New School Tactics: Active shooter

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Semantics rears it ugly head again, as the definitions become important. None of the shootings you listed would be classified as active shooter under some definitions. On the other hand, some departments classify it so broadly that any mass murders or spree killings could be called active shooters. That is one of the problems in researching some of these things, we can't get everybody to agree on the terminology.
 
I said you may disagree with some and that is fine, but Whitman, Cowan, Arroyo seem to fit as active shooters under just about any definition. Borsch should not have missed them. If Borsch is excluding incidents where police are responding to shots-fired/man with a gun incidents where the shooter is in the process of continuing to attempt to kill people or has already killed lots of people, then he is doing the police a huge disservice by claiming such incidents are easy.

So I'll bite, why would Charlie Whitman's incident not be considered an active shooter incident by some definitions? Did he not shoot enough rounds? Enough people? Were his targets not confined enough? The shooting was ongoing when the cops responded, was it not? If Whitman wasn't an active shooter, then what was he? Is it that active shooters, by some definitions, are only those folks who kill themselves before the cops get a chance to intervene?
 
Last edited:
So I'll bite, why would Charlie Whitman's incident not be considered an active shooter incident by some definitions? Did he not shoot enough rounds? Enough people? Were his targets not confined enough?
Again, it depends on definition, and that is one of them. A number of active shooter definitions say that the potential targets must be confined within a restricted location from which exit is limited. Other definitions focus on the shooter, for example if his movement is restricted, as Whitman's was.
 
So he wasn't an active shooter because of a lack of confinement? Source?

That certainly would not appear to be a common definition of "active shooter," would it? So assuming you are correct, why would Borsch use a less common definition? We woud Borsch speak in such generalized terms and yet use an overly specific definition without explaining it?

I realize you don't have the answer for that. I am just casting aspersions on the notion that Borsch was using a more obscure definition in order to justify his claim of how LEOs are really not in any danger in these easy situations.

Why wasn't Cowan?
 
Last edited:
Let me take another tact. Operationally speaking, how if the incidents I cited were not active shooter situations, what sort of situations were they?

Given the conflicting definitions of "active shooter" you seem to indicate exist, can you name any where both the shooters and victims are not confined?

Just what definition of active shooter do you think Borsch was using? How does a cop responding to a scene know if he has an "active shooter" as per Borsch's definition and hence knows it will be an easy situation to handle such that he can just rush right in as claimed and the shooter will fold up shop and either surrender or commit suicide?

Holy crap, if the issue is semantic definition, then those little semantic differences may get cops killed, don't you think?

Borsch does not appear to be using a highly restricted definition of active shooter, however.

He lists the following as active shooter incidents where the shooter was subdued by the first armed person encountered...
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

Mall shooting in Kansas City Mo.
Church shooting in Colorado Springs
Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City
School shooting at high school in Pearl Miss.
Santee California High School shooting
Fairchild Air Force Base shooting
El Cajon California high school shooting
Dimebag Darrell concert shooting, Columbus Ohio
Topeka KS domestic violence shooter incident

Note that these are fairly generalized incidents. Borsch states...
Since response to an active-shooter incident is a race, a race between the responder(s) stopping the shooter and the shooter racking up a greater and greater body count, I strongly advocate that officers should move to contact as quickly as possible, and by themselves if need be, to expedite stopping the shooter from killing more victims.

It does not sound to me like Borsch would claim Whitman wasn't an active shooter, or Cowan, or any of the others.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

I always thought "active-shooter" meant that a bad guy was actively shooting non-bad guys, as in "happening right now", "active".
 
So he wasn't an active shooter because of a lack of confinement? Source?
Again, definitional.
So assuming you are correct, why would Borsch use a less common definition?
Can't speak for him, won't speak for him. I'm just pointing out that when people use terminology that is open to interpretation, it behooves them to provide the definition that they are using. Since we don't know what definition Borsch was using we don't know if his inclusions or exclusions are accurate.
Operationally speaking, how if the incidents I cited were not active shooter situations, what sort of situations were they?
Whitman, for example, has traditionally been classified as a barricaded sniper, IIRC. But that is where the definition issue comes up, because some consider all barricaded snipers as active shooters.
How does a cop responding to a scene know if he has an "active shooter" as per Borsch's definition and hence knows it will be an easy situation to handle such that he can just rush right in as claimed and the shooter will fold up shop and either surrender or commit suicide?
I think you are misrepresenting what Borsch has said. I don't see anything that suggests the BG will automatically just fold up shop if the officer rushes in or that it will be an easy situation.
 
Whitman is classified as a barricaded sniper? LOL. They did know he was barricaded until after most of the killing was done, did they?

