during a
twenty twenty two investigation, something that she specifically said to
a Texas ranger. They say what she testified to in
court is not the same and a very big difference.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
And of it obviously would be to the detriment of
their client. If what she's saying is true.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
This is a huge no. No, this is a huge
problem because the defense has been preparing for months years
based on her official statements, which are official evidence in
the case. They've been preparing based on that. They show
up on day one of testimony in the trial and
they go, oops, actually it's not that, it's something else.
(03:10):
This is a very serious violation. The judge seemed a
little annoyed and put off by this. But folks, what
we're saying is today they are dedicating the day in
the court today to only trying to work this out road.
The problem here, right, they get declare mistrial, Sure, judge
hates to do that after all this, But Rose, what
if you go through what if he gets found guilty.
(03:32):
What's the first thing they're going to do appeal based
on this Brady violation?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Potential violations?
Speaker 1 (03:40):
What do you do here? Rose? Think about those famili
and look, we should remind folks, full disclosure, not full disclosure.
Everybody knows you were there the day after that shooting,
took place. You and I were on the air together,
me and New York. You there. This is something from
day one. We've kept an eye on. This is something
from day I can't imagine what the family are going through.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yes, because you know it's to have been there and
to have reported on it. I get emotional reading this
that I am so far removed being a parent of
one of these kids, and the allegations here are so
serious because to think, because we learned this and I look,
I don't this exact detail, but this certainly came out
(04:21):
in the opening statement from the prosecution yesterday when testimony began,
he said.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
That officer Adrian Gonzalez was there on the scene before
the gunman entered the building.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
I don't know how you get over that one passed
that one.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
I have chills from head to toe as a parent.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And look, we talked about at the time, we reported
when we were there on the scene that parents were
begging officers, trying to get into the building themselves, wanting
to run into harm's way to try and save their
children when the police would not.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
This is the most devastating detail I've heard in this
entire story is that before he went in and killed
nineteen babies. There was an officer there before he went
into the buildings that you can't live with that, that's Abe.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
It's it's it makes you feel gutted because when you
know that something could have been prevented, and the person
who was charged with that duty, who had a firearm,
who was trained on what to do in these types
of situations, and I understand in the moment it's very different.
It's scary, But the question is the responsibility. The whole
(05:35):
purpose of his position and his job was to protect
and to serve and to run into harm's way, and
when he knew there was an active gunman, the prosecution
kept saying, effectively, Adrian stayed. Adrian radioed. Adrian basically gave
a blow by blow of what was happening on his radio.
(05:56):
But he did nothing. He took zero action.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
That's tough for Robes. Again, criminally, I don't know what
he faces, right, I don't know if he committed a crime,
what the law says about it. But Roges, that is
you said, scared, you said, and you know, in all
these cases, we always try to give a little grace
to the person on that side. So trying to find
(06:20):
some way to give grace to Adrian Gonzalez. And you
said he was scared. Possibly, that's my job, because I'm
a citizen. I can be scared and stand out there
and coward and be a coward. I can do that
as a citizen. You signed up to protect these people.
Signed it says to protect and serve on the side
of those cars. And a part of that is, yes,
possibly taking a bullet for a seven year old, that's
(06:44):
your job. And to see some of them explain and
some of the officer this is not us. These are
other officers who say no. The training is to go in.
You engage, even if you don't shoot and kill the shooter.
You get us a attention, get him to shoot at
you instead of elementary school kids.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
The very least you distract him.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
A Texas ranger actually, to your exact point, testified yesterday
for the prosecution, and the prosecutor prosecutor asked him, are
there limitations about going into a shots fired active shooter situation?
Here is the exact quote from that Texas ranger. There
is not a limitation. I wouldn't say so. The rule
(07:27):
is to engage and to stop the killing.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Period.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
I don't know what else to I don't know or
if this is and again Adrian Gonzalez, we don't know him,
not suggesting he's might be the best guy, a good
guy who made a really bad call based on whatever
he was going through, his emotions, his energy, his fear,
whatever was happening that caused him to freeze.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
I was gonna say it sounds like he was paralyzed
with fear.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Fear in a moment that people called for his help.
That is a devastating ropes to think it is a
possibility that those nineteen didn't have to die. He beat
the shooter to the school.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Yes, they described where he was.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
He was actually on duty at the high school, which
was nearby, and he heard over the radio a car crash, right,
so a massive car crash. That's how this all began.
