New information about Walmart mass shooting emerges in recently released evidence
As captured on store cameras, she approaches him, says something, and he shrugs as if he doesn't understand. She appears to laugh, clasps her hands together, then thrusts them upward three times, signaling she needed help getting something out of her reach.
They walk together down the aisle where she had been, and a set of hands is seen on store video reaching to the top shelf. The man walks back to the display area where he had been standing, once again looking at the phone as he settles near another display. The woman heads off in a different direction.
Every day in El Paso, people feel safe in approaching a stranger for a small favor that is quickly granted, momentarily brightening the lives of both.
This was no act of kindness.
It was 9:13 a.m. Saturday, Aug. 3, 2019, at the Walmart next to Cielo Vista Mall. The man in the black T-shirt was 21-year-old Patrick Crusius. On his phone was a manifesto he had recently written vowing to stop the 'Hispanic invasion of Texas,' which he would soon post to an internet site frequented by white supremacists. (The woman who approached him spoke to Crusius only in Spanish, his attorney, Joe Spencer, told El Paso Matters.)
At 10:38 a.m., just over 80 minutes after retrieving something for the shopper in need, Crusius reentered the Cielo Vista Walmart with a Romanian-made AK-47-style semiautomatic rifle he purchased from the internet weeks earlier. By the time he left the Walmart a final time, 23 people lay dead or dying, another 22 had wounds they would carry for life, and El Paso was changed forever.
The basic elements of El Paso's darkest day are well-established. Crusius has pleaded guilty in both federal and state courts to the deadliest hate-driven attack against Hispanics in U.S. history. He will die in prison.
But because Crusius never faced trial, El Paso knows little about what investigators learned as they tried to piece together the gunman's motives, and what transpired that day.
State and federal laws generally allow law enforcement and prosecutors to keep secret such evidence before criminal cases conclude. With the criminal cases now ended, some of what investigators learned is being made public.
The Texas Department of Public Safety – which assisted in the investigation – recently released a trove of video and photographs from the Walmart mass shooting investigation to Interrogation Files, an Arkansas-based YouTube channel that specializes in videos of law enforcement questioning of people accused of crimes. Interrogation Files requested the records from DPS under the Texas Public Information Act.
Interrogation Files published a video released by DPS that includes two El Paso police detectives questioning Crusius less than three hours after the shooting. The video released by DPS shows almost two hours of questioning by the detectives. An interrogation by FBI agents later that day was not included in the videos released by DPS.
DPS also provided Interrogation Files with extensive videos from cameras inside and outside the Walmart, as well as crime scene photos by law enforcement. Interrogation Files agreed to share the materials received from DPS with El Paso Matters.
El Paso Matters reviewed the video and images released by DPS and will not publish or describe graphic material. But we are sharing some of what is contained in the evidence to deepen public understanding of the attack.
The information released by DPS includes two separate videos of El Paso police detectives Fred Hernandez and Adrian Garcia interrogating Crusius on the afternoon of Aug. 3, 2019, hours after the shooting. The first video is about 58 minutes long and the second is 57 minutes.
On the video, Crusius waived his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present for questioning.
DPS also released a 36-minute video produced by the FBI that stitches together recordings from Walmart cameras from the moment that Crusius' 2012 Honda Civic is first seen approaching the store parking lot until he drives away after the shooting one hour and 46 minutes later.
The store cameras captured Crusius mercilessly gunning down people as he approached the Walmart, as he entered the store, as he moved through, and as he exited.
Before the shooting, Crusius went inside the Walmart and walked around for about 30 minutes, bought a bag of oranges and ate at least one, and sat in his car for almost an hour.
Five minutes before the attack, he drove his car through a sidewalk to reach a parking space on the southwest side of the building. Crusius left two minutes later to seek another parking spot, where he began his assault.
During the interrogation, Crusius gave a different explanation of his motive than he provided in the manifesto he posted online shortly before the shooting. In the manifesto, he highlighted a series of racist beliefs and said his attack was meant to stop 'the Hispanic invasion of Texas.'
The information released by DPS includes two separate videos of El Paso police detectives Fred Hernandez and Adrian Garcia interrogating Crusius on the afternoon of Aug. 3, 2019, hours after the shooting. The first video is about 58 minutes long and the second is 57 minutes.
