You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New School Tactics: Active shooter
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Double Naught Spy said:My complaints with the OP article was in how the active shooters were characterized. The characterization seems misleading and unrealistic.
For example, why aren't there a lot more calls on active shooters in the home where police response can make a difference? Simple. There aren't enough targets. The incidents end up being called murders, or murder suicides, but may in fact not be all that different than workplace shootings where 10s of people are injured or killed. In both sets of circumstances, the shooter is attempting to deal with the problem as perceived. If the shooter is employed by a business with a lot of employees, then the incident offers a lot of targets, more chances to be reported to the cops, and takes longer. In the home situation, the same stimulus may be present, but the incident is just over way too quick, although there are numerous incidents of 911 calls where shooting occurs and the whole incident is over before 911 can get a squad car on scene...not enough targets to prolong the event sufficiently for help to arrive.
Perhaps it is OUR perceptions that need adjustment. Not all mass-murders; not all shootings in public places are the kinds of incidents of which the original article speaks.
The original article speaks to incidents that happen in certain types of places coupled with a certain type of behavior. That is, it addresses shootings in places that are supposed to be safe (gun free zones) by people who are shooting at any target as opposed to a specific target, robbery, hostage-taking, etc.
One presumes a fast evaluation by the arriving officers is needed while he/they prepare to engage. The risks are unavoidably high for police and civilians alike.
If the officer misjudges the event, he can be killed by a well prepared adversary. If the officer misjudges another way and decides to wait for additional resources then more innocents will die.
Without giving up anything, "New School Tactics" can be summed up succinctly:
Race to the scene and engage.
The engaging indeed involves a fast evaluation; here it is:
Evaluate who the armed people are, and put a gun on them unless they are obviously LEOs.
Something to be mindful of if you are not obviously a LEO and find yourself in such a situation.
Race to the scene and engage.
The engaging indeed involves a fast evaluation; here it is:
Evaluate who the armed people are, and put a gun on them unless they are obviously LEOs.
Something to be mindful of if you are not obviously a LEO and find yourself in such a situation.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
BillCA said:This should automatically warn all of us who CCW that we must not only be alert for where the shooter is located, but to watch for arriving LE. It is likely that LE may mistake a CCW holder for the active shooter with tragic results.
I've thought about this problem myself. Not to mention the possibility of finding or being found by another CCW, with similar tragic results.
Good advice to not unholster until you have identified the shooter. Which obviously means more than "That guy has a gun."
As a firearms instructor and someone that has fired in combat, I would not call 50% hit rates bad.
And regarding the comment about that being better than LEOs, I would bet that was made be someone that has not engaged someone with a firearm at ranges less than 10 feet in the dark, snow, rain, crowds, with victims shouting, screaming, and dying. I love simmunitions, but the real world isn't a paint cartridge.
I realize that this is a little off subject, but I am new to this site and love getting other people's opinions, but I would caution people about judging to quickly.
And regarding the comment about that being better than LEOs, I would bet that was made be someone that has not engaged someone with a firearm at ranges less than 10 feet in the dark, snow, rain, crowds, with victims shouting, screaming, and dying. I love simmunitions, but the real world isn't a paint cartridge.
I realize that this is a little off subject, but I am new to this site and love getting other people's opinions, but I would caution people about judging to quickly.
If the officer misjudges the event, he can be killed by a well prepared adversary. If the officer misjudges another way and decides to wait for additional resources then more innocents will die.
You forgot one: The civil liability if the officer "Misjudges" and kills a CCW holder or well meaning civilian. Even when you win a civil lawsuit, it is costly both emotionally and economically.
Double Naught Spy
New member
As a firearms instructor and someone that has fired in combat, I would not call 50% hit rates bad.
And regarding the comment about that being better than LEOs, I would bet that was made be someone that has not engaged someone with a firearm at ranges less than 10 feet in the dark, snow, rain, crowds, with victims shouting, screaming, and dying. I love simmunitions, but the real world isn't a paint cartridge.