The shooter crashed his white vehicle, and the funeral director
of the funeral home, which was directly across the street
from the rob Elementary School, immediately starts calling nine one one, begging, begging,
(08:35):
please I can hear the shots. The officer arrived. They
actually have the time stance, I stamps. I believe the
crash happened around eleven thirty in the morning. Officer Gonzalez
was there by eleven forty, so he was there within
like minutes and before the shooter even had the.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Opportunity to go into the school itself.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
And a teacher, well, the prosecutor testified that there was
a teacher who got up right up close to Officer
Gonzalez's face and said, basically, please, he's over there, Please
go get him, and was pointing Officer Gonzalez into the
direction because she had just faced the shooter and knew
what he was doing and said, please go get him.
(09:16):
And Adrian Gonzalez, according to the prosecutor, prosecutor did nothing
and it wasn't just a split second decision to do
nothing seven seven minutes. Imagine that an hour and seven
minutes of terror of shots being fired, and no one
goes inside, no one does anything.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
And Gonzalez is we should mention he's the first of two.
The other is the former school police chief. Actually that's
going to be facing trial as well. These details that
have been coming out of this case now we're going
to get more, but there is a real possibility people
that this trial won't continue this week. What is the
(09:56):
judge going. He doesn't want to declare mistrial robes, but
I don't know. Maybe they were. There's some deal they
can work out, but they are going to have to
discuss it. And what was the case is what the
judge is allowing the defense to interview the prosecutors about.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
What they did, ye what they knew and when they
knew it in this testimony or this very important piece
of evidence and from the testimony of this teacher, when
did it change? When did they know about what she
was going to testify to? And we should point out
on Monday, when they were seating a jury, they actually
had to dismiss more than one hundred jurors who admitted
and said I cannot be impartial.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
They said they had already formed opinions. Some of them
were teachers, some of them were husbands of teachers, people
who said, I already know that if my wife or
my child were in that building, I would blame the
officers for not going in period.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
End of story.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
I'd admit I was surprised I got twelve.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
So they actually even said it was pretty remarkable they
were able to see twelve jurors and four alternates.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Quickly within one day.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
But to have all those folks just walk out and say, nope,
I can't be impartial.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I don't know that I've ever seen that before.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Well, we had so many yes, the jury the way
deer right, this whole process that they go through, but
robes every once in a while, don't you Usually hear
jurors trying to make sure they I don't want to
say fool, but you want to sound like you're important,
like I can be impartial here and whatnot? They just
raising their hands. Nope, he's good. I know what I
(11:25):
would do, So you want me here. This is what's
going to happen.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Yeah, I'm going to tell say that he's guilty.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I don't really I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
I do too.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
I'm sure the defense actually appreciated it as well, because
you don't want somebody. And then you think about if
all those people walked out, the people who did, because
I think they.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Had about four hundred plus jurors to go through.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
But if a quarter of them immediately just raise their
hand and say I'm not going to be impartial.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
It's just easy to eliminate folks.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yes, imagine the people who might say, cool, I'm not
going to say it out loud, but I know exactly
what I'm going to do.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
You may that's probably some of that on the oh Man,
you don't want to say that about the jurors, but
you guess to think that's true. This is happening in
Corpus Christie, it's happening down there in Texas. It's happening
in an area where that how the whole country is
familiar with this story, but ropes, How can anybody there
not be impacted? Maybe not know somebody who knows, somebody
whose kids play on a team with somebody, that kind
(12:14):
of a thing. It's impossible.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
And even for someone like us, who are far removed.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
We covered it, but I don't know anyone personally who
was involved. And yet I feel very impassioned by it,
as do I would argue most human beings, especially those
who have children. It's just an impossible thing to ignore
that feeling of why wouldn't you do your job? And
if you had done your job, lives would have been saved, period,
(12:39):
Maybe not all of them, but at least some of them.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
That's got to be an argument. So it's hard to
go back in the ifs and what I just can't
imagine a scenario where all of these kids would have
died if he would have acted. I just can't imagine
a scenario with fire shots in the air, do something
to yell and screen there's an officer here, just get
is I just I don't know the training roles, but
it's hard to imagine that the outcome would have been
(13:03):
the same had he acted.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
I know, you remember the interview I did with that
teacher who described how long it took the shooting. He
would just pick people off. It wasn't like just a
big mass shooting.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Yet he ran out.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
This went on and on and on. So by the
inaction of.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Those police officers allowed him to continue to kill people.