Isn't a barricaded person engaged in actively shooting people an active shooter? I gather from Borsch's description of active shooters that Whitman would definitely qualify. So would Cowan.

Whitman, for example, has traditionally been classified as a barricaded sniper, IIRC. But that is where the definition issue comes up, because some consider all barricaded snipers as active shooters.

Given how Borsch describes active shooters and there being a race to stop them before racking up body counts, I would say he would as well. So I stand by my claim that Borsch missed several incidents where cops were killed and injured by active shooters, incidents he claims never have happened in the US.

So you don't see anything from Borsch to suggest active shooters will just fold up or that it will be easy?

From the first post of the thread...
They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

Easy, well the easiest man with a gun call the officers will ever handle, apparently. From Borsch... This citation is from the PoliceOne link in the very first post of this thread...

Because active shooters seem so intent on killing, it’s often difficult to convince first responders that “this bad guy is one of the easiest man-with-gun encounters they will ever have,” Borsch observes.

So the active shooters will likely be the easiest man with a gun calls officers will ever handle because his extensive study indicates such shooters will fold up and won't hurt the cops in any way as they never have before, which is completely wrong.

By his own description of active shooters, Borsh missed significant information that is directly contrary to his claims and therefore is misrepresenting the threat posed by active shooter mass murders to cops.
 
Last edited:
Here in Texas you can use deadly force to protect an innocent third party, PC 9.33 (and I'm real sure these mass murders would qualify.) But, you are still open to civil lawsuits (wrongful death PC 9.06.) Plus in PC 9.05 below if you kill an innocent third party:

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Now what this means is, if say at the local high school which you are visiting to pick up your kids, and you hear gunfire and screaming, and you go in with your weapon, you are taking a big chance as you don't have the immunity the police have.

Now I'm not saying to run away, but just make sure you are skilled and realize the dangers. I hope and pray I have the guts to go in, and according to the study you actually have a good chance if you keep your cool. But you or I can still wind up in a world of hurt or worse.

And even if you succeed, it isn't over yet!

Now let's say you terminate the monster(s). The cops will be coming real soon (if they are not there now.) I strongly suggest you put the gun up and act like a terrorized teacher until things are sorted out. It would be real easy for the police to think YOU are the gunman and open fire.

This goes double if it's a workplace massacre since everyone is probably an adult and they will look real carefully as to if anyone is the shooter.

So think carefully.
 
Whitman is classified as a barricaded sniper? LOL. They did know he was barricaded until after most of the killing was done, did they?
Hiding behind a wall, in a tower that has been blocked at the entrance...yeah, that is a barricaded sniper.
Isn't a barricaded person engaged in actively shooting people an active shooter?
Depends on your definition. I certainly wouldn't classify Whitman as an active shooter incident, others might.
So I stand by my claim that Borsch missed several incidents where cops were killed and injured by active shooters, incidents he claims never have happened in the US.
OK. You're certainly entitled to do that. I think it just as likely, perhaps more so, that Borsch was working from a different definition than you are, as some of the incidents you mention are well coverfed in the literature and common knowledge.
So you don't see anything from Borsch to suggest active shooters will just fold up or that it will be easy?
No, I don't.
From the first post of the thread...
"Typically fold" is very different from "will fold". Nowhere does Borsch suggest that an active shooter will always give up and pose no danger to the officer. His point seems to be more that many active shooters are not particulalry aggressive beyond their immediate goal, and thus the officer can attampt to contain the damage sooner than we might have previously believed appropriate .
So the active shooters will likely be the easiest man with a gun calls officers will ever handle ...
Similarly, the "easiest man with a gun call" does not mean it is an easy call, it means in the spectrum of a particualrly dangerous call one type will be easier than others.
By his own description of active shooters, Borsh missed significant information that is directly contrary to his claims and therefore is misrepresenting the threat posed by active shooter mass murders to cops.
OK. I think you've completely misinterpreted Borsch and what he has said, but everyone is welcome to interpret things in their own light. In fact, in the original article he specifically says that he feels this will "lessen the toll of casualties while exposing the responders involved to little additional risk." He doesn't say there is no risk, only that a one or two-officer assault does not expose the officer to much in the way of dangers other than would be present if they waited for the more commonly recommended 3 or 4 officer team.
 
If cops get to be too fast, then they will, sooner or later, drop a person who was trying to stop the active shooter. Imagine that all cops are taught to rush in, shoot the gun-toting bad guy that they see in a classroom of some sort. What happens if an honest CCW person with a gun has just shot the active shooter and is standing over the dead active shooter just as you or I arrive? think about it. Shots repeatedly fired as we got close to the room, gunsmoke still in the air and a person standing over a dead guy while holding a gun. I'm thinking that the person standing upright with the smoking gun over the dead guy is about to have a really bad day...
 
