New School Tactics: Active shooter

[Rifleman 173]

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...

[Brit]

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.

[Hondo11]

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.

[BillCA]

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.

[Hondo11]

EDIT:

BillCA,

I was hazy on part of your post, but I think I clarified the part I was confused about.

[jon_in_wv]

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.

[Hondo11]

There were dozens of officers who were on scene who could have ended the confrontation but they hid instead.

That's so ridiculous it's funny.

[Double Naught Spy]

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/art...iveshooter.htm
http://www.asu.edu/studentaffairs/mu...iveShooter.pdf (top of page 2)
http://www.poam.net/main/train-educa...-training.html
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-a..._shooters.html
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&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/PSYCH...Boston_MA.html
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...ion-and-speed/
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.iaclea.org/members/clej/p...ember_2006.pdf

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...&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/...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/n.../pieces_9.html

[Double Naught Spy]

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/art...cow_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.

[David Armstrong]

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.

[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/...d.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/...ht=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/n...ist/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]

Originally Posted by BillCA

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.