Trust, Technology, and Training: The Triple Shield Against Blue-on-Blue Tragedies
Active shooter incidents are among the most complex public safety challenges local law enforcement agencies face today. These emergencies unfold rapidly, demand immediate decisions, and require coordinated efforts by multiple officers and units—often from different jurisdictions. The consequences of miscommunication or misidentification during such events can be devastating, especially considering the risk of "blue-on-blue" incidents, where officers inadvertently harm or confront each other. For professionals working in public safety, understanding the operational importance of deconfliction and the role of patrol officers in establishing early command is essential to building effective response strategies.
Blue-on-blue incidents are not theoretical concerns. They are real occurrences that have taken place during high-stress operations such as active shooter responses. According to a comprehensive analysis by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), these types of incidents often stem from a convergence of multiple officers at chaotic scenes, confusion about assignments, and a lack of shared situational awareness1. In some cases, officers have been shot by their colleagues who failed to recognize them as fellow law enforcement. These tragic events are frequently exacerbated when officers from different agencies respond without coordinated communication or identification protocols2.
Municipal management must take these risks into account when developing emergency response frameworks. Blue-on-blue incidents do not only endanger officers; they also threaten public trust and the credibility of law enforcement responses. A 2021 study published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice found that incidents involving friendly fire can diminish public confidence in law enforcement operations and create long-term reputational damage for the agencies involved3. Municipal leaders have a responsibility to ensure that local departments have both the training and structural systems in place to prevent such outcomes.
Deconfliction—the proactive process of ensuring officers are aware of each other’s identities, positions, and roles—is one of the most effective ways to reduce the likelihood of these incidents. It should be prioritized directly after the primary objective of stopping the active threat. While the shooter must be neutralized as the first step in any active response, deconfliction should be the next immediate focus. The idea that it can wait until the situation is completely resolved is a dangerous misconception.
A study by the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) emphasizes that deconfliction is fundamental to officer safety and operational success4. Establishing a shared operating picture through radio communication, visual identifiers such as vests or armbands, and dedicated command channels are essential tools that should be integrated into standard protocols. Municipal governments, through their oversight of local law enforcement funding and policy development, should require that departments invest in these systems and train officers accordingly.
Patrol officers, who are typically the first to arrive on scene, play a critical role in setting the tone and structure for the entire incident response. Their responsibilities go beyond immediate threat mitigation. These officers are often responsible for relaying initial information about the suspect, the layout of the scene, and the presence of civilians or other hazards. This foundational intelligence is critical for incoming units to establish a coordinated response, including command and control efforts5.
Public safety supervisors should recognize that first responders not only engage threats but also become the initial points of command. The early minutes of an active shooter event are typically chaotic, but the ability of patrol officers to provide concise, accurate updates can shape the effectiveness of the overall response. According to a 2020 publication in the Journal of Emergency Management, early communication from initial responders significantly reduces confusion and enhances situational awareness for incoming tactical teams6.
The integration of deconfliction protocols into this early phase is where municipal leadership can have the greatest impact. Budget allocations should prioritize interoperable communication systems that allow officers from different agencies to coordinate in real-time. This is especially important in urban regions with overlapping jurisdictions. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and real-time mapping software, for instance, can help track officer locations during a dynamic event, reducing the risk of friendly fire7.
In addition to technology, policy development and inter-agency agreements also play a crucial role. Municipal governments should facilitate joint training exercises that simulate active shooter responses, with a specific emphasis on deconfliction practices. These drills help standardize terminology, radio usage, and visual identification protocols across departments. A study conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) recommended that joint response protocols be reviewed annually and updated to reflect changes in personnel or operational procedures8.
Supervisory roles are also important in managing deconfliction. Once the immediate threat is neutralized, sergeants and lieutenants must quickly establish a formal command post and begin organizing resources. This includes verifying identities of all officers on scene, assigning zones of responsibility, and ensuring that all units are operating on the same communication frequency. Municipal managers can support these processes by ensuring that departments have access to mobile command units and personnel trained in incident command systems (ICS)9.
These operational improvements are not just about preventing blue-on-blue incidents; they also enhance the overall efficiency and professionalism of emergency responses. A coordinated response that avoids confusion reduces the time needed to secure a scene, treat victims, and restore public order. This has downstream effects on municipal recovery efforts, including crisis communication, community relations, and legal accountability.
The public safety community must treat blue-on-blue incidents as preventable tragedies that are within their sphere of influence. By prioritizing deconfliction immediately after stopping the threat, supporting patrol officers in their dual roles as responders and communicators, and investing in interoperable systems and joint training, municipal governments can dramatically improve the safety and effectiveness of active shooter responses. These efforts not only protect officers but also demonstrate a commitment to professionalism and preparedness that communities expect and deserve.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. “Preventing Blue-on-Blue Shootings.” IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, 2020.
Kaminski, Robert J., and Jeffrey Rojek. “Police-on-Police Shootings: A Review of the Literature.” Police Quarterly 17, no. 1 (2014): 69–96.
Klinger, David A., and Michael D. White. “Police Shootings and Citizen Behavior.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 46, no. 1 (2021): 1–22.
National Tactical Officers Association. “Active Shooter Response: Best Practices and Lessons Learned.” NTOA Training Resources, 2019.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. “The Role of Patrol Officers in Active Shooter Response.” U.S. Department of Justice, 2018.
Reaves, Brian A. “Coordination in Emergency Response: The Role of First Responders.” Journal of Emergency Management 18, no. 2 (2020): 45–59.
Smith, Thomas R., and Laura D. Andrews. “GIS Applications in Law Enforcement: Enhancing Officer Safety During Critical Incidents.” Journal of Urban Technology 27, no. 3 (2020): 101–117.
Uchida, Craig D., and Timothy S. Bynum. “Interagency Cooperation in Police Responses to Active Shooter Incidents.” Police Practice and Research 21, no. 6 (2020): 567–582.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Guide for Developing High-Quality Emergency Operations Plans for Houses of Worship.” Washington, DC: DHS, 2018.