Uvalde victim’s dad reacts to acquittal: ‘We had a little hope, but it wasn’t enough’
A memorial dedicated to the 19 children and two adults murdered on May 24,2022 during a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School is seen on January 05, 2026 in Uvalde, Texas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(UVALDE, Texas) — Javier Cazares, whose 9-year-old daughter Jackie was killed in the Uvalde, Texas, mass shooting, said he feels failed again after a jury on Wednesday night acquitted former school district police officer Adrian Gonzales on all 29 counts of child endangerment.
“We had a little hope, but it wasn’t enough,” Cazares said outside court. “Again, we are failed. I don’t even know what to say.”
Prosecutors had alleged Gonzales did not follow his training and endangered the 19 students who died and an additional 10 students who survived the May 24, 2022, Robb Elementary School mass shooting. Gonzales’ lawyers argued he was unfairly blamed for a broader law-enforcement failure that day.
Cazares said he was hopeful that the jury might have reached a different conclusion, but “prepared for the worst.”
“I need to keep composed for my daughter. It has been an emotional rollercoaster since day one. I am pissed,” he said.
Jackie’s uncle, Jesse Rizo, told reporters he was concerned about the message the verdict might send to police officers who respond to future mass shootings.
“I respect the jury’s decision, but what message does it send?” he said. “If you’re an officer, you can simply stand by, stand down, stand idle, and not do anything and wait for everybody to be executed, killed, slaughtered, massacred.”
Jackie’s aunt, Julissa Rizo, pushed back on the defense narrative that Gonzales responded as best he could, telling ABC News, “That’s not true.”
“There were two monsters on May 24. One was the shooter, and the other one was the one that never went in, that could have avoided this,” she said.
Defense attorney Jason Goss told reporters that he believes the acquittal clears Gonzales’ name.
“The evidence showed that not only did he not fail, but he put himself in great danger,” Goss said.
Gonzales told ABC News he plans on “picking up the pieces and moving forward.”
Defense attorney Nico LaHood said he will continue to pray for the victims’ families.
“We understand that their separation from their loved one is going to be felt as long as they walk on this earth, and we don’t ignore that. We acknowledge that,” he said. “We’re just going to continue to pray for them.”
Cazares said he will attend the trial of the other officer charged, former Uvalde Schools Police Chief Pete Arredondo.
Arredondo, who was the on-site commander on the day of the Robb Elementary shooting, is also charged with endangerment or abandonment of a child and has pleaded not guilty. His case has been delayed indefinitely by an ongoing federal lawsuit filed after the U.S. Border Patrol refused repeated efforts by Uvalde prosecutors to interview Border Patrol agents who responded to the shooting, including two who were in the tactical unit responsible for killing the gunman at the school.
ABC News’ John Quiñones and Emily Shapiro contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — In what has become a recurring legal battle for the Trump administration, a panel of judges is hearing arguments Friday about the legality of new tariffs that a policy research center says contribute to costing every household about $1,000.
A group of plaintiffs — including 24 states, the toy company behind Care Bears and Lincoln Logs, and a spice importer — argue that the Trump administration is abusing a little-known law to impose a sweeping 10% tariffs after the Supreme Court found the last round of tariffs were unlawful.
“The President has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have –involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed –to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy,” the state attorneys general said in their lawsuit.
The arguments are being heard by a three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade.
The legal dispute comes down to the interpretation of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to temporarily levy tariffs of up to 15% in response to “fundamental international payments problems” such as “balance-of-payments deficits.” The law allows the president to impose tariffs unilaterally for 150 days, after which Congress needs to approve the tariffs.
Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that the United States’ massive trade deficit constitutes exactly the kind of problem Section 122 was designed to fix. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general disagrees, arguing the Trump administration is conflating different financial issues — “trade deficits” and “balance of payments deficits.”
While both terms use the word “deficit,” a “trade deficit” is created by having less exports than imports, while a “balance of payments deficit” accounts for all international transactions involving the United States, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank.
“Were the President to find the endless tariff authority he seeks based only on his decision to conflate trade deficits alone with balance of payments deficits, he would be seizing power from Congress unconstitutionally,” the attorneys general argue.
