Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The Bush Administration? 
Forgive me - infract me!
Forgive me - infract me!
New School Tactics: Active shooter
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
- Status
Mr Armstrong,
That statement is not printed in stone as an absolute, but there is no way you, or I, or anyone can say you will not be shot if you relinquish control by waiting for an armed BG to move or not move whilst in visual contact, thats what you would be doing ie "Put the gun down" They spin and fire at you, you, I, no one, can react in time to stop that projectile.
A robbery here in Florida in a Drug Store, a retired Police Officer in the store, armed.
Caught on video, the robber moving along counter, pistol in hand, he sees the Guard, and is swinging the gun up when a 9mm round impacts center chest, D&D. This and so many confrontations are not solved by impeccable articulation! But rather strategic application of heavy metal, traveling at speed (1250fps) or there abouts.
That statement is not printed in stone as an absolute, but there is no way you, or I, or anyone can say you will not be shot if you relinquish control by waiting for an armed BG to move or not move whilst in visual contact, thats what you would be doing ie "Put the gun down" They spin and fire at you, you, I, no one, can react in time to stop that projectile.
A robbery here in Florida in a Drug Store, a retired Police Officer in the store, armed.
Caught on video, the robber moving along counter, pistol in hand, he sees the Guard, and is swinging the gun up when a 9mm round impacts center chest, D&D. This and so many confrontations are not solved by impeccable articulation! But rather strategic application of heavy metal, traveling at speed (1250fps) or there abouts.
Over the past couple of years I've seen several persons shot after failing to comply with verbal compliance directives. They were invariably reaching for a weapon or attempting to engage friendlies with a weapon already in hand.
Every one of them lost their gamble about action/reaction.
I've seen several more folks who could have been justifiably killed, but were momentarily befuddled enough by aggressive verbal commands to allow them to survive the incident and be taken into custody. Tremendous restraint was exercised by trained professionals who elected not to take a life.
Properly executed verbal commands are useful because they often result in compliance. A belligerant, authoritative, and concise command will often (not every time) allow you to get inside someone's OODA loop as they attempt to digest the implicit threat and weigh the odds.
I've encountered an armed CCW holder racing around the site of an active shooter incident, weapon held at "High Sabrina", and looking to rescue his wife. Verbal commands precluded an ugly case of mistaken identity and saved him from being killed by responding officers.
Consider a typical active shooter:
He (normally male) is usually relatively untrained, normally psychopathic or enraged, at least temporarily irrational, and possibly has a death wish. He is dangerous precisely due to potential unpredictability. This person may or may not respond rationally to verbal commands. Unfortunately, while incapable of making split-second rational decisions, he may nevertheless exhibit remarkably meticulous planning combined with a dispassionate dispensation of violence.
This person may stop shooting because someone politely asks them to (an outcome I was witness to). Conversely, he may think he is Zeus and attempt to smite all comers without regard for personal survival. Crazy people are...crazy.
If the bad actor continues to commit multiple homicides in your presence, he becomes a legitimate target in most instances. A lot would depend upon State laws regarding a civilian's powers to interupt a violent felony in progress. Few locales require verbal warning prior to taking a shot in such a situation.
I see no need to shoot unnecessarily if verbal commands are an option (i.e., your physical position, armament, abilities, or training offer you a clear momentary advantage). If not...find the largest exposed vitals of your opponent and do the best you can as quickly as you can.
Every one of them lost their gamble about action/reaction.
I've seen several more folks who could have been justifiably killed, but were momentarily befuddled enough by aggressive verbal commands to allow them to survive the incident and be taken into custody. Tremendous restraint was exercised by trained professionals who elected not to take a life.
Properly executed verbal commands are useful because they often result in compliance. A belligerant, authoritative, and concise command will often (not every time) allow you to get inside someone's OODA loop as they attempt to digest the implicit threat and weigh the odds.
I've encountered an armed CCW holder racing around the site of an active shooter incident, weapon held at "High Sabrina", and looking to rescue his wife. Verbal commands precluded an ugly case of mistaken identity and saved him from being killed by responding officers.
Consider a typical active shooter:
He (normally male) is usually relatively untrained, normally psychopathic or enraged, at least temporarily irrational, and possibly has a death wish. He is dangerous precisely due to potential unpredictability. This person may or may not respond rationally to verbal commands. Unfortunately, while incapable of making split-second rational decisions, he may nevertheless exhibit remarkably meticulous planning combined with a dispassionate dispensation of violence.
This person may stop shooting because someone politely asks them to (an outcome I was witness to). Conversely, he may think he is Zeus and attempt to smite all comers without regard for personal survival. Crazy people are...crazy.
If the bad actor continues to commit multiple homicides in your presence, he becomes a legitimate target in most instances. A lot would depend upon State laws regarding a civilian's powers to interupt a violent felony in progress. Few locales require verbal warning prior to taking a shot in such a situation.
I see no need to shoot unnecessarily if verbal commands are an option (i.e., your physical position, armament, abilities, or training offer you a clear momentary advantage). If not...find the largest exposed vitals of your opponent and do the best you can as quickly as you can.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well said Chindo18Z. I am not an expert on these matters nor do I claim to be one but common sense tells me that in a violent encounter with someone who wishes me or others harm, I should seek an advantage (distance, cover, concealment, using a weapon etc) as quickly as I can and never relinquish it with additional risk.