The statement wasn't made out of my opinion based on my experience. It was made based on shoot data. Can you show me the stats that show the national hit rate for cops is better than 50%?
According to this article, 27-34% hits are about right for cops.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.true-crime/2008-05/msg00992.html
The ratios here don't look good at all for New York, but Portland looks pretty good, but still below 50%, however...
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS- What We Didn't Know Hurt Us.pdf
A study cited here says 41%, but still lower than 50%
http://www.warriorsciencegroup.com/combatsciencesblog/?cat=4
So the national ratio, mathematically, for BG active shooters as stated in the article does actually appear to be higher than the national ratio for police shootings.
Since you want to compare circumstances, then let's compare the aspect for the need of the bad guy shooter and police shooters to be able to put down their targets. The article itself seemed to be downplaying the bad guy shooters in a manner that was not relevant, by calling them poor shooters for only hitting about 50% of the time. It really doesn't matter if they are good or poor shooters. They don't have to be good shooters for their chosen activity. What matters is the number of people they hit. Compare that to the police where it is critical whether or not they are good shooters not how many people they hit, but who. The police can't afford errant shots.
Of course, most police have considerably more training than your typical active shooters. It is part of their jobs.
So from a goal oriented aspect, the bad guy shooters are doing very well. They hit people 50% of the time when they want to. The cops are not hitting the correct people that often when they want to.
Last edited:
00Spy, comparing BG hit ratios to police isn't a fair comparison UNLESS you are only talking about the shots the BG's are firing at police. Most of the BG's shots in these situations are at folks who are helpless and not shooting back, whereas LEO's are typically engaged only when the BG is firing at them. That's a big difference there.
Point being, I don't think LEO's are especially bad shots and don't think that BG's are especially good shots - they're just typically taking their shots under different circumstances.
Point being, I don't think LEO's are especially bad shots and don't think that BG's are especially good shots - they're just typically taking their shots under different circumstances.
Of course, the bad guys are shooting unarmed targets cowering under a table at 7 yards. They have no rules of engagement and can shoot anyone they want, no waiting for a gun to be drawn (or other threat) as the cope has to do. They don't have to worry about innocents in the area of their targets. That does help their hit ratio a bit. I'm sure if the cops pulled up and shot the first person cowering behind a tree or fire hydrant, they'd have a high hit percentage too.
These posts are made by people who've never faced the business end of a firearm in the hands of an enemy. It's easy to be a super operator, internet commando, know-it-all wannabe when your only reference is punching paper targets at 7-15 yards. When the targets start shooting back, moving, hiding behind innocents or cover, it's a different story. Heck, just forcing people to shoot with an elevated pulse and breathing rate really changes things for most people.
These posts are made by people who've never faced the business end of a firearm in the hands of an enemy. It's easy to be a super operator, internet commando, know-it-all wannabe when your only reference is punching paper targets at 7-15 yards. When the targets start shooting back, moving, hiding behind innocents or cover, it's a different story. Heck, just forcing people to shoot with an elevated pulse and breathing rate really changes things for most people.
Last edited:
grymster2007
New member
I'm having a hard time believing that these guys actually seek out "gun free zones". I think it more likely that the places they naturally target just happen to be commonly designated as such.
Schools and places of employment often house the people the killer has issues with. That these places happen to be target-rich environments might well cross their minds also, but I can't imagine them choosing a given venue because it is designated "gun free".
Schools and places of employment often house the people the killer has issues with. That these places happen to be target-rich environments might well cross their minds also, but I can't imagine them choosing a given venue because it is designated "gun free".
I'm having a hard time believing that these guys actually seek out "gun free zones". I think it more likely that the places they naturally target just happen to be commonly designated as such.
