Rapid mass murder in-progress, aka Active-Shooter response

[Chuck Haggard]

Today seemed like a good day for me to revisit this subject.

The linked article is a few years old, but nothing in the mean time has caused me to change my opinion that the only historically proven way to stop a rapid mass murder in progress is for a solo good guy, be they "civilian" or cop, to start shooting back as soon as possible.

http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

[Beat Trash]

"Police work is not about risk avoidance, it is about risk mitigation while also doing the job we have sworn to do."

Chuck, excellent article that is as relevant today as when you wrote it.

When it comes to an active shooter incident, I feel that sometimes the most effective way to mitigate the risk while stopping the violence is through aggressive and decisive action. The age old mantra of, "Speed, Surprise, and violence of action" may be the most appropriate response.

I read of the shooting incident in Charleston. The shooter allegedly reloaded five times, all the while talking to the soon to be victims. As I read the news reports, my first thought was that if only one individual in the church would have been armed, had some training and had the resolve to intervene, things could have been different.

I am a LEO and carry whenever I am able to do so. If I ever find myself off-duty and on the scene of an active shooting incident, I am not naive enough to automatically assume I will prevail against an unknown number of shooters. I do know that I would rather die on my feet, trying to stop the incident, than to die on my knees, helpless.

Now more than ever, if you have the legal ability to carry a weapon, I feel you have the moral duty to do so.

[Hambo]

"Police work is not about risk avoidance, it is about risk mitigation while also doing the job we have sworn to do."


They should tattoo this on you in the academy so you never forget it. But civilians need to man up as well. Waiting for help is just waiting to die. The only chance you have is to get in the fight.

[voodoo_man]

While it is the officers job to respond, it has been proven over and over that a citizen who carries will be able to engage and stop the murderer(s) short.

This is a responsibility that falls on all able-bodied citizens. If you can carry, you should.

[41magfan]

It's my understanding that churches in SC are off-limits for citizen carry unless specifically granted by a church official; perhaps they'll rethink that mindless prohibition in light of this incident.

I'm continually amazed at the number of reasonably intelligent people who really believe that the police (or any agent of government) can keep them safe or protect them from a random act of violence.

This incident became local news for me this morning when Dylann Roof - who has no known ties or connections to this area - was captured only 6 or 7 miles from where I live by the agency where I started my LE career. It's a small world, indeed.

[TumblinDown]

It's my understanding that churches in SC are off-limits for citizen carry unless specifically granted by a church official; perhaps they'll rethink that mindless prohibition in light of this incident.

Why wait? I think the answer is already there. Many large churches have security teams, often armed. I'd guess more than a few are [re-]considering it today.

[Chuck Haggard]

While the title of that article was "Single Officer...", which happened because I was pushing the idea back then for exactly that type of response and training, "civilians"/CCW folks/etc. are clearly first responders in such a case of they are on scene and LE is not. There was a lot of backlash in LE circles about solo officer response being "unsafe", which is simply bullshit. It's unsafe to go to work, make car stops, go to domestics,........ we do what we gotta do, if one is an LEO and unwilling to be involved in things like this they need to resign immediately.

Note that some of my solo responder incidents were CCW folks, that gal in the church incident in Colorado being an example.

Even if unarmed, acting may work, as in this case;
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/police_courts_fire/article_0a5c0423-8548-5456-9785-5b964bd26279.html

[45dotACP]

In these cases, it may seem wise to assume the shooter is armored. Any tips from LEOs about what to do against an armored spree killer?

[Kyle Reese]

In these cases, it may seem wise to assume the shooter is armored. Any tips from LEOs about what to do against an armored spree killer?

Shot placement in the high CNS / ocular triangle. (Not a LEO)

[voodoo_man]

In these cases, it may seem wise to assume the shooter is armored. Any tips from LEOs about what to do against an armored spree killer?

In these instances the murderer will be looking for LEO's (uniforms) to shoot at. You, as a concealed carrying citizen will have the element of surprise.

So force and space are on your side, use them wisely.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

After Columbine, a deputy chief friend defended the officers waiting outside (yes, I know many wanted to enter but were prevented by higher ups who were paralyzed. Same thing happened at the Kenya Mall). The chief said that the priority was for the officers to come home safe, thus perimeters and staging were appropriate.

Chuck indicates well that among many, that attitude as changed.

As far as civilians - you have two (probably more mindsets). One is that the civilian is helpless to fight - esp. using firearms as having one buys into the paradigm of violence. That is abhorrent and all guns should be banned. The NY Times denounced Charles Cotton, an excellent advocate in TX, for suggesting that a gun ban in the SC church prevented self-defense. That no conceivable ban (as Obama said) could be implemented escapes them - as if it would work anyway.

