Inside the Kill Zone: Why Three Officers With a Clear Shot Walked Free

Look at that image. Really look at it.

Three officers positioned with a direct line of sight to the shooter as he approached Robb Elementary. One of them had an AR-15. One of them asked for permission to shoot. That permission either never came or came too late. The shooter walked into that school unimpeded.

Now look at where Adrian Gonzales was. On the other side of the building. The entire structure between him and the entry point. No line of sight. No shot to take. No opportunity to engage.

Twenty-nine counts of child endangerment. That's what Adrian Gonzales is facing. Not those three officers with the rifle and the clear shot. Him.

What the State's Own Witness Admitted

Texas Ranger Christopher Ryan Kindell took the stand today as a prosecution witness. The state called him. He was supposed to help their case. Instead, he handed the defense a gift wrapped in expert testimony.

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Nico LaHood, Kindell confirmed what the aerial evidence already showed: Gonzales was positioned where the building blocked his view of the shooter's approach and entry. The three officers who did have line of sight? They were the only ones who "could take a shot in that scenario."

That's not a defense witness saying that. That's the state's own expert.

The Door Nobody Wants to Talk About

Here's the part that should make your blood boil: every door that shooter used to enter that school was unlocked. Kindell confirmed it. Rooms 111 and 112, where children died, unlocked. The entry door the shooter used to get into the building, unlocked.

When LaHood asked Kindell if a locked door would have stopped or at least delayed the shooter, Kindell's answer was telling: "I think we all wish that door was locked."

We all wish that door was locked.

But it wasn't. Because the school's security protocols failed. Because doors that were supposed to be secured weren't. Because a systemic breakdown created an opportunity for a monster to walk right into a classroom full of children.

And instead of accountability for that systemic failure, we get one officer on trial. An officer who drove toward the danger, not away from it. An officer who was one of the first into the building. An officer who, by the geography of where he was positioned, never had a shot to take.

What This Trial Is Really About

My father taught me that the Constitution protects everyone, even when we don't want it to. Especially when we don't want it to. The families in Uvalde deserve answers. They deserve accountability. They deserve justice.

But justice isn't the same thing as a scapegoat.

If Adrian Gonzales is guilty of child endangerment for being positioned where the building blocked his view, what are the three officers who had a clear shot and didn't take it? If following your training and taking cover makes you criminally liable, what message does that send to every cop in America responding to the next active shooter?

The prosecution's own witness just told the jury that only those three officers could have taken a shot. And none of them are in that defendant's chair.

▶️ WATCH THE FULL TESTIMONY Why Is Uvalde Prosecuting the One Officer Who Couldn't See the Shooter?

This case isn't over. There's more testimony coming. More witnesses. More evidence. I'll be covering every minute of it because that's what we do here. We watch the system operate. We question everything. We make sure they can't do this in the dark.

But after today, the prosecution has a problem. Their own expert just explained why their defendant couldn't do what they're accusing him of failing to do.

The jury heard it. Now you have too.