The point can be debated. As you point out, it may be that the shooter picks the location because he holds a grudge with a person within that location or a business in such a location. However, with several of the shopping mall shootings, the shooters did not show a specific goal to target only an individual or only one business. Rather, they initiated the shooting and then began firing on others they encountered.
One can also argue that some of these killers merely seek out large groups of people they can access and many of these are in "gun free" zones. Shopping malls seem almost ideal with lots of open spaces, very little hard cover and generally poor security.
As the economic situation worsens, it would not surprise me if we see more of these incidents. Nor would it surprise me to hear of more occurring in high-rise office buildings. High unemployment will cause high stress among many people and some will blame bosses or companies for their situtations.
Hit ratios:
I think csmsss and nemoaz are on target here. The fact that these killers are shooting at unarmed citizens and making hits at no better than 50% of the time indicates they are not highly skilled shooters. Of course, after the first shots, many of those targets will be moving. But it doesn't take a high degree of skill to make a hit when firing into a crowd or to shoot someone under a table 15 feet away.
I worked on a murder in which we seized the computer. One of the things the bad guy did was search for states that did and did not have the death penalty. The **** then took a road trip to the closest non-death state, got off the exit and stopped at the first house that had a long driveway. The norm, no. Did it happen, yes?
I thought the Muslim teen who did the shooting in Utah mall went to another county to find a gunfree zone.
I'll tell you this much, I've yet to hear of an attack at an NRA convention. Coincidence?
I thought the Muslim teen who did the shooting in Utah mall went to another county to find a gunfree zone.
I'll tell you this much, I've yet to hear of an attack at an NRA convention. Coincidence?
Sorry Double Naught Spy,
I should have responded to you sooner.
That's exactly right. They don't have to be good shooters, most of the time the bad guys are initiating the gun fight on their terms and they don't have to worry about how many people they hit, because once they start pulling the trigger everyone else is a fair target. Most LEO's will always start the gun fight behind the power curve because our job is inherently reactive. It is easy to hit targets in a crowd while running away.
I should have responded to you sooner.
They don't have to be good shooters for their chosen activity. What matters is the number of people they hit. Compare that to the police where it is critical whether or not they are good shooters not how many people they hit, but who. The police can't afford errant shots.
That's exactly right. They don't have to be good shooters, most of the time the bad guys are initiating the gun fight on their terms and they don't have to worry about how many people they hit, because once they start pulling the trigger everyone else is a fair target. Most LEO's will always start the gun fight behind the power curve because our job is inherently reactive. It is easy to hit targets in a crowd while running away.
In a School Building
Traditional LEO training does not lend it's self to dealing with a person in a School building shooting children and teachers in that building.
For instance long tiled corridors, with doors opening off them? Fit that on a 25 yard by 25 yard outdoor, or indoor range? Hardly, now imagine the pucker factor in advancing down that type of passage, in the usual gun at 45 degrees, cautiously? We now have a large dark clothed individual, with no cover, badge glinting, trapped in a 12' ft wide funnel!
Swat course, 5 day duration
As a visiting firearms Instructor, teaching LEO and Security we were in a recently abandoned middle School in a small City in Tennessee, at a time when the then named active shooter doctrine was just coming in.
We were all carrying hand guns, no ammunition anywhere! We had all been searched prior to entering the training area! WELL SEARCHED! I was the right hand side of the 4 man triangle.
Classrooms were searched as we progressed down the ugly green painted passage, this call was armed teen seen entering, not a shots fired scenario.
Voices from a classroom drew us to an open door, (we had been instructed to take the shot if and when we located this armed teen) the point man took a knee, gun up, and proceeded to instruct the two roll players who were 15 ft from him, in this classroom, verbally.
"Drop the Gun" over and over! In room "Teacher" kneeling, "Teen" behind him, revolver pointing at head of "Teacher" I swapped positions with the kneeling Officer, and saw, what he had seen, in terms of a target, a clear head shot on "Teen" I asked him did he know he was parked in a handy capped parking space, when he started to respond to my idiotic question, I shot him in the head! (A click!) My pistol, Glock 17 with a 5 lb trigger, I had shot thousands of rounds through.