Borsch was mostly correct in his information, but it is way to easy to trash a mans beliefs, the instance he sets pen to paper.

The definition of an active shooter, the one that first surfaced in Law Enforcement, was an armed person(s) in a typical "GUN FREE ZONE" Police solution time. Certaily not for us the CCW holders! armed as we go about our daily activity's, which most certainly do not include hanging around Schools awaiting active shooter incidents.

The Police are called to the location by 911 calls mostly, so they know they have guy with a gun situation prior to their arrival.

Schools mostly, were the killing grounds, and why the tactic of advance to contact was developed, it was based on the incidents that had happened, the history of these attacks was easily documented.

Now remember these tactics are designed for uniformed local Police, first responders if you would, so if it is one or two Officers responding, what is known as clues abound, hordes of screaming kids leaving in a mad panic, the distinctive sound of gunfire being the source of this panic, advance to contact!

When the badge and gun was issued no one said the job was without risk.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there are many different "definitions" of "Active Shooter" in the acedemic, research, write-articles-about-it sense. Who really cares?

The incident as it relates to TTP's is what people need to concern themselves with.

1. The person is using unlawful deadly force against other persons and continues to do so while having access to additional victims.

2. The person's objective is not to commit criminal conduct, but rather to inflict serious bodily injury or death.


Is the person trying to commit some crime or is his motivation simply to hurt people? Is the person on a "killing spree", ie: killing and continuing to kill as long as he has the means to do so and access to victims?

Active Shooter is more of an umbrella that other incidents fall under, rather than a strict, narrow definition.

Actually, Active "Shooter" is not quite right either. If the person had a machete and was moving through a pre-school, hacking up little kids, he would meet the criteria. No shooting involved. A person would meet the criteria if he had a deadly chem/bio agent and was moving through a mall, contaminating people...no shooting involved.

The TTPs, while tailored to fit each individual scenario (and usually on the fly by those on scene), are basically the same. Getting into the details here would not be the appropriate place to talk about it though. Anyone can do a search for "active shooter" and find this thread.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Armstrong and I have had our differences of opinion, but I have to go along with him on this one.

Borsch looked at recent shootings because he was interested in current police tactics. Whitman occurred in 1966 which was pre-SWAT. In fact, it was Whitman's rampage that forced agencies to develop the first SWAT teams.

What is an "active shooter"? Is it someone who
- Is actively shooting people?
- Is active in the sense they are roaming a facility at will?
- Is moving rapidly from point to point kill as many as possible?

We do need a good definition. I don't think "active shooter" really refers to a "shooting in progress" or someone who is a barricaded sniper. A man on the roof of a building, even though he changes positions is still a "sniper", not an "active shooter".

My analysis of "active shooter" says it's someone who is roaming at will through a facility or a local area, shooting at people he can see. If said person gathers people in a room it turns from "active shooter" into a hostage situation.

The trend, in the last 20 years, seems to be towards those people who are essentially suicidal and willing to kill others "on their way out". In these cases, the typical end of the situation comes when police are arriving and the shooter commits suicide. The suicide is a last "thumbing his nose" at society and police, as if to say I can do anything I want, including kill people. And by killing themselves, they deprive society of the ability to control/insult/humiliate them.

The original SWAT tactics evolved around basic scenarios - the sniper, the hostage taker and the barricaded suspect. All of these involve a static location where their tactics of containment and depriving the shooter of targets will work. Bringing in negotiators assumes that the suspect wants to live or make some sort of gain from society/gov't.

These tactics work if your shooter fits the profile of someone or some group intending to survive or escape. But if your shooter has a short agenda - kill specific people or to kill anyone at a specific location, then die themselves - containment only limits the killing to one location.

Borsch is questioning the "containment" protocol and saying that in a likely majority of these active-shooter cases, swift intervention by police can reduce the death toll. We have to remember that calling in a SWAT team will require a minimum of 10-15 minutes for them to arrive, plus time to "gear up". The next thing SWAT will do is define and close a perimeter, then ask for all information on the situation and, if known, the shooter.

Of course the responding officers cannot always determine if the person is some whackjob looking for his end or someone with a well thought out plan to escape. It would seem the odds, today, are in favor of it being a whackjob.
 
EDIT:

BillCA,

I was hazy on part of your post, but I think I clarified the part I was confused about.
 
