New School Tactics: Active shooter

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Debate about strategy, tactics, training and motivation are fine. However, please don't post baloney to posture. As Dave pointed out, there weren't snipers at Hollywood. Also, if you know the training community - the discussion of mindset and rapid response to active shooters is quite ongoing.

 

[Brit]

The Hollywood assault was really different, the criminals were armored up the ying yang, and armed with long guns.

The Police had to borrow rifles from local gun stores.

That has changed now. Not taking cover in this case, was suicidal, did they not have only pistols?

In clearing passages in Schools, simple equip; like door stops are worth there weight in gold. Does anyone know if these chunks of rubber go into the kit?

 

[BillCA]

Double Naught,

His article was done to promote discussion of adapting police tactics to the changing landscape involving mass shootings. He doesn't say that the tactics for dealing with a shooter are risk-free.

If you read the Channel 9 article and followed the link to the PoliceOne story, it might have been apparent that the source of this article was from Force Science News, a highly respected research group, which is run out of Minnesota State University-Mankato. In fact, here is a quote from the head of the research center there.

“We offer this report not necessarily as a tactical advisory but as an example of one trainer’s effort to give tactical instruction a research base,” explains Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. “We offer it for your thoughtful consideration and we’d be interested in hearing comments from our readers on Ron Borsch’s conclusions.” If you have comments, please e-mail the editor.

As you pointed out, there are a number of cases where LEOs were killed or injured. I suggest that you use the link to "the editor" to offer criticism of Borsch's work. You might even get a response.

I suggest that his research errors do not seriously compromise the intent of the work or the general findings about recent mass-shooters. Given that most of these shootings are carried out by a solo headcase, his suggested use of speed, surprise and violence of action as a countermeasure seems credible. This does not, of course, indicate it is the only course of action available for all incidents.

The thrust of his argument, I think, can be summed up in Borsch's own statements;

"...Our country’s tactical community at large has failed to do its homework and to evolve strategies that accurately reflect the known methods of operation and patterns of active killers,” Borsch asserts. “Law enforcement has already proved many times over that we can arrive ‘too late with too many’ and spend too much time gathering pre-entry intelligence. Now we need to fix what is obviously a broken strategy.”

 

[Deaf Smith]

DNS,

Add one more.

Tacoma Mall shooting. Brandon (Dan) McKown tried to stop a shooter with his CZ CCW pistol. Unfortunately he first challenged him to drop his gun (bad mistake.) Maldonado (the mall shooter's) response was to fire on McKown, striking him once in the leg and four times in the torso, damaging McKown's spine and leaving him paralyzed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting

Now instead of saying every one of them were disasters or success we should look to see what worked and what failed.

We know from Mark Wilson that they can have body armor. We also learn that once you start firing that if the BG drops, keep an eye on him (Mark didn't and the guy got up and shot him in the back.)

We learn from the Tacoma Mall shooting that if it's an active shooter, skip the 'freeze' or 'halt' command and simply drop the guy before he turns that rifle on you! One can turn a gun very fast and get inside the good guys OODA loop quick.

We also learn from both of the above that the MAK-90 (basicly an AK) is a pretty effective weapon that a user does not have to have extensive training, like one does with a pistol, to become good with it.

I’m sure others here are familiar with some of the other shootings and can come up with lessons learned. Add them together and you have some sort of SOP you can use to take on an active shooter with some possibility of success.

 

[Brit]

Deaf,

One of the main reasons for giving commands to "Stop" "Freeze" etc in these situations, most people can not press the trigger, period, and they are shot because of that inability.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

His article was done to promote discussion of adapting police tactics to the changing landscape involving mass shootings. He doesn't say that the tactics for dealing with a shooter are risk-free.

Bill, I don't care why the article was written and you are correct that he doesn't say that the tactics for dealing with a shooter are risk free, but I never claimed he said that either, so I have no idea the point you are trying to make. Regardless, of what was intended and what wasn't said doesn't absolve the article from what was said wrongly that misrepresents the risk to offficers.

Deaf Smith, do you have an article saying that Arroyo was dropped by Mark Wilson and that Mark Wilson didn't keep his eye on him after dropping him? Everything I have seen says Wilson emptied or near emptied his gun into Arroyo, one round hitting below the vest and causing Arroyo to flinch some, but then he advanced on the truck behind which Wilson took cover (happened to be Arroyo's vehicle) and killed Wilson at that time. For example, see thread here http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163431

 

[Erik]

Re the time line to deploy a tactical unit:

It is unusual for a tactical unit to (1) arrive on scene in under an hour, (2) deploy immediately and (3) be in a better position to end an active shooter situation than the initial responders given the time lines. The time lines are often measured in the single-digit minutes.