The second problem I see, is part of the civilian world who is not wanting to step up and train with their gun. They assume they are natural warriors even in extreme stress. They play into the mantra of you will shoot an innocent. Psych hat - there is a moral heuristic that killing an innocent, even to save innocents, is not acceptable. I have friends who carry a Taurus snubby or an LCP and are good to go in an emergency. Maybe they would be but having folks who can demonstrate competency might help in the debates. I've been told by not gun friendly folk that they would be OK with me carrying at work as they know I'm serious but they are not comfortable with the other right wing old fart (who I've seen shoot and he ain't that hot).

I understand that folks would rather eliminate the instruments of violence to save lives rather than having to pick one up and train to use it. However, that is not reality given human history.

[TGS]

In these instances the murderer will be looking for LEO's (uniforms) to shoot at. You, as a concealed carrying citizen will have the element of surprise.

So force and space are on your side, use them wisely.

AMIS would probably a good primer for citizens interested in intervening as such.

Personally, while I will forever commend anyone who decides to intervene and try to stop an attacker....I do not feel it's my place to locate, close with and destroy the enemy as a single CCW'er. If I was a cop with clearly marked body armor, a raid jacket.....or with an individual that has one of those....then yes. From what I've read, it's simply too much of a cluster fuck, and asking to get smoked, to have unidentified individuals running around trying to locate the threat.

I'd certainly be interested in training for such, in the event I happen to have a raid jacket or marked body armor in my car when an active shooter situation happens.

Note: my comments are not in reference to a CCW'er engaging a threat that has presented itself. I'm talking about sitting at Rita's in the food court, hearing shots in JC Penny, and going to find the threat. As of right now, I wouldn't unless I happened to be hanging with a clearly identified cop.

[41magfan]

Like every other random shooting that has taken place in the last few decades, I always probe the theoretical with a few simple questions that need to be asked and answered;

What kind of person, with what kind of gun, with what level of skill would have likely forced a different outcome?

The same answers keep popping up .......

[voodoo_man]

What kind of person, with what kind of gun, with what level of skill would have likely forced a different outcome?

The same answers keep popping up .......

Anyone with the willingness to get involved.

So that means anyone with any gun and and skill.

Does that mean they will be successful? Who knows. You do not know what kind of situation you are getting yourself into, but it is better to act than not act.

The concept of "dying well" plays a good intro here.

[TumblinDown]

Anyone with the willingness to get involved.

So that means anyone with any gun and and skill.

Does that mean they will be successful? Who knows. You do not know what kind of situation you are getting yourself into, but it is better to act than not act.

The concept of "dying well" plays a good intro here.

I recently heard this podcast (http://americanwarriorshow.libsyn.com/south-african-interview) from Mike Seeklander with Charl Van Wyk. He took on three men (and a fourth outside) with automatic weapons and hand grenades in a church attack (South Africa, 1993). He had a 38 Special snubby. It seems the response alone was enough to alter the course of events in a positive way. Apparently there were two other armed persons, but he was the only one to return fire but he still suffered from guilt that he did not react faster. Well worth a listen.

[voodoo_man]

I recently heard this podcast (http://americanwarriorshow.libsyn.com/south-african-interview) from Mike Seeklander with Charl Van Wyk. He took on three men (and a fourth outside) with automatic weapons and hand grenades in a church attack (South Africa, 1993). He had a 38 Special snubby. It seems the response alone was enough to alter the course of events in a positive way. Apparently there were two other armed persons, but he was the only one to return fire but he still suffered from guilt that he did not react faster. Well worth a listen.

I will check it out.

I wrote a little article in reference to this that I will be expanding on soon.

http://vdmsr.blogspot.com/2014/10/get-in-fight.html

It is very easy for someone to say "Its not my fight" and I will counter with an ethical question for those interested in the debate.

If it is your community, your neighbors, your people, is it not your fight from the beginning?

Is that not what should be expected from a citizen?

[Tooln]

Damn. Y'all sure give a guy alot to think about. A few days ago I knew my line in the sand regarding myself and my loved ones (tried and tested) and I still do.. But today I'm left thinking hard and heavy on this. More later when I come to some conclusions.

[voodoo_man]

Damn. Y'all sure give a guy alot to think about. A few days ago I knew my line in the sand regarding myself and my loved ones (tried and tested) and I still do.. But today I'm left thinking hard and heavy on this. More later when I come to some conclusions.

The moral and ethical limitations you place on yourself are superficial. They can be bent and broken during various specific situations. The "line in the sand" is a self-imposed barricade that can (and will) be overrun given the right situation.