According to the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy research center, Trump’s tariffs — including the broad Section 122 tariffs, as well as metal and pharmaceutical tariffs imposed under different authorities — are estimated to cost every household between $760 and $940 if the Section 122 tariffs expire within 150 days. If Congress were to extend the tariffs, the price impact could be between $1,200 and $1,500 for each household.
Marimar Martinez, a Chicago teacher’s assistant who survived being shot five times by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in October 2025, attends a press conference with her lawyers at the law offices of Cheronis & Parente LLC and Gallagher & Kosner Law LLC on February 11, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois, United States. (Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(CHICAGO) — Last October, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that federal agents in Chicago were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.”
But analysis of recently released body-camera footage of the shooting of Marimar Martinez and videos verified by nearby businesses and bystanders suggests that those claims were exaggerated — and that federal agents, knowing their actions were being recorded, appeared to coordinate with one another to explain their conduct that day.
Body camera footage and other evidence was released Tuesday after a federal judge last week granted a motion to permit the public release of the materials in the case.
The video shows that in the minute before the shooting, agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles. Agents stated they were “boxed in,” but at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front.
At no point in footage from an agent’s body-worn camera or from multiple surveillance cameras is a driver seen ramming the agents’ vehicle; instead, the video shows an agent appearing to steer toward the vehicle driven by Martinez, crashing into her, and then rapidly firing toward her.
Martinez, a U.S. citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times during the incident. She’s now planning to sue DHS and the agent for allegedly making false claims about her following the shooting and labeling her a domestic terrorist.
While prosecutors originally alleged that Martinez “aggressively and erratically” pursued officers that day, a judge dismissed the criminal case against her with prejudice after a reversal by the Department of Justice, which sought to dismiss the case.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident. The statement did not indicate the length of the administrative leave or when it began.
“CBP is committed to the highest standards of conduct, transparency, and accountability. All significant use-of-force incidents are thoroughly investigated, reviewed, and presented to the National Use of Force Review Board (NUFRB), an independent body comprised of senior CBP officials and representatives from DHS and DOJ, including the DOJ Civil Rights Division,” the statement said.
Below is a timeline of the incident based on the body camera footage and bystander video leading up to and after the shooting.
The lead-up 10:27:02 a.m.
Three federal agents are riding in an SUV in the first moments of video from an agent’s body-worn camera. Later, the video will reveal an Uber placard on the front of their SUV. One agent is seen speaking into the voice chat app on a nearby phone.
At the time, the Trump administration had surged federal resources for immigration enforcement in Chicago as part of “Operation Midway Blitz.”
According to a court filing, the agents were part of a protective detail assisting a nearby operation in Oaklawn. An FBI agent originally attested that the officers were being followed by multiple civilian vehicles.
10:28:17 a.m.
The agent’s body camera begins recording audio.
“Camera’s on,” the agent says.
The agent readies an assault rifle. With his finger on the trigger, one of the agents can be heard saying what sounds like either “do something, b—-,” or “hit something, b—-.”
10:28:35 a.m.
Another agent is seen pointing his handgun toward the right of the SUV.
A nearby driver repeatedly honks their horn, prompting one of the officers to remark, “Honk all you want.”
The agents’ vehicle is captured on a security camera on Kedzie Avenue. The SUV is flanked by Martinez, in a gray Nissan Rogue, to the agents’ left.
To their right is a GMC SUV, adorned with a Mexican flag on its hood, driven by Anthony Ruiz. Ahead of them are two cars: a sedan and a red pickup truck.
10:28:47 a.m.
Seconds later, the agent with the active body-worn camera says, “Alright, it’s time to get aggressive, get the f—- out. Because they’re trying to box us in.”
“If she hits us, it’s … ,” another agent can be heard saying.
10:28:57 a.m.
Charles Exum, the driver, appears to be the agent who says, “We’re going to make contact, we’re boxed in … we have got to get [inaudible] out of here. “
“We are boxed in,” the agent with the active body-worn camera repeats.
10:28:58 a.m.
The three vehicles briefly enter the frame of a security camera looking over a gas station parking lot.
Martinez, in the Nissan Rogue, is parallel with the agents to their left. Ruiz is behind them and to their right.
The pickup truck and the sedan, previously observed ahead of the agents’ vehicle, are also observed traveling several car lengths ahead of the agents.
10:29:01 a.m.