And this poor teacher actually was hiding and watched almost
his entire class get shot and killed, and there was
nothing he could do about it. He had no weapon,
he had no way to protect those children.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
And it's just a horrific scene.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
And by the way, Adrian Gonzales is facing the potential
of life in prison twenty nine counts of child abandonment
or endangerment. He is facing two years per count, so
that would amount to what sixty years or so, and
at his age, that would be basically a life sentence,
but the judge does have a lot of discretion in
terms of how much he wants to sentence this officer too.
But this is a tough case to overcome for the defense.
(14:00):
When you look at the facts.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
You look at the facts. But folks, would you believe
there is precedent for a case like this? And would
you believe the precedent in that case might be one
that's in favor of Adrian Gonzalez. We'll explain it. Stay here.
(14:25):
We continue here on Amy and TJ. After a dramatic
first day of testimony in the Uvalde trial, a dramatic
first day that ends up getting us to this point,
which was supposed to be the second day of testimony,
but it has been suspended because of an issue that's
come up that the defense has accused the prosecution of
withholding some information that could be material to this case.
So today robes are going to spend the day no jury.
(14:48):
They get first day on the job, they get in
the day off the second day essentially, so the prosecution,
the defense, and the judge can try to hammer this out,
but a mistrial.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Is on the table, and that is certainly concerning. We
already heard from one of the family members of one
of the slain children, and they were very upset about
the potential of a mistrial, as you might imagine, and
they spoke to several reporters outside of the courthouse when
it was adjourned yesterday late yesterday evening, and here was
(15:18):
their quote. We are already anxious and now we're upset.
All we want is justice for Jackie. It's been three
and a half years and here we are, and it
has been well documented over these past several years, how upset.
Understandably so, these parents are at the police's in action.
They have been vocal about it, and many of them
(15:40):
are in that courtroom and they want justice for their children.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
You remember, I know you tube, but yeah, we were
trying to piece this together and we heard how many
kids were killed. And I remember a press conference that
the might have been the first, but it was an
early one when they declared what the police action was.
And then they came back and there was another press
conference and that's when they were reveal that seventy seven
that that gap and the whole country collectively were just astonished.
(16:08):
And then they tried to explain their behavior, tried to
explain why this was okay, why this had to be done.
It was a shit show, to be quite honest, absolutely
about it, because nobody can comprehend. But Robes, here we
are three years later. I cannot believe that I continue
to be surprised and shocked by information that comes out
about that day that makes it worse. It makes it worse.
(16:32):
Every new detail makes it worse. Oh, it was even
worse than we thought. There is So I try. I
try to give this guy some kind of grace.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Robes, I hear you, and the jury is hearing the
nine to one one calls that were happening as Adrian
Gonzalez was on the scene. Oh Jesus, please protect those children. Hurry,
begging officers to arrive, hurry please. Oh my god, he's
jumping into the school yard. He's just jumped over the fence.
(17:01):
These are the nine to one to one calls that
the jury is hearing, and knowing when they see the
timestamp that officer Gonzales was there, that is hard to overcome.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
The defense can say that he's not responsible.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
They said there's an animal involved in the situation, a monster,
and he's no longer here. And because that monster can't
sit in the chair. My client's sitting in the chair.
But I don't think that is going to That didn't
That doesn't move me.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Hey, how about that question if the shooter had lived,
If the shooter had lived and they were able to
bring him to trial, would they have taken the time
to bring these officers to trial.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
I think so because it's so egregious, It was so
much a part of the story, how egregiously terrific the
inaction of these police officers were. It wasn't just that
they were cowards. And look, that is a question. Is
being a coward a crime? Okay, that's a fair question
to ask. But when your cowardice behavior leads directly to massacre,
(17:58):
a massacre that you could have presented prevented if you
hadn't been a coward, And if your job is to
not be a coward, if your job is to be brave,
I think that it is fair to say that being
a coward in certain positions is potentially criminal.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
It sounds like a strong and such an offensive word, coward.