[45dotACP]

The moral and ethical limitations you place on yourself are superficial. They can be bent and broken during various specific situations. The "line in the sand" is a self-imposed barricade that can (and will) be overrun given the right situation.
Agreed. One does not simply sit in the principal's office when the next Sandy Hook is going down. Armed or no, I think conditioning oneself to fight and die well is an important part of mindset.

[TGS]

I will check it out.

I wrote a little article in reference to this that I will be expanding on soon.

http://vdmsr.blogspot.com/2014/10/get-in-fight.html

It is very easy for someone to say "Its not my fight" and I will counter with an ethical question for those interested in the debate.

If it is your community, your neighbors, your people, is it not your fight from the beginning?

Is that not what should be expected from a citizen?

Yes, but there's ways of going about it.

People are going to die anyway....I'm not going to use the death of innocents as a reason to locate, close with, and destroy a threat when the other good guys can't even tell I'm a good guy. There's enough near blue on blue with uniformed guys....now imagine a bunch of dudes in street clothes.

Pose yourself this question...you're in street clothes. You go searching for the threat. Another dude or two in street clothes also go searching for the threat. You meet eachother around the corner. With the absence of behavioral indicators, in a split second decision, you will both appear to be threats to each other. End result.

Even if I don't get shot, the responding officers having to deal with me will take away from their ability to engage the actual threat.

If I have a target of opportunity? Sure, absolutely burn the bitch down. But as an unidentified individual, perhaps my best utilization is safeguarding what innocents are around me, whether wounded or alive and simply looking for direction. People are looking for someone to take charge in situations.

This is not a unique aspect to individual interventions in the US. AARs about Beslan identified the massive response of armed citizen - militia as a major friction point.

In the end, it's all METT-C dependent. While having the mindset of "Hulk Smash: engaged!" will always be an ethical decision, time-space considerations will need to be weighed to decide the most prudent course of action.

[voodoo_man]

Yes, but there's ways of going about it.

People are going to die anyway....I'm not going to use the death of innocents as a reason to locate, close with, and destroy a threat when the other good guys can't even tell I'm a good guy. There's enough near blue on blue with uniformed guys....now imagine a bunch of dudes in street clothes.

Pose yourself this question...you're in street clothes. You go searching for the threat. Another dude or two in street clothes also go searching for the threat. You meet eachother around the corner. With the absence of behavioral indicators, in a split second decision, you will both appear to be threats to each other. End result.

Even if I don't get shot, the responding officers having to deal with me will take away from their ability to engage the actual threat.

If I have a target of opportunity? Sure, absolutely burn the bitch down. But as an unidentified individual, perhaps my best utilization is safeguarding what innocents are around me, whether wounded or alive and simply looking for direction. People are looking for someone to take charge in situations.

This is not a unique aspect to individual interventions in the US. AARs about Beslan identified the massive response of armed citizen - militia as a major friction point.

In the end, it's all METT-C dependent. While having the mindset of "Hulk Smash: engaged!" will always be an ethical decision, time-space considerations will need to be weighed to decide the most prudent course of action.

I worked UC narc for 2+ years. I have done exactly this more times than I care to remember, I have never been shot at by a LEO in full uniform at a hot scene (several of which I had no radio, no badge, nothing other than a firearm and a bad guy who wasn't doing well). How did I not get shot? I made myself as non-combative as possible and I made sure my situational awareness was at 150%, as it should be in those situations.

"You meet each other around the corner."

I can tell you that if you are in a hot scene that just went live, you will have a few minutes to play around, no LEO (unless he was already there) will get there fast enough, AAR's and stat's already show that.

There was a mall shooting, an off-duty LEO and his preg wife made contact - they did not get shot....why not? (I'll try to find the link, but I'm sure you remember reading about it)

You know how many blue on blue shooting happen where I work? Maybe one or two a year and that isn't because the LEO is off duty and intervenes, it is because the LEO is on duty and never tells radio he's going in on the call.

Most LEO's understand challenged/challenge situations - maybe you get a rookie who pops you, maybe that's the chance you have to take in order to save lives.

It is about willingness in the end. I am not willing to let people die and have the ability to affect the situation. The only way I do not act immediately is if my family is with me. They get to a car and drive away safely then I go back in and handle business, this is why I have a car bag, this why I carry the equipment I do. This is a scenario that I have played out hundreds of times in my mind.

This is where the whole "but the internet said..." rubber really needs to meet the road and get debunked once and for all.

Too many people online are using the "it's not my fight" or "I'll get shot because LEO's are trigger happy and can't differentiate between good and bad guys" line to cover their own weakness or lack of willingness, or lack of preparedness. Not saying you specifically, I am speaking in general terms here.

It is our problem, it is everyone's problem.