Debrief, point man had A/ never shot from kneeling! B/ was not confident in hitting his target and getting any kind of instant stop. AND! did not know his zero for a two inch tall, 3" long (approximately) impact area of the human head at the range of 5 yards. That one incident brought forward so much discussion.
My concern a selfish one, he only had to lift his arm! and I was the target!
This type of training is so important, and time and budget constraints tend to prohibit it, plus the real "Classroom" is not so easy to come by.
I hope the reader know knows why we have you shoot "Dots" at 5 yards now! A 2" dot equals an eye socket.
Traditional LEO training does not lend it's self to dealing with a person in a School building shooting children and teachers in that building.
For instance long tiled corridors, with doors opening off them? Fit that on a 25 yard by 25 yard outdoor, or indoor range? Hardly, now imagine the pucker factor in advancing down that type of passage, in the usual gun at 45 degrees, cautiously? We now have a large dark clothed individual, with no cover, badge glinting, trapped in a 12' ft wide funnel!
Swat course, 5 day duration
As a visiting firearms Instructor, teaching LEO and Security we were in a recently abandoned middle School in a small City in Tennessee, at a time when the then named active shooter doctrine was just coming in.
We were all carrying hand guns, no ammunition anywhere! We had all been searched prior to entering the training area! WELL SEARCHED! I was the right hand side of the 4 man triangle.
Classrooms were searched as we progressed down the ugly green painted passage, this call was armed teen seen entering, not a shots fired scenario.
Voices from a classroom drew us to an open door, (we had been instructed to take the shot if and when we located this armed teen) the point man took a knee, gun up, and proceeded to instruct the two roll players who were 15 ft from him, in this classroom, verbally.
"Drop the Gun" over and over! In room "Teacher" kneeling, "Teen" behind him, revolver pointing at head of "Teacher" I swapped positions with the kneeling Officer, and saw, what he had seen, in terms of a target, a clear head shot on "Teen" I asked him did he know he was parked in a handy capped parking space, when he started to respond to my idiotic question, I shot him in the head! (A click!) My pistol, Glock 17 with a 5 lb trigger, I had shot thousands of rounds through.
Debrief, point man had A/ never shot from kneeling! B/ was not confident in hitting his target and getting any kind of instant stop. AND! did not know his zero for a two inch tall, 3" long (approximately) impact area of the human head at the range of 5 yards. That one incident brought forward so much discussion.
My concern a selfish one, he only had to lift his arm! and I was the target!
This type of training is so important, and time and budget constraints tend to prohibit it, plus the real "Classroom" is not so easy to come by.
I hope the reader know knows why we have you shoot "Dots" at 5 yards now! A 2" dot equals an eye socket.
kline605 wrote:
And comparing the hite rate of a **** shooting unarmed people in a crowd and LEOs fighting for thier lives or someone elses is crappy.
You missed the point. A great many LEOs react by forgetting their training or with a spray and pray mode. Many times, innocent bystanders are hurt or killed. There are many examples of this phenomenon.
I realize that cops are human and they make mistakes. But if you look at the number of rounds expended vs the number of hits by LEOs, it does not look good.
You missed the point. A great many LEOs react by forgetting their training or with a spray and pray mode. Many times, innocent bystanders are hurt or killed. There are many examples of this phenomenon.
I would definitely have to disagree with this. I review a lot of law enforcement shootings and I have yet to see "Spray and Pray" as a common theme in LEO shootings. I am not saying that it never happens, but it isn't the norm.
Understand that shooting data is very subjective. Shots fired vs hits being one of the most. As an example, how many of these shootings involve vehicles where numerous rounds may have to be fired before a handgun round can penetrate and stop the threat. These rounds were not sent flying into a crowd killing and wounding innocents, but they were still counted in the statistics as misses.
