New Paragraph

OpEd: Police response to Texas school shooting was failure of epic proportions
July 19, 2022
Police walk near Robb Elementary School following a shooting

I don’t profess to be an expert in anything in life but I do have a firm handle on the various aspects of policing, some more than others. As I provide analysis on “public safety” matters for Bell Media television and radio stations, I simply apply my decades of experience to the circumstances presented and provide commentary. I always assume that I don’t have the complete facts and/or assumptions that the police officers faced when they went into a scenario. I just attempt to bring context to the big picture – including a variety of possible factors that we may or may not know at a given point in time - and try to present those thoughts in a balanced way. Inevitably some will view my opinion as being too harsh or not critical enough in many situations. I accept that, but it is my opinion.

I spent most of my police career in leadership roles within the Tactical Operations and Major Crime Investigation areas of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). I was a member of those units, sections and bureaus at all ranks in my career, from constable up to the highest senior executive levels and then overall as commissioner. Most of my media interviews involve investigative and tactical matters. I’m not claiming to be an expert in these areas, but I do know this stuff well.

The horrific mass murder at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas was beyond comprehension to everyone from the beginning. To most, it was also impossible to understand what appeared to be a slow and confusing police response that elicited many more questions than answers. Believe me, it’s also been difficult for many current or retired law enforcement personnel to rationalize the response – including me.

By way of background, ‘Tactical teams’ are groups of several to a dozen or so police officers that are highly trained and equipped to respond to high-risk events – like a barricaded person (lone gunman in a building); sniper; and/or hostage situation occurrences. Generally, they are committed to that work fulltime for a number of years and they are good at what they do.

I was a member of the London OPP Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) in the early 1980s and became the team leader in the mid 1980s. Then after working in major crime for several years, I was assigned to amalgamate all the OPP emergency response units under one bureau and was put in-charge of all the tactical units. We had hundreds of professionals responding to hundreds of dangerous calls in an immense and evolving landscape, 24/7. I saw a lot of changes over those years.

From the early days of tactical units in the 60s and 70s, the uniformed officers first on scene of a gun call would contain the situation; gather information; evacuate surrounding areas and await the arrive of the tactical team. Negotiations would be established, and tactical assault plans developed in the event that the shooter started to kill hostages. Then only tactical team members would enter the building until proven safe. If there were no hostages, the old “time, talk and tear gas” approach remained the most appropriate response.

But prior to the late 90s, “active shooters” in public places like theatres, concerts and schools were few and far between. In fact, the first one that really sticks out in my mind was in Columbine, Colorado in 1999. Before that tragedy, gunmen rampaging through public places and shooting numerous unknown potential victims wasn’t a big concern. The contain and negotiate approach still made total sense until then.

After Columbine and a few similar events, including the killing of several Amish girls at a rural schoolhouse in Pennsylvania in 2006, police developed an approach whereby uniformed officers would be trained and equipped to respond immediately during an active shooter situation to “stop the killing” and “stop the dying”, rather than wait for command personnel and tactical teams to respond. The belief was that a small team of officers (three or four, or less if necessary), with or without the presence of a supervisor, could aggressively move directly towards the sound of gunfire and neutralize the suspect to prevent the shooting of more victims and to save those already wounded. Although the name of the program varied here and there, it generally became known as Immediate Rapid Response (IRD). Some police departments also equipped police cruisers with additional “breaching” equipment to assist in forcing open fortified doors to enable access to the shooter and save precious time.


From a command perspective, the senior ranking officer on scene, which may only be a sergeant, assumes command of a gun call operation, which may include roadblocks; aviation; canine; explosive disposal; hostage negotiators and more. Eventually a more senior officer will attend that has been trained to command these incidents, to varying degrees depending on the size of the department and their resources. Each unit within the response group most often has a supervisor of the unit (tactical, negotiation, etc.) and they each report up to the incident commander. There should never be any doubt as to who the overall commander is.


After-action debriefings are held and documented after every operation so command/control, policy, equipment, communication and training issues can be improved going forward. On occasion that may include command and communication flaws being identified that necessitates personnel changes being made – including incident commanders.


Uvalde was an “Active Shooter” incident and not a barricaded person or hostage situation. Officers entered that school shortly after the shooter and videos show that shots were fired by the killer while they were in the building. They knew where he was. They knew children were dead and likely more were injured and dying on the floor. Police were even talking to hiding children by cell phone. This was NOT a situation where police could afford to waste another minute waiting for a full tactical team response and or to negotiate with the gunman. It required an IRD response, and they had more than enough personnel to do it. Yes, it would be high-risk, and some officers could be injured or killed. That’s awful but protecting and saving lives is what police do. That’s their primary responsibility. There are varying reports regarding the IRD training status of the officers from the several agencies that were represented, but I cannot imagine that they weren’t in my wildest dreams. An IRD should have occurred within minutes.

The chief of the district school police department was on scene and it was his jurisdiction. He doesn’t believe he was in charge. Who did he think was? Life or death decisions needed to be made in the best interests of those children and direction given to the officers there. The leader of the police of jurisdiction is always in-charge unless an agreement exists to have someone with more expertise take over, and if so, that is widely communicated. In the Uvalde tragedy there was a complete void of leadership.


State Police; Border Patrol; Sheriff’s Office and other police agencies had officers in that school. When the lack of leadership became apparent, somebody needed to step up and take charge but no one did. How many more hours would it have taken before a real leader said ‘enough, you guys cover here, here and here, and Billy, Caren, Fred and I are going in.”


It’s apparent that no plan existed for responding to such calls at schools in that district. Therefore, plans weren’t exercised, regularly updated and communicated to all players. That was a tremendous shortcoming.


There was obviously a total lack of operational communication. The chief that should have been in command didn’t even know who was in charge. The video of the officers in the hall as the classroom door was breached, showed an obvious reaction of surprise that would indicate that they didn’t know the breaching was even occurring until it did. That it itself is pretty telling.


The entire police response was a failure of epic proportions.


On July 17th the Texas House Committee Review members declared that “the entirety of law enforcement…shares systemic responsibility…” and I absolutely agree.



I hope that more in-depth studies will be conducted by experts and panels at various levels in Texas, and that additional details and comprehensive recommendations emerge. They must.

Because in my view from afar, law enforcement failed the children, the teachers, families, the community, and the law enforcement profession on that fateful day. Something has to change there and all jurisdictions need to reflect on and learn from those mistakes.

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

By Chris Lewis • June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

By Chris Lewis • February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

By Chris Lewis • January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.