I was wondering if Chuck or some of the other SMEs would be willing to give any new insights on the last 5 years of active shooters. Have your thoughts changed at all?
Here's the article I'm referring to:
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/featu...featureID=3593
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Outstanding article.
Great read.
Not an SME but we are still trained to respond that if there is someone actively shooting the first responding officer is supposed to go by themselves.
I really liked this part of the article: "We as law enforcement officers need to have a clear idea of what the hierarchy of safety needs really is. Officer safety is NOT our first concern, if it were we would either hide out at the police station all day or, better yet, just stay home and not go to work. Police work is not about risk avoidance, it is about risk mitigation while also doing the job we have sworn to do. The hierarchy of needs is, and has always been, that the people we protect come first. We place ourselves in the line of fire to protect the citizens we serve, thus the victims of any crime and the bystanders on scene are the first and second priority of any police response. The safety of the officer is almost always the third place consideration.
With that philosophy in mind, I am a strong advocate for the single officer response as being a valid tactical response in some active-shooter situations. The history of modern active-shooters in the U.S. shows us that the shooter(s) will be killed by the responders, will give up, or will kill themselves when the first hint of tactical pressure is placed upon them. Although not all "shooter" incidents have worked out this way, the vast majority have fallen into one of the three typical end results."
As we saw in the other thread with the Westgate assault, I think that the template has been set for something like that to happen here. That type of incident here would get the same response that the usual 'active shooter' we have historically seen in the US but I think there would be no stop to the fight by the shooter...I think it would be an all out gun fight by the first responding officer(s)...I do not think there would be a suicide unless it involved a bomb attached to a suspect.
Last edited by KeeFus; 09-30-2014 at 10:40 AM.
The first time Chuck came on my radar was at last years Tactical Conference in Memphis. One of the seminars he gave was a very good presentation on active shooters. In my mind it marked him as a SME.
Chuck gets it, and this is the single best article on the subject I've read. If you are not willing to put your muzzle between the innocent and evil, you have no business wearing a badge. Your level of acceptable risk changes based on the severity of the threat to others.
There is no time to stand around during a murder in progress. It's a lot harder for someone to kill people when they are taking rounds and being pursued by the police.
Ditto.Originally Posted by MVS
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Just read the article and it's as dead on today as five years ago (and will be 50 years from now).
Chuck mentioned this in a Romper Room post about the new FBI study.
This is one of the reasons I wrote that article ref solo officer response to active-shooter incidents, and I often piss people off noting that one does not have time to jock up or form teams before getting to work.
I greatly appreciate the comments from everyone. It's always nice to get feedback, I'll take negative because it helps one grow, but I ain't gonna lie and say positive feedback isn't nice.
In the years since I wrote that article my opinion has only been strengthened on this subject. A trained good guy with a gun in the right place at the right time is the absolute best and quickest way to shut down an active-murderer.
Even in a Nairobi type scenario, think about what it would have done to the terrorists plans if they had started taking accurate pistol fire at the beginning when they attacked the outdoor cooking competition before they got into the mall itself. That would sure be a money wrench in the plan.
Superb article, and it was an honor to meet Chuck at the Rangemaster Advanced Instructor Development Course in Memphis.
Reply With Quote