Of course people are going to die if good, armed, men do not act to affect the situation, that goes without saying and is tantamount to the left wing saying the situation would have been worse if someone was there with a gun because they "would cause more chaos!" Hell, it's the building block to "gun free zones" essentially.

If you consider yourself a moral and ethical person, someone who can be counted on to do the right thing during the hard situation because your moral and ethical compass always points North, then you cannot turn a blind eye because your safety is at risk. You must act, disregarding your personal safety for the good of the community and your fellow citizen.

It is our responsibility, our burden as the able, the conscious and the prudent.

[TGS]

I worked UC narc for 2+ years. I have done exactly this more times than I care to remember, I have never been shot at by a LEO in full uniform at a hot scene (several of which I had no radio, no badge, nothing other than a firearm and a bad guy who wasn't doing well). How did I not get shot? I made myself as non-combative as possible and I made sure my situational awareness was at 150%, as it should be in those situations.

"You meet each other around the corner."

I can tell you that if you are in a hot scene that just went live, you will have a few minutes to play around, no LEO (unless he was already there) will get there fast enough, AAR's and stat's already show that.

There was a mall shooting, an off-duty LEO and his preg wife made contact - they did not get shot....why not? (I'll try to find the link, but I'm sure you remember reading about it)

You know how many blue on blue shooting happen where I work? Maybe one or two a year and that isn't because the LEO is off duty and intervenes, it is because the LEO is on duty and never tells radio he's going in on the call.

Most LEO's understand challenged/challenge situations - maybe you get a rookie who pops you, maybe that's the chance you have to take in order to save lives.

It is about willingness in the end. I am not willing to let people die and have the ability to affect the situation. The only way I do not act immediately is if my family is with me. They get to a car and drive away safely then I go back in and handle business, this is why I have a car bag, this why I carry the equipment I do. This is a scenario that I have played out hundreds of times in my mind.

This is where the whole "but the internet said..." rubber really needs to meet the road and get debunked once and for all.

Too many people online are using the "it's not my fight" or "I'll get shot because LEO's are trigger happy and can't differentiate between good and bad guys" line to cover their own weakness or lack of willingness, or lack of preparedness. Not saying you specifically, I am speaking in general terms here.

It is our problem, it is everyone's problem.

Of course people are going to die if good, armed, men do not act to affect the situation, that goes without saying and is tantamount to the left wing saying the situation would have been worse if someone was there with a gun because they "would cause more chaos!" Hell, it's the building block to "gun free zones" essentially.

If you consider yourself a moral and ethical person, someone who can be counted on to do the right thing during the hard situation because your moral and ethical compass always points North, then you cannot turn a blind eye because your safety is at risk. You must act, disregarding your personal safety for the good of the community and your fellow citizen.

It is our responsibility, our burden as the able, the conscious and the prudent.

I get that. I really do.

But the cons to intervening aren't just from weak people online, and it has nothing to do with cops being trigger happy. The thoughtful concerns I've heard are from dudes with 20+ years in law enforcement.

The other thing is that I'm a little tone-deaf to the cries of innocents. While "saving lives" makes for a compelling argument on our duty as citizens, I've walked right past dying people to help people who can be saved. It's about what is prudent, not just ethical.

Otherwise, if the only thing that mattered was "save lives!", we'd have trash men and septic workers at the pillar of society. Public sanitation workers save infitessmally more lives than any soldier liberating a death camp, cop working the beat, CIA operative penetrating an AQ cell, or CCW'er intervening in an active shooter situation could ever even dream of accomplishing. The difference is there are no romantics involved.

It's those romantics, altruistic notions that I not only try to suppress, but actively despise. That shit just gets people killed, unnecessarily so.

[breakingtime91]

My plan has always been get my family to our vehicle, have my wife call 911 and let them know that I am an armed citizen and give them my description while I close with and engage the threat. I know who I am and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at-least try to make a difference. My wife is cool with that and is proud of it.

[voodoo_man]

I get that. I really do.

But the cons to intervening aren't just from weak people online, and it has nothing to do with cops being trigger happy. The thoughtful concerns I've heard are from dudes with 20+ years in law enforcement.

The other thing is that I'm a little tone-deaf to the cries of innocents. While "saving lives" makes for a compelling argument on our duty as citizens, I've walked right past dying people to help people who can be saved. It's about what is prudent, not just ethical.

Otherwise, if the only thing that mattered was "save lives!", we'd have trash men and septic workers at the pillar of society. Public sanitation workers save infitessmally more lives than any soldier liberating a death camp, cop working the beat, CIA operative penetrating an AQ cell, or CCW'er intervening in an active shooter situation could ever even dream of accomplishing. The difference is there are no romantics involved.