I don't I don't know what else to say. Because
I'm only listening to the law enforcement community. I haven't
gone through police training. I haven't gone through active shooter training,
but I am pretty sure every officer in this country
pretty much has.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Oh, and they do them regularly, right, They do refresher
courses on this stuff. They focused on this. We haven't
focused on it since ninety nine and Columbine. So if
you're telling me that his action that day is in
line with training, then all training in this country needs
to change. If you're telling me, if you're going to
(18:54):
make some argument that he was justified in his behavior
because of fear or he did and he didn't have
a responsibility to put his life on the line, then
we have to change standards for police officers.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
The defense is saying that he didn't have all the
information he needed to proceed, and that is such a
tough argument for anyone to get their heads around.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
When he was there and saw it and hurt it.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Any officer in the country, I will ask this country
this question too. If you show up to a school
where you're told there's a shooter inside, you hear gunfire,
you're on the scene, what do you do? And if
you're telling me your correct response is to stand outside,
stay on the radio.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
And wait for seventy seven minutes and again other officers.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
I'm not sure when the other officers arrive, but there
were plenty on the scenes. But I'm saying, first officer,
what is his I would love to and I will
we know officers. I will ask a bunch of them,
what is it? What would you do? What are you
supposed to do? I don't know what training is somebody
in their shooting kids.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
They're testifying and they will continue to, I'm sure, bring
up to your point exactly that exact question. And so
far those who have answered have all said, your job
is to go in. Your job is to stop to shoot.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Do you remember what did they have to physically keep
parents from going? Yes, Okay, here's the thing. This is text.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
They were tackling parents who were trying to get past
the police to get to their kids.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
This is the thing. This is Texas. And if a
Texas parent who is armed had made it to that
school before Gonzales, I bet the outcome would be different.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I agree. I just got chills thinking about it.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
I walked in that school. You would have walked in
that school, oh, like like.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
You would have to tackle me, you would have to
restrain me. And that did happen. That did happen. They
were restraining parents, Babe. That is what is so disgusting.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
We're not gonna save your kid, but you can't go
save your kid.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
You gotta be fucking no way. So we mentioned that
there is precedence. This is the second time in US
history that prosecutors have tried to hold a member of
law enforcement accountable for their inaction to a mass shooting.
This was just in twenty twenty three, so just two
years ago. But a Florida jury acquitted the officer. It
(21:15):
was a Broward County Sheriff's deputy. He was charged with
similar charges because of his inaction during the Parkland shootings,
and he was acquitted.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
See I'm sorry I didn't look into it enough. But
what was the argument? Like was the defense arguing there? Yep.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
His lawyers argued that his role as an armed school
resource officer did not amount to a caregiving post and
that the response to.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
The shooting was muddled by poor communication.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
So it seems as though they're doing or using this
defense is already kind of taking on that similar defense.
It was confusing, he didn't have all the information he needed.
There was confusing communication. Do you the guy break yes, exactly.
So it worked in Parkland and I think they're hoping
that it will work in Uvaldi. But they are very
different scenarios. And that's seventy seven minutes those nine one
(22:09):
one calls. You're gonna have parents going up there talking
about what they saw, what they tried to do to
get in to save their children. It seems like it
is going to be a very tall order for them
to convince a jury.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
Otherwise.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
We are going to keep an eye on this one.
We will certainly hop back on what time is their
starting today in court?
Speaker 2 (22:26):
One pm local time, So have a little bit of
a later start today to hear these arguments.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
All right, We'll keep an eye on this one, folks.
