Podcast: Active Shooting Response Trainer Mike Willever on Mistakes in Uvalde

The more we learn about the law enforcement response to the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, the worse it looks.

After an initial exchange of fire with the shooter, police waited upwards of an hour to storm the room he was in and neutralize him. I’ve taken multiple active shooter training courses, and this response appears to go against everything people have been taught for decades. It also seems to have given the attacker the opportunity to kill more children.

But I wanted to bring on somebody even better versed in both active shooter response training and what it’s like to respond to a shooting in reality. That’s why Active Self Protection’s Mike Willever joined the show this week. He is a former federal agent who taught active shooter response training. He also once responded to a shooting as it was happening.

He was as exasperated by the response to Robb Elementary School as I was. Active shooter response training is not complicated, he said. You go to the threat as fast as you can and neutralize it before doing anything else.

Willever said, from what we know now, it does not make sense that leadership on the scene decided to treat the shooter as a barricaded suspect. When shots are still being fired, as they were in this case, there is no reason to wait. When there are injured victims trapped inside with the shooter, as they were in this case, there is no reason to wait.

There just isn’t an excuse for how law enforcement handled this. And there never will be.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the latest dismal financial release from the NRA.

You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here.

Video of the episode is also available on our YouTube channel.

Join For Sober, Serious Firearms Reporting & Analysis

Free Weekly Newsletter

Get the most important gun news

Reload Membership

$ 10 a Month
  • Weekly News & Analysis Newsletters
  • Access to Exclusive Posts
  • Early Access to the Podcast
  • Commenting Privileges
  • Exclusive Question & Answer Sessions

Reload Membership

$ 100 a Year
  • Two Months Free
  • Weekly News & Analysis Newsletter
  • Access to Exclusive Posts
  • Early Access to the Podcast
  • Commenting Privileges
  • Exclusive Question & Answer Sessions
Best Deal
Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019


Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019

Comments From Reload Members

2 Responses

  1. As for NRA spending once the NY judge shot down James effort to disolve the organization it seems to me the massive spending on legal is less about protecting the NRA and more protecting Wayne and his cronies. I have no desire to donate money to finance the defense of the guy who stole from me in the 1st place. He resigns/gets fired I’ll cut a check.

  2. Regarding the guest’s comments about “disobeying unlawful or immoral orders” at timestamp 18:50 or thereabouts, I have two observations.

    First, regarding “be accepting of discipline”. In reality, this may be naive due to group mentality of ‘diffusing responsibility’, basic psychology. As evidence #1: the routine NYPD harassment of a peer (in his own apartment) who testified to IA. Including confiscation of his home security feeds recording the events. Multiple clothed officers collaborated with blessing of their superior officers, whom they were protecting.

    Second, regarding “disobeying” in the first place. Citizens are openly mocked for threatening noncompliance with blatantly unconstitutional gun laws, as we already know — they’re the low-hanging fruit in the debate. Even if they are right on principle.

    They still need to put on “the fin” or “not a Thordsen stock” when going to the range; while complaining; or they will be ripped from their loved ones with felony charges. Police will still blindly enforce said laws citing “just following orders”. We haven’t reached NY SAFE act levels of civil disobedience/noncompliance just yet.

    As evidence #2: reports now emerge indicating an armed civilian at Uvalde, who wanted to storm the shooter, was held back and threatened with “being beat” by police officers. This isn’t merely *disobeying* illegal/immoral orders, aware of litigation consequences afterwards — but additionally being threatened and having to *use (lethal?) force against government authority* in order to defend life, liberty, property.

    That gets into the literal core of the Second Amendment, which philosophically and practically has been eviscerated and become practically meaningless. Posse comitatus — the polar opposite of a lone criminal. Yet they are treated just the same by government.

    Dismissing the entire concept of “good people of upstanding character may act for the common good during times of crisis”. The current prevailing philosophy is that only the opposite exists: “bad people of violent character who solely act in personal evil causing a crisis”.

    This is the root of the problem in my opinion: only acknowleding the existence one, while ignoring existence of the other.

Leave a Reply


Get your copy of our FREE weekly newsletter!