New School Tactics: Active shooter

[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.

[David Armstrong]

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.

Doesn't work that way. Generally the civil case will come after the criminal case has been concluded, and in the civil case you can be compelled to take the stand and do not have the protection of the 5th Amendment unless you can show that there is a substantial and real risk of incarceration (certain states do have more restrictive rules in some cases).

[David Armstrong]

There were also many displays of cowardice.

Hondo got it right. That is so ridiculous it is funny.

Give me four Marines and those two guys would have been dead.

Given that there is a high probability that a number of the officer on the scene were experienced Marines, such a cloaim seem somewhat doubtful.

No armor those guys had could have sustained more than a few hits.

Apparently your knowledge of body armor is as poor as that of history.

[raimius]

The tactical advantage belonged to the officers.

Are you serious?! The LEOs had to respond to an unfamiliar situation. They were armed with pistols and torso only body armor against two men with full-auto rifles and heavy body armor...and you think the officers had the advantage?!

[Brit]

I wonder what drugs were in the systems of these two? My home town Police Force has ARs in their take home squad cars, a good friend of mine, on that Department, could have hit them from prone, multiple times, so again, wrong firearms in the hands of the Police.

I would hope that situation has been rectified now.

[BillCA]

Sometimes I think people over-analyze things on TFL. And I'll even plead a "mea culpa" to doing it once or twice.

Most active shooters will be fairly obvious. Hearing shots in the mall or office and seeing a non-uniformed person with a rifle is a grade-A clue. I don't know many CCW'ers who carry a rifle or shotgun as a routine practice. A pistol shooter is likely to be obvious too, taking frequent shots at targets of opportunity and/or walking as if there is no threat (to him) present. Everyone else will be ducking, crouching and looking for cover.

In such a situation, with a few seconds of observation, it should be relatively simple to determine who the active shooter is (as opposed to a CCW holder or an on/off duty cop). Use of surprise coupled with overwhelming force to end the "crisis" (as the press likes to say) is most likely to preserve your skin and the lives of others.

As to being armed "only" with an 7-8 shot 1911 -- one uses what one has in the most effective way. Taking very long shots with a pistol vs. a rifle probably isn't going to be effective. But with the shooter within 25-30 yards then your odds of success are much higher.

Double Naught: Thanks for the clarification. The last I read of the encounter (and from threads here) it sounded as if McKown had a problem with the youthfulness of the shooter and (in his mind) having to shoot the kid in the head. I think most of us probably have some "threshold" of age where we'd have some reluctance at shooting (say under about 12 years old) and seek a different solution.

[jon_in_wv]

Recanted for the sake of peaceful relations.

[Double Naught Spy]

Doesn't work that way. Generally the civil case will come after the criminal case has been concluded, and in the civil case you can be compelled to take the stand and do not have the protection of the 5th Amendment unless you can show that there is a substantial and real risk of incarceration (certain states do have more restrictive rules in some cases).

There won't be a criminal trial if charges are not pressed against the hero that stopped the active shooter, but that won't stop the recovering active shooter or his family members from a civil suit (in states that allow for shooters to be sued civilly). No doubt the claim will be for a violation of civil rights.

Then again, how many stoppers of active shooters have been sued?

So we really aren't talking about what generally happens. We are talking about what happens when the good guy gets sued after doing a good job.

[David Armstrong]

David, grow up and offer something useful other than name calling. You haven't offer ANYTHING useful to contradict anything I've said so its not helpful to anyone.

Grow up yourself and learn that when you makek silly statements those thT know better will call you on them. And it is always useful to point out when people are trying to rewrite history, or present incorrect information.

I do know enough about body armor and the fact no matter how heavy it is it doesn't cover everything. How far did it cover thier arms? Legs? Head?

Apparently you don't know enough about body armor, since you said "No armor those guys had could have sustained more than a few hits." That is factually incorrect, just like your earlier claim that "snipers sat on the roofs with there heads down" was factually incorrect, and just like your accusation "There were dozens of officers who were on scene who could have ended the confrontation but they hid instead" was factually incorrect.

MOST of the hits the guys suffered were likely from the FINAL confrontations when they were stopped which means they largely stood unchallenged for most of the time they were shooting.

Again, that is just factually incorrect. They were challenged regularly, the officers were firing at them whenever they got the chance.

I call that cowardice, you can call it what you want.

I would call it what it is, someone who has no idea what they are talking about casting aspersions on a lot of brave officers who did a darned good job given the situation.

Some of you guys amaze me at your ignorance of weapons capabilities, body armor, and military tactics.

So far it would seem that a lot of the ignorance of weapons capabilities, body armor, and POLICE tactics has come from you.

You guys are buying into the liberal mentality that fully auto firearms are SOOO powerful that even 300 responding officers had now chance against them.

And you are making things up, as nobody here has suggested anything close to that, except you.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Time to cease the personally related rhetoric and debate on factual and logic grounds.

Also, calling someone a coward is just too easy on the Internet and inappropriate for us. You weren't there.

