New Paragraph

The Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump – A Colossal Security Failure
July 22, 2024

Elite assassin, complex plot or security failure?

Trump Photo: PTI - Business Standard



I am not a conspiracy theorist. Far from it. But I am inherently suspicious by nature and always try to look beyond the reported “facts” and dig deeper into what some might readily accept as obvious conclusions. 36 years in policing will do that to a person.


Full disclosure – I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. But as a former President he deserves proper US Secret Service protection.


I am old enough to remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the decades of conspiracies and hearings that followed. I thought about that controversy in the hours and days after a shot was fired at the former President in Pennsylvania last week. I also considered the experience gained through my years involved in hundreds of operations, including providing security to elected officials at all levels; the Royal Family; U.S. Presidents and other international leaders.


Yes, I am an armchair quarterback. That’s my current role. But I am one with years of experience in various capacities, including as a member of a tactical team; a military trained police sniper; a tactical team leader; and the Commander of all the OPP’s tactical resources in Ontario. I understand all the facets of operational planning – including command and control; contingency planning; resource deployment; communications; and on and on. I lived and breathed this stuff for many years of my career, at all levels. But what I saw occur on July 13th in Butler, Pa. was far from in-keeping with my expectations of the U.S. Secret Service.


I realize that the Secret Service cannot do it all. They do have overall responsibility for the security of the event and for the protection of the President however. The Agent in-Charge of the event determines where the inner perimeter begins and ends, and ensures the Secret Service is responsible for security within it.


But as you draw concentric circles and levels of security away from the President, they must rely on state and local police to supply various levels of protection, including lower-level tactical support; uniformed officer presence; and traffic control.  


‘Who does what’ and levels of accountability would be clearly delineated in the event’s Operational Plan, as well as reporting/communication channels established. The leaders of all the involved agencies would eventually sign-off on the final plan.


At any rate, in my view, a building with a largely flat roof and a clear view, 130 yards away from the stage where the President will be speaking, should be within the inner perimeter and under Secret Service control. The average deer hunter is able to shoot a man-sized target with a basic hunting rifle equipped with open sights at that range, so a person with a scoped rifle should be quite capable of striking a human head quite easily at that distance. That is not a location that should be staffed by local police from small-town USA. It should have been secured in a way that in which law enforcement would be on that roof – and not assassins.


Early reports indicate that some local officers were positioned inside that building, but I’m not sure what their role was. Others were reportedly on foot patrol in that area. None were on top of the building. Further reports suggest that local police were aware that there was a man with a gun trying to get on that roof for 20 minutes before shots were fired. What was communicated to the Secret Service at that point is still not publicly known.


Communication is always key and preferably all involved officers would be on the same radio channel, but the Command Centre would have personnel monitoring every police channel, real-time. The time between an officer at that site yelling “man with a gun” into their radio, to Secret Service rapidly moving the former President to safety, should be a matter of seconds.


I’m certain that Secret Service Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) dictate that when an armed threat is perceived within the inner perimeter, agents must remove the President from the threat without hesitation. The President is no longer in charge, his protectors are. Their job is to get him low to the ground to minimize his target-profile and extract him as quickly as possible, including by force if necessary. He’d be given the “Bum’s Rush” so to speak.


When Ronald Reagan was shot on a street in Washington DC in 1981, there was no fanfare. He was shoved into a vehicle hard and fast, and the vehicle sped off. He wasn’t allowed to find his shoes. He didn’t get to stand completely upright for the shooter or another assailant to finish the job while pumping his fist triumphantly.


When shots were fired at Trump, he should have been treated the exact same way – down and out of danger. Very little was known at that point and there could have been multiple snipers carrying out a coordinated-fire attack. And it’s important to note that even if the agents knew with some certainty that there was only one shooter and he had been neutralized, they should never have allowed Trump to attain a fully upright and unprotected position, for a photo-op of him raising his fist in victory like he was guerilla leader Che Guevera.


About 30 seconds passed between agents getting him on his feet until he was off the stage. That is insanity and seemed to simply be contrived showmanship by a very slightly wounded former TV star.


During his speech to the RNC days later, Trump stated: “…felt something hit me really, really hard on my right ear”. The reality is that velocity of a 5.56 round should be just shy of 3000 feet per second, at 130 yards. But the bullet barely cut his ear and the wound didn’t even require stitches. Any real impact would have caused significant damage to his entire head that he would not have walked away from. Just the velocity of a high-powered rifle bullet passing so closely by his ear would normally cause immediate disorientation and temporary hearing impairment. The fact that we didn’t see that concerns me, but strange things happen that are unexplainable at times.


I also find it odd that Trump could be on a public stage less than a week later, giving a speech with his ear covered by a strange gauze pad that looked like a tiny pillow, versus a typical bandage. More showmanship?


I do not support the theory posed by some that this was an event staged by Republicans for election support purposes. My God, an innocent man was killed, and others injured. But I can see how some could perceive it that way, given the timing, the theatrics, the history of the players involved and the security failures.


I also don’t believe the other ridiculous allegations that Joe Biden tried to have his political rival killed. How stupid. I don’t think the 20-year-old assassin that failed in his assassination attempt was a member of Seal Team 6.


I am confident the FBI investigation into the event will tell us ‘who did what to whom and why’ over the coming weeks. I’m also certain that this was an epic failure by the Secret Service and some partner agencies.

Reporters keep asking me what the Secret Service needs to do differently to provide adequate protection to those they are sworn to protect. The answer is simple: They have been doing this for years and they have a ‘playbook’. Go back to the playbook. Do what you’ve always done. Follow your SOPs and contingency plans and training, but don’t be afraid to amend them as new challenges emerge. Exercise your plans regularly. Make sure all the checkboxes in the plan are ticked before the POTUS walks on stage. If there’s a location where you’re afraid a bad guy with a gun can shoot from – put a good guy with a gun there. If something bad happens, follow the playbook and get him/her out of danger, without stopping for a photo-op. Let other agents neutralize the threat.


Over the coming weeks, involved agencies will be forced to paint a more accurate picture of what went wrong. They’ve been pretty quiet so far. Some officials will undoubtedly lose their jobs and conspiracy theories will emerge and flourish every which way. Trump will continue to make hay with the fact that he was ‘wounded in action’.


But the bottom-line that emerges for me, as all the finger-pointing and theories unfold, is this: an innocent person died; a bad-guy died; others were wounded; security failed; and a former US President deserved much better protection.

 

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.