It's those romantics, altruistic notions that I not only try to suppress, but actively despise. That shit just gets people killed, unnecessarily so.

Not exactly what I am talking about, but I understand the argument being made.

We are adults, some of us actively seek training to make ourselves more capable, more able and consider ourselves people of an ethical standard.

Is disregarding a dying person in hopes to save another who is capable of being saved unethical? Hardly, doctors do that in mass casualty situations all the time.

I am not even remotely interjecting "romantics" into this concept. There is nothing romantic about having to use deadly force against someone who is using deadly force on others.

I will say that "thoughtful concerns" of guys with "20+ years in LE" do not really strike me as concerning. No offense to the old timers here, but if those guys who you are listening to are anything like the old timers I have dealt with over the years, even the SWAT "tacticool operator" types, they are thinking about the old days of revolvers and "hold the scene wait for SWAT" mentality. I have found very few old timers who do not fit that mold, and even still there are fewer of them that want to see civilians enter into a armed confrontation because "they aren't trained for that." Well what if they are? How many on here are not only good shots, but excellent shots that could affect a situation positively, quickly and without further incident? I'd wager there are more than a few "civilians" here that could have crushed that POS in SC before he finished his first magazine, watching him take his last breath in astonishment of their draw stroke and credit card punch.

Do not get the general consensus of many LEO's mixed up with what needs to occur. Do I want the average citizen who carries a gun to get involved? Yes. I want them to do anything they can to stop the unimpeded murder spree. Do I hope that person has dry fired enough, done a few classes and knows a thing or two about tactics outside of a square range a few IPSC events? Yes. Training is the biggest factor here, most people will not take it or believe gaming is training, or worse, an NRA course or two is enough to be able to stop a threat without giving it conscious thought.

At the end of the day there are two types of people, those that will run away from gun fire and those that will towards the gun fire. Both running on the same type of fear, the fear of what happens when they act. The difference is one of them will put their safety at risk for others.

Which one do you want coming to help you if you are with your family, unarmed and a murder spree starts?

[voodoo_man]

My plan has always been get my family to our vehicle, have my wife call 911 and let them know that I am an armed citizen and give them my description while I close with and engage the threat. I know who I am and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at-least try to make a difference. My wife is cool with that and is proud of it.

The concept of "dying well" is very heavy, as it concerns accepting your mortality.

[TGS]

At the end of the day there are two types of people, those that will run away from gun fire and those that will towards the gun fire. Both running on the same type of fear, the fear of what happens when they act. The difference is one of them will put their safety at risk for others.

Which one do you want coming to help you if you are with your family, unarmed and a murder spree starts?

I think we're very alike in our views, but I have a different threshold for what I consider prudent. Due to the occupations of both my girl and I, we have a mutual understanding that our lives are generally purposed to serve others, and that we put ourselves in mortal risk when doing so. We also have a mutual understanding that we will exercise prudence in doing so, as while we value serving others, we value our being with each other even more. Depending on the situation, prudence might be taking an extra gun. Bringing friends with guns. Wearing a safety vest, or simply slowing down and driving safely. In the case of seeking an active shooter, I personally define prudence as being clearly identified as a good guy....whether that means I personally am, or are with someone who is.

Your posts are characterized by an intense dislike for weak mindsets. Consider that the very people you're willing to rush in for are extremely weak individuals who can't even come to terms with carrying a weapon to defend themselves. I, personally, am not willing to place my life in danger as easily as you for these people, as my family is more important. I know you also value your family....your dedication to the martial aspects of life is an obvious extension of that.

I simply require a higher level of prudence to serve those people.

[HCM]

My plan has always been get my family to our vehicle, have my wife call 911 and let them know that I am an armed citizen and give them my description while I close with and engage the threat. I know who I am and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at-least try to make a difference. My wife is cool with that and is proud of it.

Your wife literally may save your life doing this - she needs to insist the dispatchers pass that info on to responding officers. In the mall shooting Voodoo Man referenced, Trolley Square mall in Utah, the officers pregnant wife was also a police dispatcher and on the 911 tapes she can be heard arguing with the on duty 911 dispatcher because she is trying to give her husbands description and get the word out that he is an off duty LEO and the 911 dispatcher keeps cutting her off and arguing with her.

http://lineofduty.com/download/Duty%20Sheets%20and%20Lesson%20Plans/Volume%2012/volume_12_program_01_nt.pdf

[Tooln]

The moral and ethical limitations you place on yourself are superficial. They can be bent and broken during various specific situations. The "line in the sand" is a self-imposed barricade that can (and will) be overrun given the right situation.
Voodoo, I believe you misunderstood what I meant by "line in the sand". It is most definitely not a self imposed barricade. Nor is it a weakness. It's simply the point at which someone else's actions become my personal problem. I'm referring specifically to actions taken that directly effect me or mine.
I am not a LEO, nor do I tend to look at things as such. So the concepts in Chuck's post lead me to think about a situation/situations that aren't part of my normal what ifs.

