On July 7, 2016, five Dallas police officers were killed while protecting a peaceful protest in one of the deadliest targeted attacks on law enforcement in modern U.S. history. A decade later, the profession continues to study not only what happened that night, but what has changed since.
We asked Police1 contributors to reflect on the lessons that still matter — from threat assessment and event security to community trust and preparing officers for the threats ahead.
Ten years after Dallas: The lesson that matters most
Ten years after the Dallas ambush murders, the most enduring lesson may not be tactical.
Agencies have rightly studied deployment strategies, threat recognition, active killer response and the use of robots in tactical situations. Those lessons matter. But the attack also underscored something else: the importance of strong relationships between police and the communities they serve. Trust, communication and engagement may not stop every determined attacker. But they help create communities that stand with officers rather than apart from them.
For over six decades, I have studied tragedies in high-risk industries, including my primary occupation in life: law enforcement. In any occupation, in any profession, in any tragedy, there is always a “proximate cause” — the event that instantly preceded the tragedy. But there are also “problems lying in wait” that people knew about or should have known about and no one did anything about it.
The Dallas ambush was not a spur-of-the-moment event. Investigators later determined the attack had been planned in advance, and the shooter had exhibited troubling behavior before July 7. Those warning signs, however, never translated into an intervention that prevented the attack.
Years ago, I read a study by the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium that stated most mass shooters in our nation exhibit warning signs before attacks. One piece of data in this writing floored me: 86% of the shooters told others, people they knew, of their “intent to kill” prior to the actual shooting.
However, there was a complete lack of communication between schools, law enforcement, mental health professionals and community members. Of particular interest, again in this same study, two-thirds of the shooters had prior contact with police personnel.
With this in mind, chiefs and sheriffs need to continue to emphasize the importance of community engagement. Currently, I serve as a professor at the University of Virginia in their Master of Public Safety program — and one of the core courses in this two year program is “Community Engagement.” Dr. Tracie Keecee is the brains behind this course and I asked her for a few “bullet points” that law enforcement executives need to be aware of to maximize the community-police relationship:
- Measure trust as intentionally as crime. Community trust should be treated as a key performance indicator. Conduct regular surveys, listening sessions and community assessments to understand whether residents feel comfortable reporting concerns before they become threats.
- Create multiple pathways for communication. Not everyone will call 911. Anonymous tip lines, trusted community intermediaries, faith leaders, neighborhood ambassadors, youth advocates and digital reporting tools provide alternative ways for community members to share concerns.
- Invest in relationships during calm periods. Trust cannot be built after a tragedy occurs. Chiefs should encourage officers to spend time in neighborhoods, schools, faith communities and local organizations when there is no immediate enforcement need.
Warning signs only matter if someone recognizes them, shares them and acts on them. That is why community trust is not a soft issue. It is part of prevention.
Today, we remember Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Michael Krol, Sergeant Michael Smith, Officer Brent Thompson and Officer Patricio “Patrick” Zamarripa — true heroes who died in the line of duty.
Perhaps there is something to “see something, say something.” We need community members throughout our great nation who are willing to do exactly that.
— Gordon Graham is a renowned risk management expert, attorney and co-founder of Lexipol who serves as a subject-matter expert for Police1.
Give planners permission to say the frightening thing
On July 7, 2016, a military-trained, ideologically motivated, death-accepting rifleman executed a direct-action ambush against uniformed officers providing security at a protest event in Dallas. He moved. He fired from multiple positions. He used the crowd for concealment and the confusion he created for cover. Five officers were killed.
We knew the threat environment was elevated that summer. We knew military veterans with anti-police ideology and access to weapons existed in most major cities. We knew large, publicly announced uniformed deployments created predictable target arrays. We knew all of that.
We didn’t act on it with urgency because doing so would have required a planning posture that generated friction, consumed resources nobody had requested and named out loud something too frightening to say in a planning meeting.
That silence is what I would change.