As always, top right corner of your Apple podcast app
on our show page as a little button that says
follow Click that and you can get our updates. Don't
have to go looking for them. There will be some
updates today our morning run. It's coming here in a
couple hours as always, but a busy, busy start to
twenty twenty six. We always appreciate you spend some time
(22:51):
here with us on TJ. Holmes on behalf of my
dear amy blobosis and talk to it. Put in T
T
Hey there everybody. It is Wednesday, January seventh, and families
have been waiting for years for justice, for accountability after
that uvolda school massacre. But on day one of testimony
and the Uvaldi trial already a shocker and talk of
a mistrial, and with that, welcome to this episode of
(00:31):
Amy and TJ. Robes. We were getting set for weeks
of testimony, day one of testimony. I can't imagine what
these families are going through after all this. There is
real talk of a mistrial, yes there is. It's not
just speculation, this is for real.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
The headlines are took an unexpected turn. And that is
an understatement, because yes, testimony was underway.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
It was gutting.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
It was frankly shocking to rehear and to relive some
of those moments, and then to have a teacher who
is up on the stand say something that upset the
defense so much that arguments ensued, and then they now
had to remove the jury that they won't even come
(01:17):
back into the courtroom until Thursday while the defense and
the prosecution try to hammer it out with the judge.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
But yes, the defense has said they may ask for
a MISTRYNG.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Clear for what we're saying here, folks. On day one
of testimony in the trial, Day two of testimony was
canceled because there's a problem, and this is a really
big problem, a Brady violation. You might have even heard
of that. You hear it every now and again, even
if you can't recall what it is. But it's very
simple stuff. Hell, even in the movie My Cousin Vinnie,
they hit on this. The prosecution cannot withhold evidence that
(01:49):
could possibly help the defense, and it appears at this
point at least the defense is going to argue, you
all just ambushed us on day one of testimony, and
Rodes is hard to argue with the point they're making
right now.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Yes, so this was a former third grade teacher. She
was the third grade teacher at rob Elementary School on
the day of the Uvaldi shooting. She testified that she
saw the gunman on the same side of the building,
in the exact same area where the officer who was
on trial, Adrian Gonzalez, was. The defense said, that is
(02:26):
a completely different statement than what you gave during a
twenty twenty two investigation, something that she specifically said to
a Texas ranger. They say what she testified to in
court is not the same and a very big difference.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
And of it obviously would be to the detriment of
their client. If what she's saying is true.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
This is a huge no. No, this is a huge
problem because the defense has been preparing for months years
based on her official statements, which are official evidence in
the case. They've been preparing based on that. They show
up on day one of testimony in the trial and
they go, oops, actually it's not that, it's something else.
(03:10):
This is a very serious violation. The judge seemed a
little annoyed and put off by this. But folks, what
we're saying is today they are dedicating the day in
the court today to only trying to work this out road.
The problem here, right, they get declare mistrial, Sure, judge
hates to do that after all this, But Rose, what
if you go through what if he gets found guilty.
(03:32):
What's the first thing they're going to do appeal based
on this Brady violation?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Potential violations?
Speaker 1 (03:40):
What do you do here? Rose? Think about those famili
and look, we should remind folks, full disclosure, not full disclosure.
Everybody knows you were there the day after that shooting,
took place. You and I were on the air together,
me and New York. You there. This is something from
day one. We've kept an eye on. This is something
from day I can't imagine what the family are going through.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yes, because you know it's to have been there and
to have reported on it. I get emotional reading this
that I am so far removed being a parent of
one of these kids, and the allegations here are so
serious because to think, because we learned this and I look,
I don't this exact detail, but this certainly came out
(04:21):
in the opening statement from the prosecution yesterday when testimony began,
he said.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
That officer Adrian Gonzalez was there on the scene before
the gunman entered the building.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
I don't know how you get over that one passed
that one.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
I have chills from head to toe as a parent.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And look, we talked about at the time, we reported
when we were there on the scene that parents were
begging officers, trying to get into the building themselves, wanting
to run into harm's way to try and save their
children when the police would not.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
This is the most devastating detail I've heard in this
entire story is that before he went in and killed
nineteen babies. There was an officer there before he went
into the buildings that you can't live with that, that's Abe.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
It's it's it makes you feel gutted because when you
know that something could have been prevented, and the person
who was charged with that duty, who had a firearm,
who was trained on what to do in these types
of situations, and I understand in the moment it's very different.
It's scary, But the question is the responsibility. The whole
(05:35):
purpose of his position and his job was to protect
and to serve and to run into harm's way, and
when he knew there was an active gunman, the prosecution
kept saying, effectively, Adrian stayed. Adrian radioed. Adrian basically gave
a blow by blow of what was happening on his radio.
(05:56):
But he did nothing. He took zero action.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
That's tough for Robes. Again, criminally, I don't know what
he faces, right, I don't know if he committed a crime,
what the law says about it. But Roges, that is
you said, scared, you said, and you know, in all
these cases, we always try to give a little grace
to the person on that side. So trying to find
(06:20):
some way to give grace to Adrian Gonzalez. And you
said he was scared. Possibly, that's my job, because I'm
a citizen. I can be scared and stand out there
and coward and be a coward. I can do that
as a citizen. You signed up to protect these people.
Signed it says to protect and serve on the side
of those cars. And a part of that is, yes,
possibly taking a bullet for a seven year old, that's
(06:44):
your job. And to see some of them explain and
some of the officer this is not us. These are
other officers who say no. The training is to go in.
You engage, even if you don't shoot and kill the shooter.
You get us a attention, get him to shoot at
you instead of elementary school kids.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
The very least you distract him.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
A Texas ranger actually, to your exact point, testified yesterday
for the prosecution, and the prosecutor prosecutor asked him, are
there limitations about going into a shots fired active shooter situation?