As far as the SC incident, had I been in that room I have no doubt I'd have put that kid down asap. Had I been outside and not a direct part of it, I have no clue how I would have reacted. But now I'm making a potential incident such as this a part of my thought process.

As to " the moral and ethical limitations I place upon myself being superficial". That statement, i believe, relies upon your assumption of what those things are to me. I have ZERO moral objection to taking out some POS.
Do I have or feel an ethical obligation to rush in, no. Might I, in the right circumstance, act. Yep, I just might.

[RoyGBiv]

Consider that the very people you're willing to rush in for are extremely weak individuals who can't even come to terms with carrying a weapon to defend themselves. I, personally, am not willing to place my life in danger as easily as you for these people, as my family is more important. I know you also value your family....your dedication to the martial aspects of life is an obvious extension of that.

I simply require a higher level of prudence to serve those people.
Good food for thought.

One counter.... in many places citizens are denied the ability to carry. Not just limited to schools, etc. NJ, for example.
A LEO could certainly view that situation differently from one where people choose not to be adequately prepared for bad stuff.

[voodoo_man]

TGS is correct that I have an intense dislike of weak mindset. Those who are not competent enough to employ tactics which would save their lives and the lives of others intensely frustrate me, as I believe it is your duty as a citizen of your community to act, an obligation even. That said, their lack of preparation is not mine. Their lack of willingness is not mine. I have done the thinking and came to terms with this, my actions over the years speak volumes towards my statements.

Their moral and ethical standard does not reflect mine, nor does their weakness reflect in my mindset. Once you know better, are concious of the circumstances, you become responsible for your ignorance. Their status or capacity does not reflect yours, but your inaction will reflect your moral and ethical burden you have for your actions. Since in the end we are responsible for our actions and our actions alone.

May there be a circumstance which prevents the conceal carrying citizen from carrying legally? May there be a situation where intervening would be impossible to do without it being complete suicide because of left wing policies forbid possession of certain magazines or firearms? Of course, I am not blind to this and completely understand those who wish to follow the letter of the law, I completely accept that there may be situations that would prohibit a person from action. Does that obsolve them of the responsibility that I am talking about? For me, no, but I chose a profession that allows me the ability to carry in all places. That is my choice.

You have to make your own and you determine where your "line in the sand" is.

[Tooln]

Q. Is there any way, in a situation with an active shooter for any non uniformed responder to identify him/herself as a good guy to the leo's who will be responding.

[voodoo_man]

Q. Is there any way, in a situation with an active shooter for any non uniformed responder to identify him/herself as a good guy to the leo's who will be responding.

If you are already engaging the BG keep your head on a swivel and make sure you are actively looking around.

The moment you see a uniformed LEO, make sure your gun is hidden/holstered, get their attention, ID yourself as whatever (off duty, conceal carrying, etc) and tell them you will back them up and do so. Hopefully they will have a long gun and will take primary.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In a FOF rampage with some officers, I was an innocent and stood there with my hands up - way up. One came around the corner and 'shot' me. Why - because I moved. It was a teachable moment. Of course, in another run - I surrendered as a BG and then reached around my back and shot one officer with an airsoft pistol. Life is complex.

[Lomshek]

Q. Is there any way, in a situation with an active shooter for any non uniformed responder to identify him/herself as a good guy to the leo's who will be responding.

I wouldn't trust info to get relayed accurately to responders in that kind of situation.

"I'm armed and wearing a red shirt and going after the bad guy in J.C Penney's" could become "Man with a gun wearing a red shirt in J.C. Penney's".

Screw that.

As others suggested if it ever happens you will likely have a few minutes before anyone else is on scene. Make use of that time as you wish but wasting it on the phone (if you can even get through and have a good signal) isn't going to help. By the time outsiders are coming in it's either going to be over or at least stalemated like the Utah mall shooting.

[Lomshek]

Consider that the very people you're willing to rush in for are extremely weak individuals who can't even come to terms with carrying a weapon to defend themselves. I, personally, am not willing to place my life in danger as easily as you for these people, as my family is more important.

On the flip side one is probably not eager to die but I (personally) wouldn't be able to run away from a slaughter of innocents while armed just because they "should'a armed themselves".

If we're talking about a metro type skinny jean and flip flop wearing hipster who wets himself and goes into vapor lock when there's danger it's easy to sneer but not so much when we realize there are plenty of kids and others who have no choice. I hate to use a beaten to death adage but I'm not going to hate sheep for being sheep.