The single most important shift every law enforcement agency should make — and many still haven’t made — is this: institutionalize the practice of consequence-weighted threat assessment for every large public deployment and give the pre-event planning process permission to say the frightening thing.
Not a checkbox. Not a form. A genuine intelligence analysis of what is known about the threat environment, what is unknown and therefore must be named explicitly, and what the operational plan does — or does not — account for. Then ask the question most planning rooms avoid: If someone wanted to kill officers at this event, what would they do, and is our answer to that question visible anywhere in how we are deployed?
This is not paranoia. It is the disciplined application of what we already know to a scenario we hope never arrives.
The probability of an attack like Dallas is low. The consequence when it happens is catastrophic and irreversible. The conditions that enable it are often predictable. Planning that ignores consequence in favor of probability is not prudent — it is negligent.
The officers lost in ambush attacks deserved a planning process that asked the hard questions before the first shot was fired.
So do the officers we lead today.
— Robert J. King is Chief of Staff for Portland Police Bureau Chief Robert Day
| WATCH: Timeline: How the July 7, 2016 Dallas ambush unfolded
What Dallas still teaches about event security
This horrific tragedy is yet another one we should — and can — learn from. Here’s my advice: Be more concerned about behavior than objects. Please don’t take this as an indictment of the officers, supervisors or administration involved in that event. It’s simply a reminder that we should always try to do better.
Checkpoints: Many departments started utilizing checkpoints after this event. Checkpoints are mostly security theater. In this case, none were used (as far as I can tell), and they would have been no help to our fallen officers. They have many weaknesses. Everyone knows where they are. They require officers to be on guard at every moment, and a dedicated or deranged attacker will simply run right through them. Real safety enhancements need to happen before this very last, very thin layer of security — even when checkpoints are practical.
Advances: Know the area and control the places where a potential ambush could originate. Your advance team should think like an attacker and deny access to those areas. Control the space, control the outcome.
Drones: When well deployed, drones and surveillance can be excellent at locating potential threats and vulnerable locations, both during the advance and throughout the event.
Surveillance: Before and during the event, officers trained to recognize anomalous behavior should be assigned observation roles. Mere officer presence only helps deter low-level offenses. That doesn’t mean standing back-to-back “mean mugging” the citizenry. Walk around and talk to people. Not only will you build goodwill, but someone may feel comfortable enough to point out something they saw that concerned them. Officers with binoculars in elevated positions are the perfect complement to those on the ground.
Training: A lot of excellent training is available through FEMA’s National Training and Education Division, including:
- AWR-160-W: Terrorism Awareness for Emergency Responders
- MGT-335-W: Event Security Planning for Public Safety Professionals
- NCBRT AWR-219: Site Protection Through Observational Techniques (SPOT)
These online courses are tuition-free, and many more are available to law enforcement through this program.
Ten years later
Ten years later, the Dallas ambush reminds us that true protection comes from focusing on behavior, controlling key spaces and using training to build real readiness — not just the appearance of it.
— Warren Wilson is a captain, training commander and rangemaster with an Oklahoma metropolitan police department.
Better prepared, same commitment
Since five officers were killed by a lone gunman in Dallas, much has been attempted by the law enforcement profession to change the false anti-police narrative that fueled the hatred of the Dallas gunman. Most people never bought into the defund and defame police rhetoric, however some of those who spread that bile are still around and though their numbers are few, they are loud, aggressive and very prone to violence.
Since Dallas, law enforcement has continued in their overt efforts to reach out to and reflect the communities they serve.
One thing that has changed is the current generation of officers are much more prepared to prevent and to respond effectively to sudden acts of mass violence than ever before. They are given, the weapons, equipment and the training, to defeat the evil that lies hidden in our communities, waiting to suddenly strike without warning.
One thing that hasn’t changed. The law enforcement profession then and now is occupied by dedicated professionals, who still risk all to rush into places, where others dare not go.
— Lt. Dan Marcou is an internationally-recognized police trainer who was a highly-decorated police officer with 33 years of full-time law enforcement experience.
