New School Tactics: Active shooter

[Wagonman]

This attitude, prevalent as it may be, is part of the problem. It is an ill-conceived concept without legal or policy based merit. It plagued law enforcement circles, leading to documented inaction. Fortunately, the law enforcement community has overcome it, though the process continues in pockets. It is a cousin to the "a lawyer might say this or that" argument. A lawyer might say anything. So what? To issue warning or not? What's the applicable law and policy say about that? What's the accepted (i.e. tested) legal position

Well I am sorry, but in the real world you have to factor in litigation unless you don't like your home and life savings.

I am not advocating inaction I am however saying that the more you do to look reasonable the better.

I still don't understand why I have to keep defending what should be an uncontroversial assertion.
If you are pointing a gun at someone you should have the have the manners to introduce yourself and your leetle frien'

No law or policy is going to ding you for giving said BG a chance to drop his weapon. DROP YOUR GUN..Bang.

 

[Brit]

Waggonman,

The true facts of a fight, fists, boots, knives, and or guns, you get hurt if you loose, sometimes even when you win.

A good demo, take your electronic timer from your shooting bag, have a single round loaded into your pistol, this is done on the range.

Stand to one side of the shooter (yes behind him!) imagine the electronic beep is your cry of "Freeze" 3 yds in front of the shooter, and off to one side, an IDPA target.

So watch this, beep = "Freeze" at the sound of the beep, swing and fire the shot! Less than a second, you are shot!!

YOU CAN NOT GIVE VERBAL COMMANDS TO A PERSON WITH A GUN IN THEIR FIST! NO, NO! You will be shot. Remember this, you will be shot, period!

And talk about trouble you will be in, till you are blue in the face, it beats being dead, or very badly injured.

 

[Deaf Smith]

YOU CAN NOT GIVE VERBAL COMMANDS TO A PERSON WITH A GUN IN THEIR FIST! NO, NO! You will be shot. Remember this, you will be shot, period!

And that's exactly right as for active shooters. Now if you are behind cover and the guy with the gun had his back to you, I might say 'freeze'. But standing out in the open, at close range, is asking for them to whip around and fire before your OODA loop can adjust to the new situation.

 

[David Armstrong]

YOU CAN NOT GIVE VERBAL COMMANDS TO A PERSON WITH A GUN IN THEIR FIST! NO, NO! You will be shot. Remember this, you will be shot, period!

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Police give commands to peopel holding guns all the time without getting shot. Non-LE regularly seem to do the same, again without getting shot, if the videos are any indicator. Certainly it is a possibility, but to present it as an absolute is not at all correct.

 

[Deaf Smith]

DNS,

Let's just say Ayoob got his information from some VERY good sources.

 

[Wagonman]

YOU CAN NOT GIVE VERBAL COMMANDS TO A PERSON WITH A GUN IN THEIR FIST! NO, NO! You will be shot. Remember this, you will be shot, period!

And talk about trouble you will be in, till you are blue in the face, it beats being dead, or very badly injured.

I am not saying that if he is pointing a gun at me that I will be talking to him or if he's holding a hostage at gunpoint. those are shoot situations.

I am refering to an instance that you think it would be a good idea to communicate.


For the last time I AM NOT ADVOCATING HESITATING AT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH, I AM GIVING A SUGGESTION THAT SEEMS TO BE COMMON SENSICAL.


Shouldn't I be working from at least concealment if available, anyway?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS,

Let's just say Ayoob got his information from some VERY good sources.

Let's not. He may, but I am not big on taking arguments on faith. Besides, his source is Chris Bird. I don't know Chris Bird's sources.

Nelson Clyde III witnessed Wilson and Arroyo during the fight and didn't report Arroyo going down.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA022505_1A_tyler_shoot_df4b4f88_html20491.html

"They traded shots, missing each other, and then the gunman hit Wilson and Wilson went down," Tyler Morning Telegraph publisher Nelson Clyde III said in today's editions of the newspaper.

Clyde watched the shooting from a nearby restaurant.

"The gunman walked up to Wilson and shot him while he was on the ground," Clyde said. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was sickening."