Which is part of the reason for the industry revamp re policy, training, and equipment to provide those initial responders with the support and tools they need to handle active shooters.

 

[JohnH1963]

I have said this all along in many of my threads. There is an old saying...the best defense is a good offense...

If someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting then they will probably keep shooting. Officers need to have access to assault rifles and SWAT gear.

Most of all, everyone should carry a pistol. The Virginia Tech incident could have been prevented if everyone on campus was carrying. It is impractical to think that the Police are going to solve the situation each and every time when in fact they are just a small lightly armed non-military force which is not trained for such disasterous scenarios.

What could have stopped Virginia Tech? Easy. A few students armed with pistols who could confront the attacker.

 

[Deaf Smith]

One of the main reasons for giving commands to "Stop" "Freeze" etc in these situations, most people can not press the trigger, period, and they are shot because of that inability.

Brit,

I can understand in a common robbery, but an active shooter has NO compunction to shoot (in fact they have already started doing that, right?)

And in the case I mentioned, the active shooter sure didn't hesitate. And thus for situations where there is an active shooter, I suggest skipping any commands.

 

[BillCA]

We know from Mark Wilson that they can have body armor. We also learn that once you start firing that if the BG drops, keep an eye on him (Mark didn't and the guy got up and shot him in the back.)

We learn from the Tacoma Mall shooting that if it's an active shooter, skip the 'freeze' or 'halt' command and simply drop the guy before he turns that rifle on you! One can turn a gun very fast and get inside the good guys OODA loop quick.

In the Tacoma Mall incident, the CCW holder refused to shoot because of the apparent youthfulness of the active shooter. So he challenged instead. No doubt from training classes and such the word was that shooting a youthful offender looks very bad in the papers and that weighed on his mind.

Body armor is not that common, but if seen or discovered in the shooting, aiming for the pelvis may be a good solution as it's larger and more stable than the head.

I don't advocate shouting "Stop!" or "Hands up" to someone actively killing others in a public place. If you elect to engage, do so with deliberation and engage swiftly and violently to reduce the death toll. I'd be less concerned with a bystander getting killed intercepting one of my bullets than with the death of two, six or more people because of inaction. Depending on the venue, those not near an exit are likely to be dead in the next 30 seconds.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In the Tacoma Mall incident, the CCW holder refused to shoot because of the apparent youthfulness of the active shooter. So he challenged instead. No doubt from training classes and such the word was that shooting a youthful offender looks very bad in the papers and that weighed on his mind.

No, that isn't why Brandan McKown refused to shoot, at least not according to him.

He drew his gun and then reholstered it and made the decision not to shoot because he feared shooting at the active shooter would result in more people getting shot and because he feared the cops would confuse him for being the shooter and then he would become a target.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/250101_wounded29.html

McKown was also afraid he couldn't make the necessary head shot he thought he would have to make and he was afraid of getting into trouble from the police for brandishing. His gun wasn't even out when he got shot.

“I’m looking at this guy,” McKown said. “He’s a kid. I would have had to shoot him in the head.”

McKown just wasn’t ready for that. It’s not easy to shoot someone in the head, McKown said. McKown also didn’t want to get in the way of the police if they were handling the situation, and he knew he could get in trouble for brandishing a weapon in the mall.

see post #20 here as the original link is now dead...http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188599&highlight=tacoma+mall

He walked to the front of the store to see what was going on, and took a defensive posture, crouched to one side in the store’s entrance. He had his gun out, but tucked it back into his belt, under his clothes, after thinking better of it.

So when McKown was shot, his gun wasn't even drawn. He confronted the shooter with a verbal command whilst in no way being prepared to shoot.

So, NO, McKown didn't fail to shoot the active shooter because he was afraid of how it would look in the papers. He failed to shoot the guy because he feared being confused by the cops as the active shooter, because he feared getting into trouble for brandishing, and because he didn't think he could make a head shot. He didn't do these things because of his training or if he did, then his had some really poor training. More than likely, he made his errors based on a lack of proper training, lack of familiarity with the law.

Even though Tacoma Mall doesn't make for a good example, in a situation where time is critical and you have an active shooter, wasting time on verbal commands to the shooter while he is in the process of shooting people does seem rather pointless as opposed to just stopping him/her with force.