Here is the exact quote from that Texas ranger. There
is not a limitation. I wouldn't say so. The rule
(07:27):
is to engage and to stop the killing.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Period.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
I don't know what else to I don't know or
if this is and again Adrian Gonzalez, we don't know him,
not suggesting he's might be the best guy, a good
guy who made a really bad call based on whatever
he was going through, his emotions, his energy, his fear,
whatever was happening that caused him to freeze.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
I was gonna say it sounds like he was paralyzed
with fear.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Fear in a moment that people called for his help.
That is a devastating ropes to think it is a
possibility that those nineteen didn't have to die. He beat
the shooter to the school.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Yes, they described where he was.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
He was actually on duty at the high school, which
was nearby, and he heard over the radio a car crash, right,
so a massive car crash. That's how this all began.
The shooter crashed his white vehicle, and the funeral director
of the funeral home, which was directly across the street
from the rob Elementary School, immediately starts calling nine one one, begging, begging,
(08:35):
please I can hear the shots. The officer arrived. They
actually have the time stance, I stamps. I believe the
crash happened around eleven thirty in the morning. Officer Gonzalez
was there by eleven forty, so he was there within
like minutes and before the shooter even had the.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Opportunity to go into the school itself.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
And a teacher, well, the prosecutor testified that there was
a teacher who got up right up close to Officer
Gonzalez's face and said, basically, please, he's over there, Please
go get him, and was pointing Officer Gonzalez into the
direction because she had just faced the shooter and knew
what he was doing and said, please go get him.
(09:16):
And Adrian Gonzalez, according to the prosecutor, prosecutor did nothing
and it wasn't just a split second decision to do
nothing seven seven minutes. Imagine that an hour and seven
minutes of terror of shots being fired, and no one
goes inside, no one does anything.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
And Gonzalez is we should mention he's the first of two.
The other is the former school police chief. Actually that's
going to be facing trial as well. These details that
have been coming out of this case now we're going
to get more, but there is a real possibility people
that this trial won't continue this week. What is the
(09:56):
judge going. He doesn't want to declare mistrial robes, but
I don't know. Maybe they were. There's some deal they
can work out, but they are going to have to
discuss it. And what was the case is what the
judge is allowing the defense to interview the prosecutors about.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
What they did, ye what they knew and when they
knew it in this testimony or this very important piece
of evidence and from the testimony of this teacher, when
did it change? When did they know about what she
was going to testify to? And we should point out
on Monday, when they were seating a jury, they actually
had to dismiss more than one hundred jurors who admitted
and said I cannot be impartial.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
They said they had already formed opinions. Some of them
were teachers, some of them were husbands of teachers, people
who said, I already know that if my wife or
my child were in that building, I would blame the
officers for not going in period.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
End of story.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
I'd admit I was surprised I got twelve.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
So they actually even said it was pretty remarkable they
were able to see twelve jurors and four alternates.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Quickly within one day.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
But to have all those folks just walk out and say, nope,
I can't be impartial.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I don't know that I've ever seen that before.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Well, we had so many yes, the jury the way
deer right, this whole process that they go through, but
robes every once in a while, don't you Usually hear
jurors trying to make sure they I don't want to
say fool, but you want to sound like you're important,
like I can be impartial here and whatnot? They just
raising their hands. Nope, he's good. I know what I
(11:25):
would do, So you want me here. This is what's
going to happen.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Yeah, I'm going to tell say that he's guilty.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I don't really I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
I do too.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
I'm sure the defense actually appreciated it as well, because
you don't want somebody. And then you think about if
all those people walked out, the people who did, because
I think they.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Had about four hundred plus jurors to go through.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
But if a quarter of them immediately just raise their
hand and say I'm not going to be impartial.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
It's just easy to eliminate folks.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yes, imagine the people who might say, cool, I'm not
going to say it out loud, but I know exactly
what I'm going to do.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
You may that's probably some of that on the oh Man,
you don't want to say that about the jurors, but
you guess to think that's true. This is happening in
Corpus Christie, it's happening down there in Texas. It's happening
in an area where that how the whole country is
familiar with this story, but ropes, How can anybody there
not be impacted? Maybe not know somebody who knows, somebody
whose kids play on a team with somebody, that kind
(12:14):
of a thing. It's impossible.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
And even for someone like us, who are far removed.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
We covered it, but I don't know anyone personally who
was involved. And yet I feel very impassioned by it,
as do I would argue most human beings, especially those
who have children. It's just an impossible thing to ignore
that feeling of why wouldn't you do your job? And
if you had done your job, lives would have been saved, period,
(12:39):
Maybe not all of them, but at least some of them.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
That's got to be an argument. So it's hard to
go back in the ifs and what I just can't
imagine a scenario where all of these kids would have
died if he would have acted. I just can't imagine
a scenario with fire shots in the air, do something
to yell and screen there's an officer here, just get
is I just I don't know the training roles, but
it's hard to imagine that the outcome would have been
(13:03):
the same had he acted.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
I know, you remember the interview I did with that
teacher who described how long it took the shooting. He
would just pick people off. It wasn't like just a
big mass shooting.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Yet he ran out.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
This went on and on and on. So by the
inaction of.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Those police officers allowed him to continue to kill people.