[TGS]

On the flip side one is probably not eager to die but I (personally) wouldn't be able to run away from a slaughter of innocents while armed just because they "should'a armed themselves".

If we're talking about a metro type skinny jean and flip flop wearing hipster who wets himself and goes into vapor lock when there's danger it's easy to sneer but not so much when we realize there are plenty of kids and others who have no choice. I hate to use a beaten to death adage but I'm not going to hate sheep for being sheep.

It's nothing about hating them, or sneering. That wasn't the impression I was trying to give.

It's just a simple fact that I don't only have a responsibility to society.....I have a responsibility to my family, who unlike society do love me. To me, there's a point at which acting on behalf of society isn't in my playbook, both for personal reasons and what I consider valid tactical reasons. The defacto response to any aggression does not have to involve running at the enemy (or what you think is the enemy, but don't actually know)......sometimes being a good witness and protecting what life is around you is a more prudent thing than running into an unknown situation..as an unidentified person...that may be an active shooter against innocents...or may be a gang shooting....or biker shooting...or some other ambiguity.

[Lomshek]

It's nothing about hating them, or sneering. That wasn't the impression I was trying to give.

It's just a simple fact that I don't only have a responsibility to society.....I have a responsibility to my family, who unlike society do love me. To me, there's a point at which acting on behalf of society isn't in my playbook, both for personal reasons and what I consider valid tactical reasons. The defacto response to any aggression does not have to involve running at the enemy (or what you think is the enemy, but don't actually know)......sometimes being a good witness and protecting what life is around you is a more prudent thing than running into an unknown situation..as an unidentified person...that may be an active shooter against innocents...or may be a gang shooting....or biker shooting...or some other ambiguity.

I kind of worded that poorly and didn't intend to make it sound like you were a hater/sneerer.

On the rest I can agree with you and have no interest in jumping into a fight between unknown parties. Thus far most mass shootings have been pretty easy to identify as such. Can't argue with not wanting to jump in blind but not interested in running away without knowing what I'm running from (unless the fam is with me in which case getting them clear is the priority).

[BehindBlueI's]

Q. Is there any way, in a situation with an active shooter for any non uniformed responder to identify him/herself as a good guy to the leo's who will be responding.

Nothing fool proof. Keep in mind the extremely complex event you are enveloped in and the brain only has so much computing power. People are going to be at the ragged edge, especially if they don't have active shooter training. Auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are going to be in full swing for some folks. Don't count on being heard, don't count on any badges being seen (although getting it up on your chest is better than on your belt).

The #1 most important rule is: comply. Comply first, get who you are sorted out later when you don't have guns pointed at you. Then help. COMPLY.

If you have your radio with you, you've got a much better chance of getting the information to responding officers but especially in a larger area, don't forget that not everyone who's coming is going to be on the same channel. Even in a smaller area, you may have city and county on the same channel, but what about state, excise, conservation officers, etc? Don't assume they have the info.

I have been the plain clothes guy on a few active scenes and got there first, primarily robberies and a hand full of burglaries. That is not a wealth of experience, granted, but every time I had a bit more pucker factor than doing the same in uniform. Just be very, very aware. And comply.

[Chuck Haggard]

If you are close enough to make a difference, be you off-duty LE or a CCW person, IMHO the best thing you can to do keep from getting shot by the cops is to burn the bad guy down as quickly as possible, then holster up and get somewhere that you can keep your back to a wall, watch the area, and spot the cops before they spot you.

If you go hunting for the bad guy with a pistol in hand, or ever worse a rifle, the odds of getting killed by the uniformed cops that show up are very high, and that doesn't take into account any other CCW folks that may be on scene.

Running school shooter scenarios in rookie school as part of our FoF week we have to get them past the inability to PID a target, and it takes a few runs. I have seen actor officers involved in this training wearing full PD street uniform, Navy blue, shoulder patches, badge, gun belt, etc., shot up badly "because they had a gun in their hand". My old agency worked very hard at resolving that problem when we identified it. I am under no illusions that other agencies have done so.

While the response time may take minutes, it may not, note my second incident I was 30 seconds from the scene. Shit like that happens.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have seen actor officers involved in this training wearing full PD street uniform, Navy blue, shoulder patches, badge, gun belt, etc., shot up badly "because they had a gun in their hand".

Tunnel vision. They saw and processed the gun, failed to process anything else.

