Arvada Shooting Mess

[Yung]

Here's a thing Greg Ellifritz wrote on his blog.
https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...iller-gunfight

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That makes too much sense for the Internet gun fighter.

[Rex G]

Here's a thing Greg Ellifritz wrote on his blog.
https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...iller-gunfight

Good article. It is good to see someone, with his level of credibility, actually say, with the printed word, that a suspect that is down, may still be a deadly threat, that may need to be shot, more times.

[JCN]

Really like the article.

Also good arguments for a sub second holster draw and getting good with a handgun rather than getting a long gun out of your car.

[Westtexasrancher]

If it came down to it, I have absolutely zero plans on ever giving care to someone I just shot. If nothing else, I’d be watching him from a bit of a distance to make sure he’s still not a threat until LE shows up. Approaching close enough to give care is the last thing I’d want to do. Plus, why bother? Assuming he doesn’t become a threat again, you still have to worry about inadvertent threats on him (needles, whatever in his blood?), the possibility of a lawsuit if you provide care improperly (maybe not as much of a concern for you since you have more training but still a historical precedent), and the likelihood that now pretty much all of your attention is narrowed to that one person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He would certainly be the last patient after everyone else was taken care of, but it dkes make sense to just stay away. I mean, fuck that guy. Just bouncing thoughts around

[Caballoflaco]

I think in an active shooter situation where you have other victims you could make a pretty strong legal argument for a couple of anchor shots on the shooter after he is down so that you can begin to provide aid for the victims without worrying about him regaining consciousness due to an increase in blood pressure while he’s laying down, or the possibility dude’s playing opossum.

[revchuck38]

I think in an active shooter situation where you have other victims you could make a pretty strong legal argument for a couple of anchor shots on the shooter after he is down so that you can begin to provide aid for the victims without worrying about him regaining consciousness due to an increase in blood pressure while he’s laying down, or the possibility dude’s playing opossum.

I disagree. There's a big difference between saying, "He still constituted a threat" and "I think he might have still constituted a threat". If he's just laying there motionless it'd be hard to justify. He'd certainly be the last person to provide aid to.

[Caballoflaco]

I disagree. There's a big difference between saying, "He still constituted a threat" and "I think he might have still constituted a threat". If he's just laying there motionless it'd be hard to justify. He'd certainly be the last person to provide aid to.

Hopefully some others will jump in here, I think this could be an interesting discussion and I appreciate the counter opinion.

[DDTSGM]

I think in an active shooter situation where you have other victims you could make a pretty strong legal argument for a couple of anchor shots on the shooter after he is down so that you can begin to provide aid for the victims without worrying about him regaining consciousness due to an increase in blood pressure while he’s laying down, or the possibility dude’s playing opossum.

Please don't share those thoughts with anyone impressionable, unless you are willing to stand behind them in court, as in 'yes, I did instruct/tell Mr. Jones that ensuring subjects were no longer a threat by firing additional rounds into them was a viable tactic in exigent circumstances such as active shooter situations.'

As the person delivering force, you need to be able to articulate what gave you the REASONABLE BELIEF that, in the case we are speaking of, a subject making no new overt moves to use force was enough of a threat to shoot again. Relying on 'Sam told me to do it,' isn't going to be a winning defense, you, as the deliverer of force, are responsible.

As the force deliverer, you also need to understand that the other side will have expert witnesses to testify that you belief was not valid.

That is the way of the world in force litigation.

I'm not aware of any cases that indicate that delivering additional force, whether it be baton strikes, TASER activation's, or firearms usage, is justified on the basis of 'just in case.'

[jnc36rcpd]

While it may or may not be ethically or tactically justified, I think delivering "anchor shots" or "security shots" would be a precarious road to travel legally. Shooting a possible threat (who you already shot) because he or she might again become an active threat is likely to be viewed as murder.

Law enforcement does sometimes deploy less-lethal weapons on downed suspects to see if they're playing possum. That may horrify the chattering masses, but it is justifiable and explainable. After all, bean bags are less lethal and the use is lawful (so far in most places) to protect officers and, more importantly to those aforementioned masses, allows faster treatment of the would be cop-killer. Popping an anchor shot into the downed bad guy isn't nearly so explainable.

In an active shooter incident that you have successfully resolved, you're unlikely have to start treating shooting victims. In most places, you're likely to have tons of cops rolling in within minutes. You've also gone through one of the most stressful moments of your life. If you're not bailing out, stay focused on the downed shooter and on your environment. Don't try to render aid to victims or secure the bad guy. If possible, holster your pistol. There is also an argument for putting it down, but I'd be uncomfortable with that.

If, for whatever reason, you have a long gun in your hands, you really should try to put that down.

The above advice does not necessarily apply to you if you are the lead character in a Brad Thor or Jack Carr novel.