The Chief Who Confessed on Camera

This story isn't going away. 

What That Press Conference Actually Told Us About El Paso Police...actually sounds familiar. In fact it reminds me of the ol' saying, the cover-up is worse than the crime. 

On April 4, a verified Iranian news account posted video of El Paso police arresting Kelcee Hufford in her living room. By April 10, it had millions of views.

Let that sink in. El Paso wasn’t just trending locally. We became an example used by foreign media to argue that the United States has no standing to lecture anyone on human rights.

That’s the context Chief Peter Pacillas walked into.

And in about fifteen minutes, he somehow managed to make things worse.

Before the chief spoke, his public information officer told reporters to keep questions limited to “this incident and this incident only.”

That wasn’t a casual request. It was a line in the sand. And it was clear that they know there is a trend of police violence, otherwise there would be no need to start that way.

The department knew what reporters might bring up. Prior cases. Federal rulings. Settlements. Deaths. Patterns.

So they cut it off before it could start.

You don’t shut down a line of questioning unless you already know where it leads.

Pacillas said use of force depends on the suspect’s choices. If someone resists, officers “have to” respond with force.

That sounds reasonable - except that is not how the law works.

The Supreme Court settled this decades ago. The question isn’t whether someone resisted. The question is whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Those are not the same thing.

Under federal law, force has limits. It has to match the threat. And once someone is on the ground and controlled, the justification for force drops.

In this case, Hufford was already down with officers on top of her when the punch happened.

That’s exactly when force is supposed to decrease, not escalate.

The chief described a system where resistance justifies whatever comes next. That’s not policy. That’s a constitutional problem.

And trust me, “It was within policy” is not a defense. 

Pacillas said the officer’s actions were “in policy” and there was no reason to take it further.

That’s not the shield he thinks it is. It’s the problem.

If an officer violates someone’s rights while following department policy, the city itself becomes liable. That’s basic civil rights law.

So when the chief says the officer followed policy, he’s not closing the issue. He’s confirming where responsibility sits.

With the department.

Also, “Not Typically” is not good enough!

When asked whether officers ask about disabilities before using force, the chief said, “not typically.”

That answer should stop people in their tracks.

Federal law requires law enforcement to account for disabilities. Not sometimes. Not when convenient. Always.

Here, the family was in the room saying Hufford has autism.

The department’s response was to treat it as irrelevant because it was a warrant arrest, not a “crisis.”

That’s not a gray area. That’s a failure to apply the law.

The arrest happened April 2. By April 10, the department had already investigated the incident, convened a review board, and cleared the officer.

Eight fucking days.

And during that same press conference, the chief admitted he hadn’t even spoken to the officer involved.

So to be clear: the department finished its review, declared the force justified, and closed the case without the chief ever talking to the person who threw the punch.

That’s not a thorough investigation. That’s a decision made in advance. No one in the public buys it. 

I’ve done a ton of workplace disciplinary investigations. I’ve had more thorough investigations for a patient complaint about a workers “attitude” than what was done in this case. 

The chief said the officer’s conduct wouldn’t be referred to the District Attorney.

In the same breath, he said body camera footage couldn’t be released because it might interfere with a DA investigation.

So which is it?

There’s no review of the officer, but the case against the woman who was punched is enough to keep the footage hidden.

The result is simple. The officer faces no scrutiny, and the video stays out of public view. But honestly, the video we have seen tells a pretty compelling story if the fucking Iranian government is using it to point out our governments hypocrisy. 

And another thing - why isn’t the punch in the arrest report?

The arrest affidavit, sworn under oath by the officer, does not mention the punch.

Not a word.

The video exists. The department doesn’t dispute it. The chief didn’t deny it.

But the official report leaves it out.

That’s not a minor omission. That’s the official version of events contradicting what millions of people can see.

And the chief stood behind that version.

At a minimum, its lie of omission. 

After the press conference, a local station brought in a former El Paso police official to weigh in.

His conclusion matched the chief’s: the officer showed restraint, and the suspect escalated.

It wasn’t independent analysis as much as institutional validation.

I was disappointed on the lack of follow up question. 

No one pressed the chief on how an investigation was finished in eight days.

No one asked why he cleared an officer he hadn’t spoken to.

No one brought up the affidavit that leaves out the punch.

No one challenged his understanding of the law.

No one asked about prior cases, prior rulings, or the pattern they suggest.

Those aren’t obscure details. They’re the heart of the issue.

And they never came up.

Yeah, I know they were told that the press conference was about this particular incident, but honestly local media people, don’t bow down to the fucking institutions. Your job is to ASK the hard questions, not follow the instructions of the departments PR guy. 

This Isn’t About One Incident

This isn’t just about a single punch.

It’s about a pattern:

Force escalates after control is established.

Reports minimize what happened.

Internal reviews clear officers quickly.

Leadership defends the outcome.

Outside voices reinforce the same narrative.

Then it repeats.

The only time that cycle breaks is in federal court. And when it does, the city pays.

That’s already happened more than once.

The chief walked into a global controversy and chose to defend the system as it is.

Not review it. Not question it. Not slow it down.

Defend it.

So the question isn’t just what happened in that living room.

It’s bigger than that.

Who is holding the system accountable when the system says it did nothing wrong?