PDA

View Full Version : Response to active shooters by officers - NYTimes article



Glenn E. Meyer
12-02-2015, 12:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/nyregion/new-yorks-tactical-shift-on-terror-attacks-dont-wait-for-backup.html?ref=us

Haven't read it fully and there's a link to an interesting PDF.

Basic issue is the risk from engaging right away and the amount of training. What equipment should a patrol car carry? Is everyone with an EBR really not PC?

Have to go, so posting FYI.

I might opine that one could suggest that having folks carry might help. But then we have the sausage sack, Timmy Taurus 85 crowd that says they are self-admittedly useless, don't see the need for an extra mag and why bother to train crowd.

Not saying the civilian should charge in but you might have a better response than being a human shield and bullet sponge if they come into your comfort area (that's the term used in active shooting training - What to do if an active shooter enters your comfort area).

Bye for now.

Mr_White
12-02-2015, 01:36 PM
What to do if an active shooter enters your comfort area

If I were in class and someone said this I would be tested very hard on whether I could stifle the laughter.

Peally
12-02-2015, 01:47 PM
I'll say...

My "comfort area" is sleeping in bed with my dog at my feet and a gun in the nightstand. Not when I'm at freaking work or the store. If you can't stand around naked let's not call it a comfort area.

psalms144.1
12-02-2015, 02:06 PM
I read the article. Meh. So, the average NYPD patrol officer, with handgun only and no hard armor/helmet is unprepared to respond to a Paris-style coordinated attack by suicidal threats with automatic weapons and explosives? I'd bet the overwhelming majority of LE in the US are in the same boat. Doesn't change one iota the fact that we HAVE TO go in. Not "Leeroy Jenkins!" into the kill zone, but we CAN'T wait for the specialists to arrive. That's what Columbine taught us.

Drang
12-02-2015, 02:07 PM
I was under the impression that the standard approach of "secure the perimeter until SWAT arrives" began to change after Columbine. No?
Just saw that Psalms said that... :o

Mr_White
12-02-2015, 02:19 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/nyregion/new-yorks-tactical-shift-on-terror-attacks-dont-wait-for-backup.html?ref=us

Haven't read it fully and there's a link to an interesting PDF.

Basic issue is the risk from engaging right away and the amount of training. What equipment should a patrol car carry? Is everyone with an EBR really not PC?

Have to go, so posting FYI.

I might opine that one could suggest that having folks carry might help. But then we have the sausage sack, Timmy Taurus 85 crowd that says they are self-admittedly useless, don't see the need for an extra mag and why bother to train crowd.

Not saying the civilian should charge in but you might have a better response than being a human shield and bullet sponge if they come into your comfort area (that's the term used in active shooting training - What to do if an active shooter enters your comfort area).

Bye for now.

Just read the article. I appreciate you posting it Glenn. It was a whole lotta 'meh' to me though. Seems like really old news in our circles, but maybe not old news to lots of the people reading the NYT, I don't know (thrust of the article is that the current general protocol is for officers to immediately go after the active shooter instead of waiting for teams, reinforcements, negotiators, etc. like before, and that it might involve more danger to the police than not going after the active shooter.)

This part stood out to me and annoyed me:


But bursting through the door presents challenges, especially with hostages involved. For one, officers and police leaders must quickly determine whether an attacker intends to kill (or has already started.)

I get that a barricaded hostage taker is different from an active shooter and a determination maybe has to be made. But isn't that determination already made, as a premise of an article titled "Rushing to End Mass Shooting, Police Face Greater Danger"? Mass murder is not a hostage taking. Insert all righteous John Farnam-esque philosophy here. Go armed, no one is going to protect you, take decisive unilateral action. Piss on defeatism.

Ptrlcop
12-02-2015, 02:21 PM
NYPD operates at a scale that no other agency in the world can comprehend.

They have an ability to bring significant resources quickly that don't exist elsewhere. This has made their response to what the rest of the country calls active shooters somewhat different.

But he article is not talking about facing sad emo kids. Counterterrorism is at another level entirely.

For traditional calls we have a zero loss mentality. For counterterrorism we need a loss mitigation mentality. Apples and footballs.