On the video, Crusius waived his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present for questioning.
DPS also released a 36-minute video produced by the FBI that stitches together recordings from Walmart cameras from the moment that Crusius' 2012 Honda Civic is first seen approaching the store parking lot until he drives away after the shooting one hour and 46 minutes later.
The store cameras captured Crusius mercilessly gunning down people as he approached the Walmart, as he entered the store, as he moved through, and as he exited.
Before the shooting, Crusius went inside the Walmart and walked around for about 30 minutes, bought a bag of oranges and ate at least one, and sat in his car for almost an hour.
Five minutes before the attack, he drove his car through a sidewalk to reach a parking space on the southwest side of the building. Crusius left two minutes later to seek another parking spot, where he began his assault.
During the interrogation, Crusius gave a different explanation of his motive than he provided in the manifesto he posted online shortly before the shooting. In the manifesto, he highlighted a series of racist beliefs and said his attack was meant to stop 'the Hispanic invasion of Texas.'
But under questioning by the two El Paso police detectives, he gave another reason for the attack on a store crowded on a Saturday morning with predominantly Hispanic and Mexican shoppers: 'I guess I was bullied in high school by Mexicans.'
Crusius repeatedly told the officers that the reasons for his attack could be found in his manifesto, which was a 2,300-word screed that praised a previous white supremacist killer and said immigration was a threat to white people.
But during the interrogation, he also returned to the bullying theme, which was not mentioned in the manifesto.
'That's the real reason. I rationalize in different ways. That sounds pathetic to say that's really why I killed a bunch of people. But, yeah, that's it.'
Crusius was calm throughout the interrogation, but his left leg shook visibly and his statements were often muddled. He confused El Paso and San Antonio at one point.
He said he posted the manifesto, which is replete with racist tropes, because 'I just didn't want people thinking I was a white supremacist. That's why I posted it, really.'
As Crusius' criminal cases wound through the courts, his attorneys said he had a lengthy history of mental illness. He told his interrogators that he had long held violent thoughts and said he stopped seeing a therapist because he didn't think it was working. He also said he was on the autism spectrum.
In the interrogation, Crusius said he couldn't sleep the night of Aug. 2, 2019, so he left his grandparents' house in the Dallas suburb of Allen, where he was living, and headed for El Paso.
'I mean, I just had violent thoughts, and I've been battling them for a long time. Yesterday, I mean, I didn't think I'd actually do it, but you know, yesterday I started having really violent thoughts and the next day I just drove and did it.'
He brought the AK-47 rifle he had recently purchased, and ammunition he said he had begun accumulating before he bought the gun.
He said he chose to make the 10-hour drive to El Paso because it was far away from the Dallas area, where his parents and grandparents lived. Of El Paso, Crusius said, 'I had no idea where it was.' He used a map on his phone to make his way from North Texas.
When he got to El Paso, he got lost in a neighborhood, Crusius told the detectives. He was hungry, so he looked for a Walmart. The Cielo Vista Walmart was the first one listed on his phone search.
During the interrogation, Crusius said he acted alone in the attack.
'I don't have any friends,' he told Hernandez and Garcia.
Store security cameras show Crusius' Honda Civic arriving at about 8:56 a.m. Aug. 3, 2019, and he parked a minute later. (The time stamp of 9:56 a.m. on the Walmart security cameras was an hour later than the actual time in El Paso, the FBI said in the intro to the video it created from store camera footage.) Crusius had been driving for about 10 hours.
He walked into the Walmart at 8:59 a.m. through the grocery entrance. No uniformed security officers are evident in the video. Crusius walked through the store without engaging with store staff or customers. At 9:02 a.m., he went into a restroom at the front of the store and was off camera for 8 minutes and 13 seconds.
When he emerged, he drank from a water fountain for six seconds, then resumed walking through the store.
Crusius seemed to avoid contact with others. While walking in an aisle and looking at his phone, he reversed direction when he looked up and saw two men coming toward him. He proceeded down the next aisle to his right.
Shortly after he reappeared in the camera's view, a woman pushing a shopping cart can be seen coming behind him, then turning up another aisle.