Like I said, haven't found accounts stating Arroyo went down. Clyde didn't report it either.

 

[BillCA]

Wagonman,

No law or policy is going to ding you for giving said BG a chance to drop his weapon. DROP YOUR GUN..Bang.

I get your point. I really do. I just disagree with it.

Someone who is an "active shooter", by any definition, is intent on murder. He's already started shooting in some place where there are numerous people. He is likely to have already wounded or killed some number of people before you identify him as the source of the gunfire. From most of the incidents, he will continue to seek out more people to shoot them too.

Thus, you have someone who is actively engaged in multiple homicides, who is very likely to continue to commit murder until stopped. Even from a position of cover, I do not elect to give warning to such a person and bet my life that he can't shoot me with a lucky shot. I will do everything I can (given the ability) to understand the situation, look for any legitimate reason he may be shooting and decide the if/when/how to shoot the killer.

When it comes time to take a shot, I will not risk a "good clean shot" on giving him a command that will very likely reduce my chance of stopping the carnage. I'll take any risks in a civil court later.

 

[Mas Ayoob]

Hey, DNS...

I've been to Tyler, viewed the shooting scene, talked to witnesses and participants. Chris Bird debriefed more of them.

Did you? Or are you just going on what you heard and read on the internet?

I know Ron Borsch. I've taught with him. He never said that a cop going in to one of these things alone would be in no danger. His point is that cops have sworn an oath to risk their lives if necessary to protect those they've sworn an oath to protect.

Look at the young (mid-20s) officer in the South within the past few weeks who stopped the mass murder in the old folks' home when, alone as first responder and not knowing when backup would respond, he entered the scene, "rode to the sound of the guns," took a hit and stopped the killing with one shot that nailed the bad guy in the chest and dropped him. His success in short-circuiting that mass murder shows us that Ron Borsch was on to something important.

DNS, you tell a fellow poster that only an idiot would take the witness stand when accused of wrongfully shooting someone? That tells me you've never been involved in an "affirmative defense," the situation where someone did indeed harm another, but did so justifiably. If the only person who knows why the shooter fired -- the shooter himself -- does NOT testify, please tell us how the triers of the facts sitting in that jury box will ever know his side of the story?

 

[Brit]

This is were your expert witness comes in, he or she answers the questions put by the apposing legal council, once that witness has been accredited as to having that expertise by the court.

The Jury is privy to these deliberations, and make more informed decisions because of the knowledge of these individuals, brought forth by differing points of view, with a court appointed referee (The Judge) who keeps the proceedings on track.

Mr. Ayoob has been that Expert on many occasions.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I've been to Tyler, viewed the shooting scene, talked to witnesses and participants. Chris Bird debriefed more of them.

Did you? Or are you just going on what you heard and read on the internet?

Hey MA,
I didn't say you were wrong. All I said was that I cannot verify the information in your article.

Have I been to Tyler? Yep. Several times. Did I view the crime scene? Like you, after the fact. I followed the timeline from the Tyler Morning Telegraph and got an informal tour by one of the courthouse officers who was nice enough to point out where things happened. He didn't mention at that time anything about Arroyo going down and I didn't ask him. It wasn't an issue. What I was more interested in at the time were the distances involved and hence having dug up as many of the news stories that I could for getting the eyewitness descriptions. From those descriptions, I am not finding any that put Arroyo on the ground. If you could point out some sources, I would greatly appreciate it.

Heck I still have family in Smith County. If you have specific witnesses that put Arroyo on the ground, there is even a remote chance my family members know or or of that person and I could get an introduction...but I would need to know who some of those witnesses are.

As for believing stuff from the internet, that is where your information appearing that I read, LOL!

He never said that a cop going in to one of these things alone would be in no danger. His point is that cops have sworn an oath to risk their lives if necessary to protect those they've sworn an oath to protect.

I never said Borsch claimed cops would not be in danger. My claim is that he has downplayed that danger by calling active shooter responses probably the easiest man with a gun calls officers would make and that he bolstered his argument by incorrectly stating that no officer has ever been killed or injured in the US by an active shooter mass murderer.