Kukuforguns
12-02-2015, 02:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/nyregion/new-yorks-tactical-shift-on-terror-attacks-dont-wait-for-backup.html?ref=us


I love it when reporters write about things they don't know and then describe things that they are just now learning as though those things are new to everyone. As already pointed out by Psalms, Columbine was a "come to Jesus" moment for law enforcement. That happened well over 10 years ago. Similar incidents since then have reinforced the lesson. Spree shooters must be challenged as soon as possible. The results of early intervention are remarkably positive, whether by LE or by non-sworn civilians. Early intervention saves lives.

I don't have familiarity with NYCPD, but I know that my city's LE agency and that of several nearby cities have policies that encourage immediate response to spree shooters by nearby units. This policy has created changes (and I'm sure will manifest in further changes) in the way patrol officers are equipped. There was a thread several months back about traffic enforcement motorcycles equipped with patrol rifles - the accompanying photo was from a neighboring city. As far as I am aware, all regular, motorized patrol units in my city have patrol rifles. My city - and several nearby cities - are switching away from patrol cars to patrol SUVs which allow the officers to have more equipment with them (including additional body armor).

It's not so much that the article is wrong, as that the author is acting as though the immediate confrontation policy is something new. It's not. It is constantly being refined and improved. But not new (at least not in metropolitan southern California). And yes, being a patrol officer is hard work that requires good judgment. Again, nothing new. Of course, NYCPD is a jurisdiction that famously doesn't trust its officers with weapons (late to authorize officers to carry speed loaders, late to switch to semi-autos, late to allow officers to carry extra magazines, requires insane trigger-pull weights). So maybe NYCPD brass is much more conflicted about this "new" policy than out here in liberal California.

Mr_White
12-02-2015, 03:03 PM
Columbine was a "come to Jesus" moment for law enforcement. That happened well over 10 years ago.

Almost 17 years ago in fact. Writer is way behind the times.

Kukuforguns
12-02-2015, 03:24 PM
Just read the article. I appreciate you posting it Glenn. It was a whole lotta 'meh' to me though. Seems like really old news in our circles, but maybe not old news to lots of the people reading the NYT, I don't know (thrust of the article is that the current general protocol is for officers to immediately go after the active shooter instead of waiting for teams, reinforcements, negotiators, etc. like before, and that it might involve more danger to the police than not going after the active shooter.)

This part stood out to me and annoyed me:

Quote Originally Posted by New York Times article View Post
But bursting through the door presents challenges, especially with hostages involved. For one, officers and police leaders must quickly determine whether an attacker intends to kill (or has already started.)


I get that a barricaded hostage taker is different from an active shooter and a determination maybe has to be made. But isn't that determination already made, as a premise of an article titled "Rushing to End Mass Shooting, Police Face Greater Danger"? Mass murder is not a hostage taking. Insert all righteous John Farnam-esque philosophy here. Go armed, no one is going to protect you, take decisive unilateral action. Piss on defeatism.
Yep. That's why I posted that being a patrol officer requires sound judgment. It always has. And mistakes have always been made. So what? Deal with mistakes later, deal with spree shooters now.

The mentality of defeatism is the same with respect to all the journalists who write (without doing any research) that a CCW in a spree shooter/terrorist incident "will just make things worse." WTF. How was a CCW going to make things worse in the nightclub in Paris? How was Virginia Tech going to be worse because of a CCW? I hate reading incident reports in which educators died trying to protect their students with their bodies because they had no other options.

Peally
12-02-2015, 03:26 PM
It's honestly pretty hard to make "everyone is going to die" any worse.

Erick Gelhaus
12-02-2015, 04:31 PM
Haven't read it fully and there's a link to an interesting PDF.

There were numerous links throughout, which one goes to a worthwhile PDF.

Re the authors ... do not know who Goodman is, iirc Baker is former NYPD ESU who worked in the body armor world after retirement.

Kukuforguns
12-02-2015, 04:53 PM
There were numerous links throughout, which one goes to a worthwhile PDF.

I assume this one: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20 incidents%202014.pdf

Dagga Boy
12-02-2015, 05:32 PM
Let's see.....nobody wants militarized police, want to spend most LE training in cultural sensitivity classes, and any sort of productive firearms and tactics training for patrol officers is a pathetic joke and is a place where budget cuts tend to hit first. We have a new culture of demands for police who are essentially report takers. Government officials are unable to even utter the words "Islamic" when discussing terrorist incidents like Paris, and everyone is shocked when maybe we are not prepared for a Paris incident.