And this poor teacher actually was hiding and watched almost
his entire class get shot and killed, and there was
nothing he could do about it. He had no weapon,
he had no way to protect those children.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
And it's just a horrific scene.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
And by the way, Adrian Gonzales is facing the potential
of life in prison twenty nine counts of child abandonment
or endangerment. He is facing two years per count, so
that would amount to what sixty years or so, and
at his age, that would be basically a life sentence,
but the judge does have a lot of discretion in
terms of how much he wants to sentence this officer too.
But this is a tough case to overcome for the defense.
(14:00):
When you look at the facts.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
You look at the facts. But folks, would you believe
there is precedent for a case like this? And would
you believe the precedent in that case might be one
that's in favor of Adrian Gonzalez. We'll explain it. Stay here.
(14:25):
We continue here on Amy and TJ. After a dramatic
first day of testimony in the Uvalde trial, a dramatic
first day that ends up getting us to this point,
which was supposed to be the second day of testimony,
but it has been suspended because of an issue that's
come up that the defense has accused the prosecution of
withholding some information that could be material to this case.
So today robes are going to spend the day no jury.
(14:48):
They get first day on the job, they get in
the day off the second day essentially, so the prosecution,
the defense, and the judge can try to hammer this out,
but a mistrial.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Is on the table, and that is certainly concerning. We
already heard from one of the family members of one
of the slain children, and they were very upset about
the potential of a mistrial, as you might imagine, and
they spoke to several reporters outside of the courthouse when
it was adjourned yesterday late yesterday evening, and here was
(15:18):
their quote. We are already anxious and now we're upset.
All we want is justice for Jackie. It's been three
and a half years and here we are, and it
has been well documented over these past several years, how upset.
Understandably so, these parents are at the police's in action.
They have been vocal about it, and many of them
(15:40):
are in that courtroom and they want justice for their children.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
You remember, I know you tube, but yeah, we were
trying to piece this together and we heard how many
kids were killed. And I remember a press conference that
the might have been the first, but it was an
early one when they declared what the police action was.
And then they came back and there was another press
conference and that's when they were reveal that seventy seven
that that gap and the whole country collectively were just astonished.
(16:08):
And then they tried to explain their behavior, tried to
explain why this was okay, why this had to be done.
It was a shit show, to be quite honest, absolutely
about it, because nobody can comprehend. But Robes, here we
are three years later. I cannot believe that I continue
to be surprised and shocked by information that comes out
about that day that makes it worse. It makes it worse.
(16:32):
Every new detail makes it worse. Oh, it was even
worse than we thought. There is So I try. I
try to give this guy some kind of grace.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Robes, I hear you, and the jury is hearing the
nine to one one calls that were happening as Adrian
Gonzalez was on the scene. Oh Jesus, please protect those children. Hurry,
begging officers to arrive, hurry please. Oh my god, he's
jumping into the school yard. He's just jumped over the fence.
(17:01):
These are the nine to one to one calls that
the jury is hearing, and knowing when they see the
timestamp that officer Gonzales was there, that is hard to overcome.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
The defense can say that he's not responsible.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
They said there's an animal involved in the situation, a monster,
and he's no longer here. And because that monster can't
sit in the chair. My client's sitting in the chair.