I certainly agree, however, the the method championed by Borsch is a good way to go. That isn't in question and I said so above.

 

[David Armstrong]

DNS, you tell a fellow poster that only an idiot would take the witness stand when accused of wrongfully shooting someone? That tells me you've never been involved in an "affirmative defense," the situation where someone did indeed harm another, but did so justifiably.

It's the curse of the internet, Mas. Too many people who seem to think they know all about something when they have no experience with it, and won't take the time to learn the basics. We now have experts on maritime security who have never worked security or been on a cargo ship, experts on active shooters who have never worn a badge or who have never had a day of active shooter repsonse training, experts in the law who have never taken the witness stand, and so on. Lots of new "experts" out there that are long on opinion but short on fact. Sort of sad.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Maybe this is a good idea and maybe it isn't but it just popped into my head and I have to speak my mind.

How about (after doing something about these anti-CCW zones) including an Active Shooter Protocol for CCW holders in CCW classes.

Here are some ideas on what might be included in this protocol:

1.) Asses and deal with the situation in your immediate area (i.e. if the shooter is near go ahead and draw your weapon and engage.)

2.) If shooter is not in your immediate vicinity call the police, verify that they are aware of the situation and then ask the dispatcher to give first responders a breif description of your apearance (i.e. I'm a CCW holder wearing a blue shirt and a whit baseball cap)

3.) HOLD YOUR POSITION, take measures to make it more defensible if possible and use your CCW only to defend yourself and those in your immediate vicinity.



Good idea?

 

[Wagonman]

Mas, I really enjoy the Proarms podcast keep up the good work,

Like a sig line I like says if it's time to go GO.

All I am saying is you should have the aftermath in your thought process.

If it is feasible give verbal commands if not don't.

However, the faster you go, the more you expose yourself to an armed opponent. Therefore, the totality of the situation, and the speed of response necessary, will determine the appropriate technique. Different tools for different tasks, all of which might be necessary in a given situation at a given moment depending how things go.

This is my point expressed with far more skill than I have, Thanks Mas

 

[onthejon55]

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Police give commands to peopel holding guns all the time without getting shot. Non-LE regularly seem to do the same, again without getting shot, if the videos are any indicator. Certainly it is a possibility, but to present it as an absolute is not at all correct.

the reason police dont get shot is because the BG cooperates. If the BG is hell bent on killing everyone then the risk of getting shot is high enough that i wouldnt be willing to try and order him to the ground.

 

[David Armstrong]

the reason police dont get shot is because the BG cooperates.

Which is the same reason non-LE don't get shot, and which only proves my point that a blanket statement of "you will be shot" if one tries to give verbal commands is incorrect.

 

[David Armstrong]

Maybe this is a good idea and maybe it isn't but it just popped into my head and I have to speak my mind.
How about (after doing something about these anti-CCW zones) including an Active Shooter Protocol for CCW holders in CCW classes.

Given the limited time available for training of all type in most CCW courses, and given the limited training of most CCW holders, I personally would think it to be a bit of a bust. Non-LE don't need an active shooter protocol outside of the normal use of force considerations, IMO.

 

[swman]

Their response to an active shooter situation is to wait until two or more officers have assembled, then enter the building/area looking for the shooter. As campus is a "gun free zone", anybody seen with a gun is assumed to be the shooter and is a shoot-on-sight target.

In the military we call it a free fire zone.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

On the training issue - my thought is that if folks truly think they want to actively engage an active shooter - they need to train sufficiently on their own through courses and related activities.

The normal CCW state mandated training paradigm is about the 'law', avoiding a fight and things like that. It certainly isn't to give tactical advice, although some instructors might mention principles.

I shudder to think about how a state designed tactical curriculum would evolve. Also, having such a curriculum would probably clash with those who want to ban carry at the rampage sites, like churches, malls and schools.

The property rights nuts (sorry) would not like the state to teach you how to use a gun on their gosh-darn property!!

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

So Glenn, you're saying that anything controlled by the government will be a catastrophe and no one will be happy with the implementation or the results?

What would ever give you that idea?