Surf
12-02-2015, 09:24 PM
I have been teaching this topic for many years so I have seen numerous models come, go and evolve. I am an instructor in this topic for the NTOA, a MACTAC Team Leader and MACTAC Operator instructor and an ALERRT certified instructor. I will note that I am not endorsing any method or entity directly, as quite honestly what we do, is what we do and while we might utilize techniques or tactics sourced by these entities, we do not strictly adhere to methodology that may be strictly endorsed by any one of these entities individually. I will also make note that all models may be active shooter in nature, the MACTAC model was developed post Mumbai with a Mumbai or Beslan incident as the basis for the response model. MACTAC is a bit more easily scalable from a lone active shooter up to perhaps a multiple attacker, multiple target type of scenario. Whereas the NTOA or ALERRT IMO is more geared towards what we in the United States might think of as a more classic "active shooter" response.

This day in age, LE and this goes directly towards first responders, is to hopefully be able to identify what type of scenario we might be rolling into and have an appropriate response. While a rapid response still being important, may be more damaging if the attackers are attempting to bait in first responders as lone individuals or even smaller 2-3 person teams. In a well planned multiple attacker terror type of scenario a lone responder could easily be much more of a detriment and likely create more of a problem if a lone responder were to decide to engage. So in this modern world the type of rapid response needs to be gauged by a correct assessment of the incident type.

Unfortunately with the world in which we live today, the "if" is more of an "inevitable". Being able to rapidly identify the type of situation and utilize a correct first response is going to be key. To echo on what nyeti is describing, US LE in general is in for a shocker.

ranger
12-02-2015, 09:36 PM
I am sorry but that sounds like the classic Army instructor response of "METT-T" which is fancy "army speak" for "it depends".

Mitchell, Esq.
12-02-2015, 10:56 PM
Let's see.....nobody wants militarized police, want to spend most LE training in cultural sensitivity classes, and any sort of productive firearms and tactics training for patrol officers is a pathetic joke and is a place where budget cuts tend to hit first. We have a new culture of demands for police who are essentially report takers. Government officials are unable to even utter the words "Islamic" when discussing terrorist incidents like Paris, and everyone is shocked when maybe we are not prepared for a Paris incident.

I'm stealing that (with attribution to you...). It's great.

pablo
12-03-2015, 01:20 AM
It's a feel good article that reeks of desperation. Patrol cops at NYPD can't or won't stop a homeless person from taking a shit on your porch, but somehow when the terrorist come they're going to handle that? DeBlasio and Bratton have backed themselves into a corner and are trying to get themselves out of a public confidence crisis.

HCM
12-03-2015, 01:51 AM
It's a feel good article that reeks of desperation. Patrol cops at NYPD can't or won't stop a homeless person from taking a shit on your porch, but somehow when the terrorist come they're going to handle that? DeBlasio and Bratton have backed themselves into a corner and are trying to get themselves out of a public confidence crisis.

won't = because / DeBlasio

voodoo_man
12-03-2015, 05:07 AM
I have been teaching this topic for many years so I have seen numerous models come, go and evolve. I am an instructor in this topic for the NTOA, a MACTAC Team Leader and MACTAC Operator instructor and an ALERRT certified instructor. I will note that I am not endorsing any method or entity directly, as quite honestly what we do, is what we do and while we might utilize techniques or tactics sourced by these entities, we do not strictly adhere to methodology that may be strictly endorsed by any one of these entities individually. I will also make note that all models may be active shooter in nature, the MACTAC model was developed post Mumbai with a Mumbai or Beslan incident as the basis for the response model. MACTAC is a bit more easily scalable from a lone active shooter up to perhaps a multiple attacker, multiple target type of scenario. Whereas the NTOA or ALERRT IMO is more geared towards what we in the United States might think of as a more classic "active shooter" response.

This day in age, LE and this goes directly towards first responders, is to hopefully be able to identify what type of scenario we might be rolling into and have an appropriate response. While a rapid response still being important, may be more damaging if the attackers are attempting to bait in first responders as lone individuals or even smaller 2-3 person teams. In a well planned multiple attacker terror type of scenario a lone responder could easily be much more of a detriment and likely create more of a problem if a lone responder were to decide to engage. So in this modern world the type of rapid response needs to be gauged by a correct assessment of the incident type.