I suppose one could just get lucky. Sylvia Seegrist at the Springfield mall was stopped by a completely unarmed guy who walked up and grabbed the rifle from her hands, scolding her for her prank. Her shooting killed two and wounded 8. The hero did not realize that she wasn't shooting a blank gun and thought she was acting out a Halloween prank. He was surprised later to learn the gun was real and that the shooting was no prank. Given Seegrist's mental illness, it is possible that she would not have responded to commands given by the cops. Grabbing her rifle is what stopped the shooting.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/sylvia_seegrist/index.html

 

[Brit]

Hi Deaf,

Not sure how you got this confused, must be my accent! What I mean, the person saying freeze to the shooter, he is unable to shoot! So he says... Whatever, because he can not point and pull the trigger... PERIOD! So the rescuer to be gets shot! I have seen this on a Swat course, the classroom, a real one in a school, had a teacher on his knees (another Officer) behind him, the active shooter/hostage taker, also another Officer, armed with a blue gun, not real!

The one of us 4 who comprised the right corner of the diamond took a knee, in the doorway, and went into a repeat like a stuck record, "Drop the gun" over and over, we were all armed with our own side arms, no ammunition or magazines on our persons (checked a dozen times) I was requested to take over, asked the blue gun armed individual if he wanted to speak to a reporter, while he thought about that, I shot him in the eye, just a click!

During the DE-brief the shooter who did not, fire that is! Said he could not guarantee the hit! 4 yds, and a full view of the head. When asked, the instructor said it was not that uncommon.

My thought, you can not begin to block a shot fired that close, see gun, pointed at head, shoot! If you can not hit a 2" circle at 4 yds, retire.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Deaf's words below...
I can understand in a common robbery, but an active shooter has NO compunction to shoot (in fact they have already started doing that, right?)

And in the case I mentioned, the active shooter sure didn't hesitate. And thus for situations where there is an active shooter, I suggest skipping any commands.
[/QUOTE]

 

[raimius]

Seems like a mighty high cost/benefit analysis to commence shooting immediately. IMO, the main problem becomes not IDing the actual shooter before firing. Granted, most of the time, there will not be armed resistance (plain-clothed LEOs or CCWers)...but what happens when that is the case? That strategy only seems to work well once the possibility of "good-guys with guns" has been ruled out.

Tactically, the whole situation stinks. Under the suggested response, 1 or 2 uniformed LEOs are rapidly advancing through unfamiliar locations, with many panicked civilians, toward an unknown threat. The only info they have could be summarized by "Somewhere in there, people are being murdered. Go stop it." It's already a recipe for disaster, but what choice do you have? I've done elementary room clearing with simunitions and 4 man entry teams. The percentages of at least one responder being shot (assuming the BG knows they're comming) is pretty high. The only advantages these LEOs would have are surprise (maybe), confusion (working both ways), and violence of action (already at the max for the BG)...pretty marginal advantages, plus they're on the clock...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I don't advocate shouting "Stop!" or "Hands up" to someone actively killing others in a public place. If you elect to engage, do so with deliberation and engage swiftly and violently to reduce the death toll.

Bill, I agree with you and this seems to make the most sense. As I have heard Michael Bane and others (Maybe Elmer Keith)say: "If you choose to shoot; shoot."

Double Naught Spy, after reading the article you posted I think Mr. McKown really screwed up (although he had good intentions) and is trying to justify it after the fact. I think he knows he messed up IMO but is trying to put a positive light on it. Can't say I blame him.

As Bill and others have said before; stay out of it entirely (meaning hide or flee) or engage decisively if you choose to. That seems to make the most sense. Mr. McKown did it halfway and paid the price for it. From my perspective he had the advantage (surprise) and gave it up when he challenged the boy. Too bad for him.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

Just spent lots of cash taking the LE Patrol Rifle class at Blackwater in order to be more proficient with my M4. I took this school, paying out of my own pocket for everything and using vacation time to attend, just for these types of incidents. Active shooters are a very real threat to all of us and I have the option of a patrol rifle and chose to become more proficient with it.

I would be very careful trying to stop an active shooter in plainclothes. If I was forced to engage I would draw a weapon at the last possible (but still safest) moment, and reholster immediately if possible.

I would also carry spare ammo ( I carry 2 spare mags everywhere). The off duty officer in the Utah mall shooting, I believe, had only a 1911 style handgun with 8 shots. Not good.

On a side note, if you can afford a class at Blackwater, take it. Top notch course. Best I have been to.

 

[Wagonman]

I have an issue with the not talking and shooting the BG. The civil suit later.

"Are you testifying that you executed my client without giving him the chance to surrender?"