I understand that LEOs are human, and we definitely make our share of mistakes. But I have never seen reckless shooting as a norm in LEO shootings. And I can promise you one thing, any LEO who has been doing the job for any length of time is keenly aware of civil liability. We do miss in gun fights, as do soldiers, and civilians.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Since the mass murderer profile is based on the article from PoliceOne that cites Borsch, I would like to add the additional shortcomings to the article that indicate some serious shortcomings.
Borsch's research came primarily from internet research. The claim made in the PoliceOne article that...
If that is the case, then the researcher on whom all this is based did some poor research.
What poor research? Glad you asked. So no officers have been injured or killed during active shooter situations in the US. BULL! Mind you, I am not the expert, but by golly I can find lots of incidents to the contrary using the exact same resource he used, the internet. I found a "lot" when you consider the apsect that there aren't supposed to be ANY such indcidents.
Officer Billy Paul Speed was killed by Charles Whitman. Speed was one of the first officers arriving on scene at UT, responding to the shooting. UT is in Texas and was part of the United States at the time of the shooting. This is just one internet references of dozens that were apparently missed by Borsch...http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html
Officer Allen Mcleod was killed and three other officers wounded by Frederick Cowan during his mass murder active shooter rampage in New York. At the time of the shooting, New York was part of the United States.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...einhard_4.html
Officer Elmo Gabbert was shot in the hip by Kenneth Tornes during a standoff after cops chased Tornes after he killed is wife and then several firefighters at a fire station. This happened in Mississippi which was part of the US at the time of the shooting.
http://emernet.emergency.com/ff-shoot.htm
Officer John Warde responded to a workplace shooting and was shot by Arturo Reyes Torres who also wounded Officer Art Romo via flying glass from a shot that missed that officer. Torres had shot and killed four coworkers and wounded another in California, located in the western United States.
http://articles.latimes.com/p/1997/dec/20/news/mn-431
And I will add the Tyler Courthouse incident where a Tyler Police Detective, Two Smith County Sheriff's Deputies were injured and CCW holder Mark Wilson was killed by David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr. And Texas was still part of the USA when this one happened as well.
http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?S=2994393
Well gee, I am no expert, but I can see that there are lots of officers injured or killed by active shooter mass murderers in the US. The danger is VERY REAL to officers and the article cited above misrepresents that danger to officers.
Unlike the article, I provided some links. You may or may not agree with a couple of the selections, but there is no excuse for missing classic mass murder active shooter examples such as with Whitman and Cowan. Those are fairly well known and ANYBODY researching this sort of thing should have found them.
I am certain there are more, but I think I have made my point to call into question the accuracy in profiling of mass murderer active shooters and their threat to police officers. Note that I have not included incidents like Klebold and Harris where they attempted to harm officers during the actual incident but were unsuccessful. I did not include incidents where the shooters tried to do harm to officers after being caught (like Kip Kinkel). I also didn't include Hank Earl Carr who was a mass murderer who made cops part of the mass that he murdered. AND, I didn't use any incidents that came AFTER Borsch's research was conducted such as the Alabama shooting that left 10 dead and at least one officer injured or the incident in Philly that resulted in the deaths of three officers.
Given the obvious examples of officers killed or wounded while trying to engage mass murdering active shooters that were obviously missed in the research, do you really feel inclined to believe the percentage data used to make of the profile? I would be inclined to believe that without seeing the author's actual data, the profile he has created is likely quite faulty.
Were Whitman and Cowan poor shooters? Nope. Even if the shooters were poor shooters as is being claimed, they have still managed to kill and wound several officers. You really want to address an active shooter with the assumption that the shooter will be a poor shot (hence apparently pose less risk) as claimed by Borsch?
Truthing a lot of this garbage isn't that hard.
Borsch's research came primarily from internet research. The claim made in the PoliceOne article that...