A hint.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Then again, how many stoppers of active shooters have been sued?

How many stoppers of active shooters have there been? I can think of one, the security guard at the church. Not to start a fight, I'm just saying that history is not much of a guide when history consists of so few events.

Second point, I doubt the citizen who stops an active shooter has anything to worry about from a legal or civil suit perspective. The sympathy of the people will be very on their side.

[Erik]

IIRC the LAPD scored 10 hits on one of the LA Bank Robbery shooters and 29 on the other. Note: Theres video which confirms that multiple hits where made with no effect. Part of the problem was that the training at that time did not prepare the officers as a group for what to do in that event; i.e. close, engage, get hits, fail to stop, now what? All while taking incoming automatic fire. That's been addressed.

Any "the cops shouldn't have assault rifles and tactical gear" advocates participating on this thread? The answer to the often asked "why should they" is the evolution of active shooter doctrine, not the war on drugs as often cited. The idea is to be able to close, engage, get hits, and put them down with a reasonable expectation of doing so under most circumstances. It is a sound idea which has taken hold and spreading; a good thing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Some can search on active shooter responses. But off the top of my head:

GA school - vice principal went and got his gun and stopped the shooter from going off to do more.

TX - bow and arrow nutso, stopped by CHLs.

TX tower - no one killed after civilians engaged Whitman.

Some CHL sacrificial actions (but tactically unsound) reduce the kill rate - Tacoma mall, Tyler courthouse.

Some rampages have been tackled successfully.

[Wagonman]

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?

Since in this litigious time everything you do has to be looked at through the prism of the courtroom aftermath I just think if you or someone else can testify that you were giving verbal commands so much the better is my only point.

I just think that when weapon is out of holster you should be communicating to everyone "MOVE" GET DOWN" "HANDS UP" "DROP THE GUN" etc

I don't know why you are making an issue of this.

[hogdogs]

Glad I live in Florida!!!
Castle doctrine and "stand your ground" allowances says that if I am not criminally charged for a "bad shoot", I cannot be sued in civil court. Sux to be a bad guy or bad guy's momma 'round these parts!
Brent

[Erik]

"Since in this litigious time everything you do has to be looked at through the prism of the courtroom aftermath..."

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?

So what to do? Educate oneself concerning applicable law and policy. Decide in advance, based on that education what actions are reasonable to take or not and why. Understand and be able to articulate those decisions. Practice articulating them to educated individuals and listen to their articulation in turn. Modify your positions and articulations as necessary. The goal being that should a situation ever present itself you will have prepared yourself reasonably to respond in a given manner and to be able to defend that response if necessary. The calculation should be relatively quick - a five minute shooting spree is not the place for a 10 minute what-if session on "everything."

[Evan Thomas]

Some rampages have been tackled successfully.

It depends on your definition of success, I guess... but there's at least one more: the Knoxville, TN church shooting in which the shooter was stopped by unarmed church members when he went to reload. Eh, those wussy "liberal" Unitarians...

[Brit]

Possibly the most true statement, mixed in with the getting sued for shooting a killer, and such. If you are not carrying a concealed pistol, you can not use one, inclined to or not, maybe an other truism? If there is such a word? If you are not prepared to look some one in the eye and kill them, quite possibly the pistol should stay in the safe as well, yes?

[BoulderTroll]

My only addition to the discussion is this; This thread started in November of 2008...Active shooter training scenarios has been going on much longer. We've been doing it for many years now in my neck of the woods.

[Deaf Smith]

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.

Read Ayoob's article on the Tyler Courthouse Shooting.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...27134440/pg_2/

This also helps a little bit:

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

Here is one on both Tyler and Tacoma.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm

[Double Naught Spy]

Thanks Deaf. Ayoob's depiction does not match anything else that I have read about Arroyo going down. The Wiki article claims he stumbled when shot, but doesn't say he went down. The last article describes the event clearly and does NOT not that Arroyo went down. Unlike Ayoob's article, it does not mention Wilson going around the truck to see the fallen Arroyo and that Arroyo shot Wilson in the back. Instead, it says that Wilson shot Arroyo in the back while Arroyo was killing his family and then Arroyo turned and returned fire, Arroyo and Wilson popping up and down over the truck shooting at one another when Wilson is then dropped and Arroyo walks over and finishes Wilson.

David Arroyo was at that moment stepping forward to finish killing his own son on the courthouse steps… Mark lined up the sights on the gunman's bulky back. He shot once, perhaps twice. The range is inside 20 yards. Less than 60 seconds had passed since he heard the first shot… Mark Wilson was in street, firing. The courthouse security camera shows Arroyo turning away from his son bleeding on the steps and running back to his truck… On camera, three sheriff deputies in the courthouse door began to fire steadily. Mark shoots again to no effect. The gunman is wearing an army flak jacket over body armor. Pistol shots will not penetrate… Wilson and Arroyo exchange shots across the truck bed popping up and down, perhaps three shots each before Mark falls to the red bricks, face down. Arroyo walks around the end of the truck, steps over him and shoots repeatedly…”