I am not defending this line of questioning, I am just throwing @#*@ in the game.

I have often wondered why trainers don't teach to verbally challenge BG while shooting.

I think it would play better "The Officer kept telling him to drop the weapon he didn't and the Officer was forced to end the threat"

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Are you testifying that you executed my client without giving him the chance to surrender?"

Why would you be an idiot and be on the stand to testify? You don't have to testify and so that question never has to be posed to you in court. There is no reason to worry about that question being posed to you in court unless you want to testify.

Even so, your lawyer would then object to the line of questioning and the question would not be allowing in that form.

You are more than welcome to try a McKown.

I know of no statutes that require you to give a person trying to commit murder or mass murder an opportunity to surrender before you defend yourself or the lives of others. Maybe you have a law where you are that says you must give notice of offer of surrenderance before defending your life, but I have never heard of such a law.

Say you did give the shooter a chance to surrender (verbally) before you shot and killed him. Did you verify that he did in fact hear your offer to surrender and was capable of comprehending the rammifications of the offer and was in a sound mind so as to make a rational decision before you shot him? If the shooter was not an English speaker, did you make the offer to him in his native tongue?

Hell, the guy has been shooting people left and right. His ears are probably ringing. He probably will experience considerable auditory exclusion. He may or may not hear you. Even if he can hear you, he may not understand you. So even if you pose the offer of surrendering, how long are you going to way for his verbal or physical response before you decide to act and defend your own life?

I have often wondered why trainers don't teach to verbally challenge BG while shooting.

I don't know where you have trained, but several of the gun schools/instructors where I have attended do stress verbal challenges. The problems of verbal challenges is that they may sacrifice your element of surprise. Verbal challenges may also reflect to the shooter your unwillingness to shoot, opting to verbally challenge instead of engage with lethal force (as with McKown), and as such, the verbal challenge may work very negatively for you.

On the good side, a verbal challenge is good for summoning help, helps to show that you are the intended victim and not the aggressor, and it has the potential to actually work. A verbal challenge may be all that you have to offer to instigate a defense of the shooter is positioned such that you cannot safely engage him without harming others so you challenge the shooter verbally to drop the weapon, surrender, etc. while you move into a position for a clear line of shooting, hoping that your verbal challenge will be enough to keep him from completing whatever shooting task he is about to complete. So verbal challenges certainly have some tactical benefits in the right situations, but I would not worry making the verbal challenge out of fear that some lawyer may portray me in a negative manner for not making it while defending my life or the lives of others.

 

[Wagonman]

Why would you be an idiot and be on the stand to testify? You don't have to testify and so that question never has to be posed to you in court. There is no reason to worry about that question being posed to you in court unless you want to testify.

Even so, your lawyer would then object to the line of questioning and the question would not be allowing in that form.

I guess I am speaking from a civil suit standpoint in the aftermath.

I don't know where you have trained, but several of the gun schools/instructors where I have attended do stress verbal challenges. The problems of verbal challenges is that they may sacrifice your element of surprise. Verbal challenges may also reflect to the shooter your unwillingness to shoot,

The Police Academy, Blackwater, informal training with friends departments.

My thoughts lie more in the aftermath not the incident. I would even think verbal commands while shooting would be a good idea.

I understand the problem with excessive verbal commands of a person who is unprepared to shoot, I just think it would be a good thing to show your restraint in the aftermath after you have neutralized the threat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I guess I am speaking from a civil suit standpoint in the aftermath.

Since you are talking about answering questions that carry the potential to be used in criminal proceedings against you, then the Fifth Amendment comes into play and you don't have to answer the question.

My thoughts lie more in the aftermath not the incident. I would even think verbal commands while shooting would be a good idea.

I understand the problem with excessive verbal commands of a person who is unprepared to shoot, I just think it would be a good thing to show your restraint in the aftermath after you have neutralized the threat.

If you are giving commands while shooting, then we are back to your original question...

"Are you testifying that you executed my client without giving him the chance to surrender?"

If you are giving commands while shooting, then you are not giving the bad guy a chance to first surrender, are you? How will he have a chance to hear you over the sound of your gunfire? Giving commands while shooting does not show restraint.

Just curious, do you know of any mass murder active shooter cases where the police or non-police were sued by the shooter or the family of the shooter because the shooter was not given a chance to surrender? If so, what was the basis of the suit? Was it for a violation of the shooter's civil rights? What was the outcome?

 

[jon_in_wv]

Recanted as I don't feel it adds constructively to the conversation regardless of my intent.