The researcher "...has found no evidence of any LEO in the U.S. yet being wounded or killed in an active-shooting incident "
If that is the case, then the researcher on whom all this is based did some poor research.
What poor research? Glad you asked. So no officers have been injured or killed during active shooter situations in the US. BULL! Mind you, I am not the expert, but by golly I can find lots of incidents to the contrary using the exact same resource he used, the internet. I found a "lot" when you consider the apsect that there aren't supposed to be ANY such indcidents.
Officer Billy Paul Speed was killed by Charles Whitman. Speed was one of the first officers arriving on scene at UT, responding to the shooting. UT is in Texas and was part of the United States at the time of the shooting. This is just one internet references of dozens that were apparently missed by Borsch...http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html
Officer Allen Mcleod was killed and three other officers wounded by Frederick Cowan during his mass murder active shooter rampage in New York. At the time of the shooting, New York was part of the United States.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...einhard_4.html
Officer Elmo Gabbert was shot in the hip by Kenneth Tornes during a standoff after cops chased Tornes after he killed is wife and then several firefighters at a fire station. This happened in Mississippi which was part of the US at the time of the shooting.
http://emernet.emergency.com/ff-shoot.htm
Officer John Warde responded to a workplace shooting and was shot by Arturo Reyes Torres who also wounded Officer Art Romo via flying glass from a shot that missed that officer. Torres had shot and killed four coworkers and wounded another in California, located in the western United States.
http://articles.latimes.com/p/1997/dec/20/news/mn-431
And I will add the Tyler Courthouse incident where a Tyler Police Detective, Two Smith County Sheriff's Deputies were injured and CCW holder Mark Wilson was killed by David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr. And Texas was still part of the USA when this one happened as well.
http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?S=2994393
Well gee, I am no expert, but I can see that there are lots of officers injured or killed by active shooter mass murderers in the US. The danger is VERY REAL to officers and the article cited above misrepresents that danger to officers.
Unlike the article, I provided some links. You may or may not agree with a couple of the selections, but there is no excuse for missing classic mass murder active shooter examples such as with Whitman and Cowan. Those are fairly well known and ANYBODY researching this sort of thing should have found them.
I am certain there are more, but I think I have made my point to call into question the accuracy in profiling of mass murderer active shooters and their threat to police officers. Note that I have not included incidents like Klebold and Harris where they attempted to harm officers during the actual incident but were unsuccessful. I did not include incidents where the shooters tried to do harm to officers after being caught (like Kip Kinkel). I also didn't include Hank Earl Carr who was a mass murderer who made cops part of the mass that he murdered. AND, I didn't use any incidents that came AFTER Borsch's research was conducted such as the Alabama shooting that left 10 dead and at least one officer injured or the incident in Philly that resulted in the deaths of three officers.
Given the obvious examples of officers killed or wounded while trying to engage mass murdering active shooters that were obviously missed in the research, do you really feel inclined to believe the percentage data used to make of the profile? I would be inclined to believe that without seeing the author's actual data, the profile he has created is likely quite faulty.
Were Whitman and Cowan poor shooters? Nope. Even if the shooters were poor shooters as is being claimed, they have still managed to kill and wound several officers. You really want to address an active shooter with the assumption that the shooter will be a poor shot (hence apparently pose less risk) as claimed by Borsch?
Truthing a lot of this garbage isn't that hard.
Last edited:
GetYerShells
New member
My thoughts
This is an interesting read. Yesterday was Students for Concealed Carry here in Texas. My wife wore my holster yesterday to all her classes. There is a bill right now in the Texas legistlature written by former UTSA students and faculty that would allow liscenced faculty and students to conceal carry their firearms on college campus. I hope it passes.
This is an interesting read. Yesterday was Students for Concealed Carry here in Texas. My wife wore my holster yesterday to all her classes. There is a bill right now in the Texas legistlature written by former UTSA students and faculty that would allow liscenced faculty and students to conceal carry their firearms on college campus. I hope it passes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.