My first go through with an active shooter scenario was in a huge high school, hundreds of role players, sound effects, etc. I was no virgin to stress nor being shot at by that point, and it was still very tough not to shut down. There was so much chaos my brain didn't want to focus on anything, I was the opposite of tunnel vision. I actually 'saw' the shooter, but didn't process it until he'd 'fired' several shots at us. Since then we've done multiple smaller scale simulations in schools, a shut down hospital, a night club (complete with smoke machine, stupidly loud music, everything, that really sucked), etc. The more exposure, the better, but I concur in that very few departments are doing this or doing it regularly. The events are so rare and training time so limited (and training budgets) that it often gets pushed back for more urgent, more common, and the dreaded state mandated training in its place.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The eyewitness literature finds that folks may remember the gun details better than the other details of the shooter after the incident. In a no shoot scenario- weapons details were about 70% correct, perp details 50% correct. In a shoot scenario - 50% percent about the weapon, 30 ish for the perp. The shoot reduced total recall but the weapon is still remembered better. The memory results are consistent with the perceptual focus mentioned above.

Stanny and Johnson’s (2000)
Effects of stress induced by a simulated shooting...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997233

Am J Psychol. 2000 Fall;113(3):359-86. ... Stanny CJ, Johnson TC. Psychology Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola 32514, USA. cstanny@uwf.edu

[BehindBlueI's]

The eyewitness literature finds that folks may remember the gun details better than the other details of the shooter after the incident. In a no shoot scenario- weapons details were about 70% correct, perp details 50% correct. In a shoot scenario - 50% percent about the weapon, 30 ish for the perp. The shoot reduced total recall but the weapon is still remembered better. The memory results are consistent with the perceptual focus mentioned above.

Stanny and Johnson’s (2000)
Effects of stress induced by a simulated shooting...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997233

Am J Psychol. 2000 Fall;113(3):359-86. ... Stanny CJ, Johnson TC. Psychology Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola 32514, USA. cstanny@uwf.edu

My experience confirms that in spades, especially in a certain subset of crimes. In the last few years I've been dealing with a lot of pharmacy robberies via note passing. The pharmacist or technician will remember the note almost verbatim in most cases. They remember what medicine it asked for, in what quantities, and often what words were spelled or used incorrectly. They recall if it was pen or pencil, the type and color of paper, etc. etc. The person who handed him the note? Meh. Race, sex, height within 3", weight within 30 lbs...maybe. The only ones who've gotten good descriptions have been robbed before, weren't surprised, and often saw the suspect approaching with the note and took special notice of him before the robbery began.

[voodoo_man]

My experience confirms that in spades, especially in a certain subset of crimes. In the last few years I've been dealing with a lot of pharmacy robberies via note passing. The pharmacist or technician will remember the note almost verbatim in most cases. They remember what medicine it asked for, in what quantities, and often what words were spelled or used incorrectly. They recall if it was pen or pencil, the type and color of paper, etc. etc. The person who handed him the note? Meh. Race, sex, height within 3", weight within 30 lbs...maybe. The only ones who've gotten good descriptions have been robbed before, weren't surprised, and often saw the suspect approaching with the note and took special notice of him before the robbery began.

As all things, being exposed to something, or training for it is the best way to navigate it next time.

Had a bank robbery locally, girl teller got a note, gave the dude 2k in small bills. she was upset because she "didnt get a good look at him" as in didnt know what race he was even. I told her next time, you take a deep breath and start making a detailed list of their attributes head to toe. She told her coworkers, and sure enough six months later one of her coworkers she told her to do this did exactly that, point of note, got an awesome flash description of the guy, never gave his note back and started yelling at him.

[Chuck Haggard]

Tunnel vision. They saw and processed the gun, failed to process anything else.

My first go through with an active shooter scenario was in a huge high school, hundreds of role players, sound effects, etc. I was no virgin to stress nor being shot at by that point, and it was still very tough not to shut down. There was so much chaos my brain didn't want to focus on anything, I was the opposite of tunnel vision. I actually 'saw' the shooter, but didn't process it until he'd 'fired' several shots at us. Since then we've done multiple smaller scale simulations in schools, a shut down hospital, a night club (complete with smoke machine, stupidly loud music, everything, that really sucked), etc. The more exposure, the better, but I concur in that very few departments are doing this or doing it regularly. The events are so rare and training time so limited (and training budgets) that it often gets pushed back for more urgent, more common, and the dreaded state mandated training in its place.

Even very elite dudes have issues with this, Paul Howe has talked about it several times, including noting an incident in his book where one of his Delta guys shot at other Americans during an operation.

[Robinson]

Even very elite dudes have issues with this, Paul Howe has talked about it several times, including noting an incident in his book where one of his Delta guys shot at other Americans during an operation.

I remember that section. After the incident, Mr. Howe first addressed with the guy the issue of why he fired at friendlies. Next he addressed the issue of why he missed. That part of the book stuck with me for some reason.