Unfortunately with the world in which we live today, the "if" is more of an "inevitable". Being able to rapidly identify the type of situation and utilize a correct first response is going to be key. To echo on what nyeti is describing, US LE in general is in for a shocker.

Most of US LE top brass live in a "if it doesnt happen here, we dont have to worry about it" bubble. Look at CA and all the crazy shootouts theyve had, from North Hollywood to Chris Dorner, each one required specific tactics and equipment.

When I've talked to people in various PDs locally, they have nothing to say positive. Failed concepts like pool rifles to holding a scene for swat is still the name of the game. Forget tactical training, thats a big point and and laugh in that general direction type of moment. Until it happens and the top brass are forced to spend time and money on it, they do not care at all.

I truly hope that when it happens, the responding officers are not overwhelmed by force of multiple attackers and survive, but fact is that may not be reality.

Alembic
12-03-2015, 08:58 AM
Just a civ here. I read the article, then read the comments, "NYT picks" posted to the right. The last comment was written by a police academy cadet. He made five points correcting some of the previous posts during which he expressed support for gun rights from a police perspective. Although the Colorado sheriffs were very vocal in their opposition to the 15 round limit law, we see few opinions from the law enforcement community, which would arguably be one of the most informed communities on guns and public safety.

Most acknowledge that higher up police brass is a political position.

Why do we not see more political statements, or at least a statement of position, from law enforcement agencies in regard to CCW and public safety?

5. A priority police response takes five minutes or longer. Cops know this. Rank and file police oppose gun control because they understand that a victim with a gun has a fighting chance of surviving those five minutes.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-03-2015, 10:08 AM
My conversations with local university departments is that the chief says what the President of the school says. That is usually very strongly opposed to firerarms. The patrol officers think it is baloney.

Wayne Dobbs
12-03-2015, 11:14 AM
5. A priority police response takes five minutes or longer. Cops know this. Rank and file police oppose gun control because they understand that a victim with a gun has a fighting chance of surviving those five minutes.

Response time stats are largely a joke, if not completely false. First of all, NO large or medium agency has a five minute response time on priority calls. Next, that time stat is usually quoted from the time the call is dispatched/entered on the in car terminal until the first officer marks out on scene. It doesn't tell you how long it took to dispatch it after the call came in or how long it sat in the queue on the terminals. And, it doesn't reflect actual response time AFTER the officer arrives on the scene.

Start thinking in terms of 15-30 minutes before an actual officer starts delivering effective services on an emergency scene. That should make you think about more than guns. It has on scene emergency medical aid (self aid and buddy/others aid) implications and massive communications implications. This is much bigger than cops and guns and we need to know that, prepare for that and teach that.

psalms144.1
12-03-2015, 11:28 AM
...that time stat is usually quoted from the time the call is dispatched/entered on the in car terminal until the first officer marks out on scene. It doesn't tell you how long it took to dispatch it after the call came in or how long it sat in the queue on the terminals. And, it doesn't reflect actual response time AFTER the officer arrives on the scene.

Start thinking in terms of 15-30 minutes before an actual officer starts delivering effective services on an emergency scene. That should make you think about more than guns. It has on scene emergency medical aid (self aid and buddy/others aid) implications and massive communications implications. This is much bigger than cops and guns and we need to know that, prepare for that and teach that.I had a similar thought. We also need to factor in how long it takes from start of event (first shot) until someone contacts 911 - that's more time lost, and more casualties. Based on witness reports from the CA event, I don't doubt that the shooters had done their evil and already left the parking lot LONG before the first officer arrived "within four minutes."

Not to take ANYTHING away from the guys who responded out in CA, and did a freakin' bang up job with a flaming turd - I think they did just about everything right. The ugly fact is, barring the rarest of circumstances (officer already on scene or immediately nearby), LE will have little/no impact on the casualty count from the initial violence.

stingray
12-03-2015, 12:18 PM
This day in age, LE and this goes directly towards first responders, is to hopefully be able to identify what type of scenario we might be rolling into and have an appropriate response. While a rapid response still being important, may be more damaging if the attackers are attempting to bait in first responders as lone individuals or even smaller 2-3 person teams. In a well planned multiple attacker terror type of scenario a lone responder could easily be much more of a detriment and likely create more of a problem if a lone responder were to decide to engage. So in this modern world the type of rapid response needs to be gauged by a correct assessment of the incident type.

