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

[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%...gram_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.