Last edited:
SWAT in 10-15 minutes??????? Maybe in a large metropolitan area where there are dedicated SWAT officers on duty but in most locales I would bet SWAT is comprised of officers both on and off shift and would require a call up to get them in action. This would take much, much longer. The agency I work with uses 4 HOURS as a guideline for the regional SORT to show up at our facility. In the case of a school or mall shooter I would be willing to bet that SWAT would take much too long to respond to take out a determined active shooter. They just aren't capable of that quick of a response in most areas. The best ( maybe only in many cases) defense in my opinion is an armed citizenry and well armed and trained police officers who can take the threat out when they see it. IN the videos of the Hollywood shootout officer hid behind cars and snipers sat on the roofs with there heads down. There were dozens of officers who were on scene who could have ended the confrontation but they hid instead. I fear that responding officers have been so ingrained to wait for SWAT that they leave the victims hanging out to dry in the scenario of an active shooter. Its not the fault of the officers, I just think we need a whole new mindset in training and tactics when it comes to this issue.
 
My analysis of "active shooter" says it's someone who is roaming at will through a facility or a local area, shooting at people he can see.

And contrary to Borsch's comments, cops have been killed in these specific instances that fit your definition. That would include Cowan, Torres, and Arroyo. shootings.

Borsch is questioning the "containment" protocol and saying that in a likely majority of these active-shooter cases, swift intervention by police can reduce the death toll.

Right. And I agree with that. What I disagree with is giving the illusion that it safe for cops to rush right in by noting no cops have ever been injured or killed by these shooters.

And while some here may not agree with Whitman as being an active shooter because he was a particular type of active shooter, a sniper (later known to be barricaded, but not at the time while people were first dying on the ground), apparently many LE agencies and others certainly do consider him an active shooter. In fact, he is often listed specifically as an active shooter or in discussions of active shooters. This list is FAR from comprehensive, but it gets the point across that certain a large number of LEOs, LE agencies, security consustants, etc. include Whitman as being an active shooter.

http://www.borelliconsulting.com/articles/activeshooter.htm
http://www.asu.edu/studentaffairs/mu/greeklife/advisor/ActiveShooter.pdf (top of page 2)
http://www.poam.net/main/train-educate/active-shooter-response-training.html
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...itman+active+shooter&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/lom/0302/active_shooters.html
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...tman+active+shooter&cd=23&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Special-Coverage--Va-Tech-Shooting/Obvious-and-Hidden-Tragedies-at-Virginia-Tech/25$35780
http://articles.directorym.net/PSYCHOLOGY_101_the_mind_of_a_shooter_Boston_MA-r909372-Boston_MA.html
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...tman+active+shooter&cd=37&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...m-killers-takes-bravery-aggression-and-speed/
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...an+"active+shooter"&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.iaclea.org/members/clej/pdf/November_December_2006.pdf

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...an+"active+shooter"&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us SEE PAGE 4

Heck, the El Paso County Sheriff's Department specifically includes snipers under their characteristics section of an active shooter on page 2. http://shr2.elpasoco.com/PDF/policy/chapter_07/731_policy.pdf

Of course, that fits with their definition of what an active shooter is and that definition is akin to the definitions given in the previous citations I have noted as well. I have yet to find any that specifically state that snipers cannot be active shooters or that Whitman wasnt an active shooter.

ACTIVE SHOOTER: An active shooter is an armed person who has used deadly physical force on other persons and continues to do so while having unrestricted access to additional victims.

Contrary to Borsch who downplays the danger to cops by stating no cops have ever been injured or killed by mass murdering active shooters, they have, and they continue to be be killed and injured by them.

Oh, and here is the corrected link on Cowan's shooting...
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/neptune/pieces_9.html
 
Last edited:
And this 2007 Moscow, ID active shooter specifically targeted county resources by shooting up the county's emergency dispatch center, then killed fatally wounded one officer, wounded a deputy, killed a civilian, and then himself, all after killing his wife - firing some 200 shots. He apparently fired at distance and up close.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18766089/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/254058/sniper_kills_4_in_moscow_idaho.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1837496/posts

Shooting up the emergency dispatch center from the courthouse across the street (location of the Sheriff's Department which is in the annex) was likely to rapidly draw in law enforcement and that is then who he shot. He wasn't a mass murderer (defined by some at killing 4 our more [not including suicide]), but he tried.
 
IN the videos of the Hollywood shootout officer hid behind cars and snipers sat on the roofs with there heads down. There were dozens of officers who were on scene who could have ended the confrontation but they hid instead.
Thata is such a bizarre re-write of history I don't even know where to begin, other than to say apparently you know very little about the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top