Unfortunately with the world in which we live today, the "if" is more of an "inevitable". Being able to rapidly identify the type of situation and utilize a correct first response is going to be key. To echo on what nyeti is describing, US LE in general is in for a shocker.

We saw this first back in the 80's and the Norco bank robbery. It always makes me look for less obvious threats.

Trooper224
12-03-2015, 06:09 PM
Why do we not see more political statements, or at least a statement of position, from law enforcement agencies in regard to CCW and public safety?



My agency campaigned in the state legislature supporting citizen carry for a decade before it became reality. Unfortunately, most agencies won't make a firm statement on civilian involvement for reasons of liability. Unless it's to tell the public outrightly, "Don't do it." No chief or superintendent is going to be seen on the nightly news telling Joe Bob to strap on his gat and jump in the fight, for fear of being sued by Joe Bob's family after JB gets smoked for jumping in at the Piggly Wiggly.

Eyesquared
12-03-2015, 06:26 PM
My conversations with local university departments is that the chief says what the President of the school says. That is usually very strongly opposed to firerarms. The patrol officers think it is baloney.

Feels like the same (maybe even dumber) out here. My university president recently opted us out of campus carry, with our president claiming "One [reason] was the overwhelming reaction from every constituency." Never mind that less than 14% of undergraduates even replied to the survey seeking input, and that the whole thing took place while the campus was busy worrying about a totally different mandatory sex ed proposal.

Also, a wonderful quote from good ol' pres. Leebron's letter to faculty back in July: "For a private university to opt out of the campus carry law, it must first consult with its faculty, staff and students. Should the governor sign the bill, we would engage in such consultation in the near future. [...] Rest assured that, after those consultations, our expectation is to maintain that policy."

Sounds like a fair and totally democratic process, right?

Lon
12-03-2015, 06:34 PM
When I've talked to people in various PDs locally, they have nothing to say positive. Failed concepts like pool rifles to holding a scene for swat is still the name of the game.

Just the opposite around here. While most agencies still have rifles assigned to cars and not individual officers, many allow personal rifles. Every agency in my county has signed on to an active shooter protocol which emphasizes rapid response by the first officer(s). No waiting for a quad/diamond/whatever. Every agency has had the training and we are getting the FD's on board with whatever they call their rapid response to the victims as long as the have LE escorts. A couple FD's have already purchased armor for their medics, IIRC.

MACTAC is next.

BobM
12-03-2015, 07:23 PM
MACTAC is next.

I'd like to hear more about that. Is your agency hosting a trainer?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lon
12-03-2015, 08:04 PM
P
I'd like to hear more about that. Is your agency hosting a trainer?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A neighboring jurisdiction has 2 MACTAC instructors. Gonna work with them. Not sure exactly how we are gonna get it done just yet. PM me if you are near my AO and want their contact info.

DpdG
12-03-2015, 08:34 PM
My conversations with local university departments is that the chief says what the President of the school says. That is usually very strongly opposed to firerarms. The patrol officers think it is baloney.

This has been a common theme among many/most PDs. Agency heads are commonly subject to politically elected and/or appointed administrators, be it mayors, city/town managers, or the like. As such, the command staff is generally too worried about reflecting the political views of their boss(es).

Rank and file (in my area at least) almost universally fall on the "any good folks with guns are welcome" side. You don't hear about it because many agencies have strict policies about advocating politically while identifying oneself as an officer. These policies are heavily enforced when one: a) speaks to the press; and b) advocates a position contrary to that of the puppetmasters.

Even with the above policy, good luck getting a lot of cops to shut up when in a one on one setting.

-G

Dagga Boy
12-03-2015, 08:46 PM
I got myself out of the entire active shooter training thing at my place. It was a "cool kids" program for extra special folks to run. When I went through it....like VoodooMan, I was appalled. I figured my best chances were grabbing a couple folks that I know were good to go, yell "Leroy Jenkins", and set the switch to kill. The active shooter training was problematic in two areas. Role players were playing stupid games and generally left to their own devices. Officers are making all sorts of gun handling and marksmanship errors with no correction, and eventually it is an attempt to choreograph things that need to be done based on knowing what to do rather than trying to remember what the instructors said. Any training is good, but many of these programs become exactly that...a program and marketing. All of a sudden we have all these "experts" on active shooters who have never been to to one, and are basing things on experience in an artificial environment.