Exum appears to turn the car’s wheel to the left. A loud crash is heard, and the agents visibly react.
By this time, the two cars ahead of the agents have driven into the path of another security camera. The cars do not stop and drive out of view.
The shooting 10:29:04 a.m.
The agents’ vehicle comes to a stop. Their vehicle and Ruiz’s are seen stopped at the rightmost edge of the gas station security footage. The view of Martinez’s vehicle is blocked, and we do not see the agents’ vehicle make contact with hers.
Exum is seen holding a handgun in his right hand.
10:29:06 a.m.
“Out of the car,” the driver says, as he exits the car with his handgun drawn.
“Be advised, we’ve been struck, we’ve been struck,” the agent with the body-worn camera says.
A second later, five gunshots can be heard in rapid succession.
The agents’ SUV enters the field of view of another security camera. A drawing of the scene — made by one of the agents during their interview with the FBI, according to Martinez’s lawyers — indicated three vehicles were ahead of the agents’ SUV, but the footage shows that at the moment of the shooting, the agents’ vehicle has an unobstructed path forward.
10:29:09 a.m.
Martinez’s vehicle enters the frame of the security camera. She drives north, away from the scene.
10:29:11 a.m.
The agent with the body-worn camera points his rifle toward Ruiz’s vehicle, as it reverses and crashes into a parked car before turning to the left to drive away. Ruiz is later arrested at a gas station a half block away.
“Don’t you f—— move,” the officer says.
10:29:18 a.m.
As the agent turns around, his body camera shows that the SUV is not being blocked in front of it.
The aftermath 10:32:49 a.m.
Exum’s body-worn camera turns on about three minutes after firing his weapon.
10:39:19 a.m.
Exum tells a responding officer that he fired “five to seven shots” at Martinez.
“I don’t know if I hit her or not,” he says. “I [was] angled at the driver, I got five to seven rounds off at her.”
“It was a woman shooting?” the officer asked.
“No, I was shooting,” Exum said.
10:39:38 a.m.
Exum tells a responding officer that he “did the shooting” after Martinez hit his SUV.
“She already hit my vehicle, we got out to defend, she came forward, and that’s when I opened up on her,” he said. “We did not get shot at; we did the shooting.”
10:45:04 a.m.
As more officers arrive at the scene, Exum and the other agents begin to recount the incident and to ask whether his camera was on.
“We were getting out to defend because they already tried to box us in,” he said. “She was moving forward into me.”
“Camera on or no?” an officer said.
“No, I didn’t have it because we were [inaudible],” he said.
“That’s good, as long as you can justify it, bro,” the officer responds.
10:48:14 a.m.
As Exum prepares to light a cigarette, another officer acknowledges that their conversation is being recorded and advises him to “keep everything out.”
“So she hit you guys … You got boxed in?” an officer asked.
“We [were] getting boxed in, and I had to push left. She came in, she pulled over, stopped. I got out so we could defend,” Exum said.
“Hey, hey, just real quick though, since we’re recording, keep it [inaudible],” another officer says. “Keep everything out, you’re good man.”
10:50:30 a.m.
Another officer tells Exum to “keep [his] mouth shut” about the incident.
“Just so you know, you don’t give statements to anybody,” the officer says. “Absolutely no statements at all … You keep your mouth shut.”
Brianna Arango is seen in an undated photo released by the Southern Methodist University Police Department. Southern Methodist University Police Department
(DALLAS) — Police are looking for a missing Texas college student, calling it a “matter of concern.”
Brianna Arango, 21, a student at Southern Methodist University, was last seen midday Thursday on the Dallas campus, according to police.
She was last seen around 12:30 p.m. near Harold Simmons Hall, according to the Southern Methodist University Police Department.
A family member contacted SMU Police at approximately 3:30 p.m. Thursday to report that Arango did not meet with them as planned earlier that afternoon, campus police said. She had a class at 1 p.m. that she also did not attend, police said.
“Based on the information available, SMU Police are actively working to locate Brianna and are treating this as a matter of concern,” the department said in an advisory.
“SMU Police are asking for the campus community’s assistance in locating her,” the advisory added.
Arango was last seen wearing a white shirt, blue sweatpants and carrying a beige tote bag, police said.
Anyone with information on her whereabouts is asked to contact SMU Police at 214-768-3388.
