Four Cameras. A "Very Limited" Grant. And Now They Want a Scapegoat.

I watched Jimmy Claverman testify today. He's the man who ran Uvalde CISD's security camera system. Retired now. And what he told that jury should make everyone in that courtroom uncomfortable. Not because of what it proves about Officer Adrian Gonzales. Because of what it proves about everyone else.

Four cameras. That's what Robb Elementary had. Four.

Not because that's what the school needed. Not because some security expert determined four cameras would adequately protect those children. Because that's what a "very limited" grant could afford. Claverman's words. Very limited.

And here's the part that should keep you up at night: nobody was watching them.

Not like what we have now. After 19 children and 2 teachers died. Now they have monitoring. Now they have resources. Now safety is a priority.

Where was that priority on May 24th, 2022?

The Placement Problem

The prosecutor showed the jury a map of the school with the four camera locations marked. Cameras one and two were inside the building. Cameras three and four were under the breezeway canopy. Then came the question everyone needed answered.

Were there any cameras at the south end of the building? The south end. Where the shooter entered. Where children died in classrooms 111 and 112. Where the horror actually happened.

Claverman's answer: "No, sir."

Why not?

"Just how it ended up."

Just how it ended up. The cameras weren't positioned where they needed to be because that's just how it ended up. Not by design. Not by analysis. Not by anyone making deliberate choices about where surveillance was most needed. It just ended up that way.

And it gets worse. Claverman didn't even make the placement decisions. The whole project was "dumped in his lap" after someone else, working with an outside vendor called Century Security, had already determined where the cameras would go. Claverman implemented it. He didn't design it.

So who decided those four cameras would go where they went? Who analyzed the vulnerabilities? Who determined the south end of the building didn't need coverage? I don't know. Claverman doesn't seem to know either. Somebody made those choices, and now we're prosecuting a police officer for what happened in a part of the building that nobody thought was important enough to watch.

The Scapegoat Problem

Officer Adrian Gonzales faces 29 counts of child endangerment. Twenty-nine. The state's theory is that his actions, or inaction, during the 77-minute response endangered those children.

But here's what Claverman's testimony establishes beyond any doubt: the system that was supposed to protect those children was inadequate before Gonzales ever got the call. Before he ever drove toward that school. Before he ever made any decision the prosecution now wants to second-guess.

Limited funding. Four cameras for an entire school. No real-time monitoring. Camera placement that missed the most vulnerable entry point. These aren't Officer Gonzales's failures. These are institutional failures. Systemic failures. Failures that happened at budget meetings and planning sessions and vendor negotiations. Failures that happened in rooms Gonzales was never in, making decisions he had no part of.

And yet.

And yet he's the one sitting at that defense table. He's the one facing 29 counts. He's the one whose face will be on every news broadcast tonight.

What the Jury Saw

After Claverman finished testifying, the prosecution played the hallway video. The judge warned the jury it would be "gut-wrenching" and "extremely distressing." He offered anyone the chance to step out.

Nobody left.

What they saw was approximately 15 minutes of footage, with 911 calls overlaid. The chaos. The confusion. Officers in a hallway while horror unfolded in rooms the cameras couldn't see.

That footage is devastating. It should be. Children died that day. Teachers died. Families were destroyed. No one should watch that footage without feeling the weight of it.

But here's what I need you to understand: the existence of that footage, the limitations of what it shows, the fact that there was no footage from where it actually mattered, that's not evidence against Adrian Gonzales. That's evidence of a system that failed those children long before any officer arrived.

The Question Nobody Wants to Ask

Who else should be at that defense table?

Who decided the grant was enough? Who approved four cameras for an entire elementary school? Who signed off on camera placement that left the south end blind? Who determined real-time monitoring wasn't a priority?

Those people made decisions. Those decisions had consequences. But they're not facing 29 counts of child endangerment.

Only Adrian Gonzales is.

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm not saying he's guilty. The jury will decide that. What I'm saying is that this prosecution is asking twelve people to hold one officer accountable for a tragedy that had roots in institutional failures he didn't create and couldn't have fixed.

The school had four cameras because of a very limited grant. Nobody was watching them. The south end had no coverage at all. That's not Adrian Gonzales's fault. That's the system. And the system is not on trial.

Just him.

▶️ WATCH NOW Only 4 Cameras. No One Watching. Now They're Blaming One Cop.

Watch the testimony. Listen to what Claverman said. And then ask yourself: is this justice, or is this a system looking for someone to blame so it doesn't have to look in the mirror?