Surf
12-03-2015, 09:53 PM
Most of US LE top brass live in a "if it doesnt happen here, we dont have to worry about it" bubble. Look at CA and all the crazy shootouts theyve had, from North Hollywood to Chris Dorner, each one required specific tactics and equipment.

When I've talked to people in various PDs locally, they have nothing to say positive. Failed concepts like pool rifles to holding a scene for swat is still the name of the game. Forget tactical training, thats a big point and and laugh in that general direction type of moment. Until it happens and the top brass are forced to spend time and money on it, they do not care at all.

I truly hope that when it happens, the responding officers are not overwhelmed by force of multiple attackers and survive, but fact is that may not be reality.Agreed, this is common. We have both a "presentation" and "practical" blocks of instruction for the command and control side of the houses which is geared towards the admin. These are for the most part "at will" meaning that the admin will decide what type of training gets done above the first responder level. They will also decide at will who will attend what and if it is going to just be a "presentation" or if there will be actual "practical" command and control training to go with it. It is interesting to see who wishes to participate or sit in on the presentation or the actual training phase at the upper levels. Pretty easy to see where they are coming from and no surprise at all. It is more of a surprise to see an administration want more training for the admin level people. Usually a "presentation" suffices for them.


We saw this first back in the 80's and the Norco bank robbery. It always makes me look for less obvious threats.Good on you. This day in age that is the mentality we are trying to hit home heavily. IED's have been heavily stressed in the past since Columbine, but the ambush scenario, while becoming more prevalent, still needs to be drilled into newer officers or officers with perhaps less real experiences in these areas.


Just the opposite around here. While most agencies still have rifles assigned to cars and not individual officers, many allow personal rifles. Every agency in my county has signed on to an active shooter protocol which emphasizes rapid response by the first officer(s). No waiting for a quad/diamond/whatever. Every agency has had the training and we are getting the FD's on board with whatever they call their rapid response to the victims as long as the have LE escorts. A couple FD's have already purchased armor for their medics, IIRC.

MACTAC is next.I would call this the exception, but good for you guys and your area. I might be curious as to the current model that your AS training evolves from?

I do like MACTAC and think they were a bit ahead of the game whereas they were thinking larger scale terrorism type of scenarios. When I became a certified instructor by the NTOA in MACTAC it was around the 2012 time frame and the overall AS think at that time was a more traditional AS mindset, whereas now we in the US need to be thinking just as equally along the lines of dedicated terrorist attacks.

While rapid response is critical, it is just as critical to hopefully be able to pick up on key identifiers that might suggest that what the officer is facing is a well coordinated, well planned attack, by well armed and dedicated attackers. The common AS mindset is first man in goes to the threat with the thought process that you disrupt the attacker to where the attention is focused on you, then they will quote statistics of how many commit suicide at the first sign of resistance. Most Officers completely buy into this which is OK, with a caveat that we really need to understand that in this modern era the lone officer expediting themselves into the fray may be exactly what they are being set up for and what the attackers are waiting to see happen. They are not going to commit suicide but move to put down the first few responders and pick off everyone who tries a down man rescue after that. The lone responding officer can be more problematic than beneficial in this type of scenario that might come across initially as an active shooter call.

Just some things we need to consider and the MACTAC training will layout more info on this when you guys attend.


I got myself out of the entire active shooter training thing at my place. It was a "cool kids" program for extra special folks to run. When I went through it....like VoodooMan, I was appalled. I figured my best chances were grabbing a couple folks that I know were good to go, yell "Leroy Jenkins", and set the switch to kill. The active shooter training was problematic in two areas. Role players were playing stupid games and generally left to their own devices. Officers are making all sorts of gun handling and marksmanship errors with no correction, and eventually it is an attempt to choreograph things that need to be done based on knowing what to do rather than trying to remember what the instructors said. Any training is good, but many of these programs become exactly that...a program and marketing. All of a sudden we have all these "experts" on active shooters who have never been to to one, and are basing things on experience in an artificial environment.I see the "cool kids" thing as true in some places and in particular very much true for this last AS instructor certification that I got. Meaning that one or two of the guys who were teaching us the class, very much fit that mold. Most of my experience in that class, from instructors to the material was not something I cared for. It can also be about, who you know and who you blow, in order to be an instructor in some places.