But I don't think that is going to That didn't
That doesn't move me.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Hey, how about that question if the shooter had lived,
If the shooter had lived and they were able to
bring him to trial, would they have taken the time
to bring these officers to trial.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
I think so because it's so egregious, It was so
much a part of the story, how egregiously terrific the
inaction of these police officers were. It wasn't just that
they were cowards. And look, that is a question. Is
being a coward a crime? Okay, that's a fair question
to ask. But when your cowardice behavior leads directly to massacre,
(17:58):
a massacre that you could have presented prevented if you
hadn't been a coward, And if your job is to
not be a coward, if your job is to be brave,
I think that it is fair to say that being
a coward in certain positions is potentially criminal.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
It sounds like a strong and such an offensive word, coward.
I don't I don't know what else to say. Because
I'm only listening to the law enforcement community. I haven't
gone through police training. I haven't gone through active shooter training,
but I am pretty sure every officer in this country
pretty much has.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Oh, and they do them regularly, right, They do refresher
courses on this stuff. They focused on this. We haven't
focused on it since ninety nine and Columbine. So if
you're telling me that his action that day is in
line with training, then all training in this country needs
to change. If you're telling me, if you're going to
(18:54):
make some argument that he was justified in his behavior
because of fear or he did and he didn't have
a responsibility to put his life on the line, then
we have to change standards for police officers.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
The defense is saying that he didn't have all the
information he needed to proceed, and that is such a
tough argument for anyone to get their heads around.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
When he was there and saw it and hurt it.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Any officer in the country, I will ask this country
this question too. If you show up to a school
where you're told there's a shooter inside, you hear gunfire,
you're on the scene, what do you do? And if
you're telling me your correct response is to stand outside,
stay on the radio.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
And wait for seventy seven minutes and again other officers.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
I'm not sure when the other officers arrive, but there
were plenty on the scenes. But I'm saying, first officer,
what is his I would love to and I will
we know officers. I will ask a bunch of them,
what is it? What would you do? What are you
supposed to do? I don't know what training is somebody
in their shooting kids.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
They're testifying and they will continue to, I'm sure, bring
up to your point exactly that exact question. And so
far those who have answered have all said, your job
is to go in. Your job is to stop to shoot.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Do you remember what did they have to physically keep
parents from going? Yes, Okay, here's the thing. This is text.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
They were tackling parents who were trying to get past
the police to get to their kids.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
This is the thing. This is Texas. And if a
Texas parent who is armed had made it to that
school before Gonzales, I bet the outcome would be different.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I agree. I just got chills thinking about it.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
I walked in that school. You would have walked in
that school, oh, like like.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
You would have to tackle me, you would have to
restrain me. And that did happen. That did happen. They
were restraining parents, Babe. That is what is so disgusting.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
We're not gonna save your kid, but you can't go
save your kid.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
You gotta be fucking no way. So we mentioned that
there is precedence. This is the second time in US
history that prosecutors have tried to hold a member of
law enforcement accountable for their inaction to a mass shooting.
This was just in twenty twenty three, so just two
years ago. But a Florida jury acquitted the officer. It
(21:15):
was a Broward County Sheriff's deputy. He was charged with
similar charges because of his inaction during the Parkland shootings,
and he was acquitted.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
See I'm sorry I didn't look into it enough. But
what was the argument? Like was the defense arguing there? Yep.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
His lawyers argued that his role as an armed school
resource officer did not amount to a caregiving post and
that the response to.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
The shooting was muddled by poor communication.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
So it seems as though they're doing or using this
defense is already kind of taking on that similar defense.
It was confusing, he didn't have all the information he needed.
There was confusing communication. Do you the guy break yes, exactly.
So it worked in Parkland and I think they're hoping
that it will work in Uvaldi. But they are very
different scenarios. And that's seventy seven minutes those nine one
(22:09):
one calls. You're gonna have parents going up there talking
about what they saw, what they tried to do to
get in to save their children. It seems like it
is going to be a very tall order for them
to convince a jury.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
Otherwise.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
We are going to keep an eye on this one.
We will certainly hop back on what time is their
starting today in court?
Speaker 2 (22:26):
One pm local time, So have a little bit of
a later start today to hear these arguments.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
All right, We'll keep an eye on this one, folks.
As always, top right corner of your Apple podcast app
on our show page as a little button that says
follow Click that and you can get our updates. Don't
have to go looking for them. There will be some
updates today our morning run. It's coming here in a
couple hours as always, but a busy, busy start to
twenty twenty six. We always appreciate you spend some time
(22:51):
here with us on TJ. Holmes on behalf of my
dear amy blobosis and talk to it. Put in T
T
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!