This was the woman shopper who approached Crusius to seek his assistance reaching something on a top shelf. It was his only interaction with another human being captured on video while he was inside the store.
Crusius walked out of the store at 9:20 a.m. without purchasing anything. He went to his car, opened the door, then closed it without getting in. He walked back to the Walmart, reentering at 9:23 a.m.
He headed to the produce section and picked up a bag of oranges. Crusius used a card to pay at a self-checkout machine, pacing for 15 seconds as the payment was processed. He then exited the store a second time at 9:26 a.m.
Crusius went on and off camera over the next few minutes, but was captured on video eating an orange in the entryway.
He left the Walmart again at 9:30 a.m., carrying the bag of oranges in his left hand. Crusius walked to his car, got in, and sat there for 56 minutes and 10 seconds. Investigators determined that he posted his manifesto from his phone to the internet during this period, at 10:20 a.m.
At 10:28 a.m., a group appeared to unload groceries in the car parked next to Crusius. He drove forward, turned south and then west, and parked for another three minutes in the same aisle.
Crusius then drove forward and turned north toward the store. He then turned west on the road in front of the Walmart before turning north again at the end of the store, driving across a sidewalk near several people and into a parking spot next to a minivan on the west side of the store.
No one, including store security, appeared to have approached Crusius after his reckless move, though the vehicle was largely out of camera view for 35 seconds. It was perhaps the last chance to stop a mass killer before his attack.
Officials with Walmart, which is facing multiple civil suits stemming from the attack, did not respond to questions from El Paso Matters about security at the Cielo Vista store the day of the attack.
Crusius can be seen on store video briefly walking between the driver's side of his car and the driver's side of a minivan parked next to him, and put something over his shoulders. Subsequent video would show it was a pouch containing ammunition magazines.
At 10:35 a.m., he pulled forward and turned in front of the Walmart once again. He weaved through the parking lot before pulling into a spot that faced the midpoint of the store just before 10:37 a.m.
He exited the car, popped the trunk, and put on shooting earmuffs before pulling out his rifle.
'I can't shoot that thing without ear protection, period. It disorientates me. It makes me feel sick,' he told police a few hours later.
At 10:38 a.m., Crusius slammed his trunk shut, put the AK-47 to his shoulder, began walking toward the Walmart, and fatally shot his first victim – a 58-year-old woman who had just turned her shopping cart toward him in the parking lot – 14 seconds after raising his weapon. He headed toward the grocery entrance where minutes earlier he had eaten an orange as shoppers went in and out.
Crusius continued firing inside the store for almost three minutes before exiting a final time and heading back to his car. Hours later, he would tell police he didn't expect the attack would last as long as it did.
'I thought there would be somebody shooting back.'
He pulled out of the parking space at 10:42 a.m. He later told police he tried to call 911 to surrender after he drove away, but couldn't get through. He was driving back to the Walmart about 20 minutes after leaving when he saw law enforcement vehicles about a block from the store and surrendered to two Texas Rangers and an El Paso police officer.
When detectives asked him during the interrogation what he planned to do as he drove away after the shooting, Crusius said: 'I mean, I just had to get away. I don't … It was so nasty.'
But even as he walked away from the carnage he left in the Walmart, Crusius fired on a car passing in front of the store, killing a 77-year-old man and wounding his wife. They were his final victims.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jury awards over $240 million in damages against Tesla in Autopilot crash lawsuit
A Florida jury on Friday ordered Tesla to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the victims of a 2019 fatal crash involving its Autopilot driver assist technology. The verdict which comes after a four-year long case could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric car company. A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves. (FRANCE 24 with AP)
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'


New York Times
6 minutes ago
- New York Times
Judges Keep Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Arrests, in Setback for Trump Agenda
The Trump administration's agenda suffered another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision that temporarily halts federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's finding that the raids appeared to exclusively rely on a person's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. The administration's immigration raids have stirred protests and fear for many Latinos across the city, its suburbs and agricultural regions. The panel's decision merely allows a temporary restraining order that had been imposed by the lower court to remain in place. It curtails, for now, the far-reaching operations that began in June as the case proceeds through the courts. Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she weighs a longer-lasting order known as a preliminary injunction. In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke and where they lived or worked. Civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.