For the role players, anyone who is remotely skilled or knowledgeable about conducting live training, especially force on force should understand that role players are THE KEY to the success of the training. If they are not selecting, briefing and monitoring the role players properly, it is a direct reflection of their actual knowledge about the topic, or how much they really care about being there and teaching it. I know that you understand this, but anyone else reading this who is involved in training should keep this heavily in mind.

As for Leroy Jenkins, we just did active shooter for the guys in our unit. Our entire agency has adopted a certain AS model that it teaches to the "T" and is boosted by federal funding, provided you maintain that "T". Even though I went through the 40 hours for the instructor cert, I will say that my unit does not follow this model as an adopted SOP for AS. Having said that when we do small unit stuff, even lone, two man, or three man, I am upfront with our new guys that even though we have more angles to cover and areas of responsibility with lesser people, I would rather grab one or two of my guys and charge, then roll up on a scene by myself and pull 4 or 5 random patrol guys and head in. As we both know more is not always better and that is often the reality of it in many agencies.

voodoo_man
12-04-2015, 05:28 AM
I was first on scene on a few hot calls, i was also second and third a few a times with the first few responding officers werent worth their weight. I always tell them the same thing, stay out of sight, watch for anyone coming in to backstab us and give me your extra mags. They do, each time, as they knowthey can't or wont get in the fight (usually female officers, but its not exclusive )

One aspect that is rarelt taught is nonstabdard entry. I try to make entry in the most nonstandard way possible. I will climb to the second floor if possible, i will park a block away and run up so they dont have a target (the car/lights). This is an aspect of AS training that is just lost.

Hambo
12-04-2015, 08:06 AM
I would rather grab one or two of my guys and charge, then roll up on a scene by myself and pull 4 or 5 random patrol guys and head in. As we both know more is not always better and that is often the reality of it in many agencies.

Yes. I was flipping news channels last night and they were running SB footage as background. Watching one pickup team advance on a perceived threat I pointed out that the lead guy was definitely a hunter, the others were along for the ride.

Lon
12-04-2015, 09:25 AM
I might be curious as to the current model that your AS training evolves from?


We use the program the State of Ohio has put out through OPOTA - Single Officer Response to an Active Threat (SORAT). I was on the crew that developed the program and we had guys with all sorts of experience contributing. The program was heavily influenced by the ALERRT program.

Beat Trash
12-04-2015, 11:36 AM
We use the program the State of Ohio has put out through OPOTA - Single Officer Response to an Active Threat (SORAT). I was on the crew that developed the program and we had guys with all sorts of experience contributing. The program was heavily influenced by the ALERRT program.

I'm southwest of you in the city where pigs fly and disgusting things are done to chili.

We switched our training from QUAD to SORAT a few years ago, and have since trained almost annually using SIMS guns. I found out about two weeks ago, that according to the supplier of SIMS, we are their second largest non-DOD customer. I knew we did a fair amount of SIMS training, but damn... Conducting active shooter training and building searching techniques using SIMS is an educational experience. If your agency can utilize SIMS training, I highly recommend it.

I like the concept of the SORAT vs. QUAD because it works with human nature of the responding officers. The main issue with QUAD was waiting for the 4th guy to respond to the scene, or being methodical while doing your search, knowing that every shot you hear is another innocent dying. In a class room QUAD sounds good, in reality not so much.

I am currently working on a way to morph SORAT/QUAD and/or SWAT with a Patrol Canine team when doing canine searches for active shooter. Had two separate incidents within the lat two weeks where suspects shot at passing marked police cars where the normal canine team and a single cover officer weren't enough.

The world is changing. As such, Law Enforcement must change and adapt to counter the new threats.

Erick Gelhaus
12-04-2015, 07:08 PM
What experiences have your organizations had in this area, subject with various citizen committees / review boards / etc with the evolution of AS response TTPs up to and through MACTAC?