As others have said, if you choose to engage a shooting/robbing BG with your CCW, do it violently without hesitation or stay away from the attacker and protect yourself and your family if with you.
As others have said, if you choose to engage a shooting/robbing BG with your CCW, do it violently without hesitation or stay away from the attacker and protect yourself and your family if with you.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Sure seems that way:
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!
If you mean that when you say "Remember this, you will be shot, period!" you don't really mean "you will be shot", OK.
Good, because I have not said that. What I have said is: "Police give commands to people 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."
Apples and oranges
Giving a verbal command and using lethal force are two separate issues.
The decision to use lethal force is based on the need to protect life from an imminent, unavoidable threat.
A verbal command is an attempt to resolve a situation without having to use lethal force.
The decision-making process for lethal force would be constant and ongoing in an active-shooter situation, independent from the verbal command.
So, some scenarios:
- Gun in the hand, actively targeting = lethal force.
- Contacting a shooter from a position of advantage, with cover, when the shooter was not actively firing = verbal command.
- A clear shot at an active shooter, say, from behind...well, maybe. Depends on several factors: Has he shot anyone yet? How likely is it he will shoot someone if I don't shoot? Will he escape to shoot more people? etc.
There is no requirement for a verbal command prior to using lethal force in the law of this state. Department policy says it will be given if feasible, but there is no absolute requirement.
I would use a verbal command if I could, but would not hesitate if lethal force was necessary and justified.
Leave worrying about "liability" to the lawyers: Obey the law, stay in policy, do what's right.
Giving a verbal command and using lethal force are two separate issues.
The decision to use lethal force is based on the need to protect life from an imminent, unavoidable threat.
A verbal command is an attempt to resolve a situation without having to use lethal force.
The decision-making process for lethal force would be constant and ongoing in an active-shooter situation, independent from the verbal command.
So, some scenarios:
- Gun in the hand, actively targeting = lethal force.
- Contacting a shooter from a position of advantage, with cover, when the shooter was not actively firing = verbal command.
- A clear shot at an active shooter, say, from behind...well, maybe. Depends on several factors: Has he shot anyone yet? How likely is it he will shoot someone if I don't shoot? Will he escape to shoot more people? etc.
There is no requirement for a verbal command prior to using lethal force in the law of this state. Department policy says it will be given if feasible, but there is no absolute requirement.
I would use a verbal command if I could, but would not hesitate if lethal force was necessary and justified.
Leave worrying about "liability" to the lawyers: Obey the law, stay in policy, do what's right.
+1 Chindo! Well put.
For these odd situations, when someone advocates that "you do the best you can", I'm always surprised by those who insist that engaging is nearly suicidal without additional training.
Almost none of the active shooters have exhibited excellent marksmanship or a high degree of tactical awareness and most are losers of one type or another. It's not like we're trying to take out a well armed SEAL team here. Nor do we want people to take some training course and feel they're competent to take on all situations.
Issuing a verbal warning is not necessary, given the immediacy of the situation and the number of lives at stake.
I think we agree here. The average CCW holder doesn't need to be trained in some kind of SWAT techniques. Odds are low enough that they'll ever have to use their CCW and even lower that it'll be a public "active shooter" event.David Armstrong said:
For these odd situations, when someone advocates that "you do the best you can", I'm always surprised by those who insist that engaging is nearly suicidal without additional training.
Almost none of the active shooters have exhibited excellent marksmanship or a high degree of tactical awareness and most are losers of one type or another. It's not like we're trying to take out a well armed SEAL team here. Nor do we want people to take some training course and feel they're competent to take on all situations.
Issuing a verbal warning is not necessary, given the immediacy of the situation and the number of lives at stake.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I always find it troubling when folks like cops think they know what sort of training I or other non-LEOs do or do not need. It comes across as saying you don't want us better trained. It isn't like we can count on you to be there when we first need you and as such, we may not be alive by the time you arrive.
Next you will be telling us what gun or calibers we do and don't need to defend ourselves. Oh wait, DA already does that.
Well, we certainly aren't likely to have to subdue an active shooter. That is true. Then again, most cops won't either. One thing that is apparent from most of the active shooter incidents, but certainly not all of them, is that the cops usually are not around when the shooting starts and may or may not attempt to intervene for quite some time even after they arrive.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I don't think they're intending to take away your right to receive said training. A CCW holder is extremely unlikely to ever need that sort of training, that's all. If you want that sort of training and have the time and the money, have at it. It's the idea of requiring it that seems a bit over board, especially considering the likelihood of ever needing it.
I don't have a dog in the fight in whether you obtain more or less training. Let your pocketbook be your guide.
I think that your training budget would be better spent in basic situational training. LFI springs to mind.
But that is my opinion and we know what opinions are like
David Armstrong
Moderator
You're welcome to have any kind of training you want. If you want to be trained in 1-mile sniping techniques with the Barret .50 while executing a HALO jump, go for it. But I doubt you will need it. What most CCW folks NEED is a good grounding in use of force, and basic firearms skills. That is going to cover pretty much everything. LE, the militray, etc. NEED additional types of training because their role and mission is different.
Gee, it really would make more sense if you would try to stay with the topic and deal with what is actually said instead of making things up.
- Status