In the meantime, veterans of law
enforcement are weighing in on
the controversial actions taken
by those police officers during
the shooting.
William has more on that.
Reporter: As we just heard,
those officials are being
harshly criticized for not
acting sooner to confront those
shooter and to potentially save
some of those children.
Actions they now admit were
wrong.
To help us better understand
what police should and should
not do in these awful
circumstances, I am joined by
Fred Fletcher, the retired
police chief from Chattanooga,
Tennessee and he also spent many
years as police commander in
Austin, Texas.
Thank you for being here.
You heard the timeline
investigators have played out.
19 armed police officers are in
the school outside the shooter
is locked in two rooms with
young students and there is this
punishingly long wait before
they go through that door and
confront him.
As a former police chief and
someone who has trained a lot of
officers, what is your reaction
>> I feel a great deal of grief
and my heart breaks for uvalde
and when I think of those 29
minutes in particular that
lapsed between the officers
stacking up outside that door,
shots being fired, and finally
breaching the door, the grief is
compounded by anger and shame
that we as a community has
allowed this violence to
continue on our children.
Reporter: The officials today
said that the local commander on
the scene felt this was a
barricade situation where there
shooter with simply hold up on
his own and their was not a
threat to others rather than an
active shooter situation where
there was a threat.
What do you make of that
distinction they are making?
>> I agree with the director.
It was the wrong decision and
there is no excuse.
I cannot say it better.
An active shooter has
demonstrated they have no
intention other than taking
lives and we know since
columbine in the late 1990's
that active shooter's are only
going to stop when we intervene
and stop them.
As first responders, -- go ahead
--
reporter: Please continue.
>> We have an obligation to have
a bias towards action.
Police officers regularly run
towards gunfire and we trained
in active shooting preparation
to engage and draw the attention
, emotion, energy and fire from
there shooter so we put
ourselves between violence and
those we are sworn to protect.
We have to have a bias towards
action and those decisions need
to be left to the men and women
on the scene who have the
information and not to a
commander who is off the scene
and receiving delayed
information.
Reporter: One of the most
haunting aspects of this, this
horrendous circumstance, is that
we know that while those
officers are outside the room,,
the children inside the room are
saying 2911, we can hear the
police, please tell them to come
in.
That seems to be a tremendous
breakdown in communication that
that was not related to the
officers outside the room.
>> Clearly, there are many
questions about communication
and passing of information and
that is why we need to train,
empower and trust the officers
on the scene of the violence to
make the decisions to protect
our neighbors.
They need to know they are
empowered and supported in
intervening and engaging and
taking the bias towards action
so they can engage a shooter, a
violent perpetrator and keep
them from harming our neighbors.
Reporter: You have said that
should be the bias in all of
police training.
Is that what officers are
trained -- if you go through
active shooter training, is this
a nationally understood
situation that in those cases
you do not wait for backup or
the swat team.
You have to act.
>> We are literally taught and
we teach that whether there is
one or 100 of you, you move
toward the sound of gunfire and
place yourself between violence
and the innocent.
That is our job.
That is our fundamental
obligation.
It is a way we train and the way
we deploy.
Reporter: And what if there are
circumstances -- we understand
there were a lot of wounded
children and we also understand
that police were trying to
evacuate or at least that is
what they were telling parents
that were being restrained
outside that there were
evacuations going on as well.
How are police supposed to
prioritize those in the midst of
the circumstances?
>> Not an uncommon situation,
William.
Again, the bias is towards
engaging the threat.
You stop a threat because you
have a perpetrator who has
demonstrated a desire to kill as
many people as possible so the
number one priority is always
engaging the threat, intervening
and eliminating the threat.
Often you are able to do
multiple things at once if you
have enough resources.
You can evacuate, stage and
treat simultaneously in an
active shooter situation, a bias
and intent and priority have to
be put towards eliminating the
act of threat.
Reporter: As you well know is a
former police chief, we are a
nation that is awash in
high-powered, lightweight, very
dangerous semiautomatic rifles.
Officers in the hallway had to
know what they were up against.
This is not to excuse their
What do you think that concern
that they may be up against
weaponry that is perhaps more
powerful than what they were
carrying, do you think that
factored into this as well?
>> I think that if police
officers are going to be
deterred and intimidated by
violent perpetrators carrying
weapons of war, then we as a
community should commit
ourselves to doing something so
people cannot kill our children
with these weapons of war.
I am ashamed that we as a
community and our elected
officials have sat on the
sideline so that our children
from sandy hook to today in
uvalde are being killed either
these weapons of war.
There is a majority of Americans
concerned.
On the impact and availability
of these chip -- of these
weapons on our children.
Reporter: That is former police
chief Fred Fletcher.
Tweet -- thank you for being
with us tonight.