New School Tactics: Active shooter

[Kline605]

If the officer misjudges the event, he can be killed by a well prepared adversary. If the officer misjudges another way and decides to wait for additional resources then more innocents will die.

You forgot one: The civil liability if the officer "Misjudges" and kills a CCW holder or well meaning civilian. Even when you win a civil lawsuit, it is costly both emotionally and economically.

[Kline605]

I should clarify! A 50% hit rate in combat, not on a training range. And comparing the hite rate of a **** shooting unarmed people in a crowd and LEOs fighting for thier lives or someone elses is crappy.

[Double Naught Spy]

As a firearms instructor and someone that has fired in combat, I would not call 50% hit rates bad.

And regarding the comment about that being better than LEOs, I would bet that was made be someone that has not engaged someone with a firearm at ranges less than 10 feet in the dark, snow, rain, crowds, with victims shouting, screaming, and dying. I love simmunitions, but the real world isn't a paint cartridge.

The statement wasn't made out of my opinion based on my experience. It was made based on shoot data. Can you show me the stats that show the national hit rate for cops is better than 50%?

According to this article, 27-34% hits are about right for cops.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00992.html

The ratios here don't look good at all for New York, but Portland looks pretty good, but still below 50%, however...
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/A...0Hurt%20Us.pdf

A study cited here says 41%, but still lower than 50%
http://www.warriorsciencegroup.com/c...cesblog/?cat=4

So the national ratio, mathematically, for BG active shooters as stated in the article does actually appear to be higher than the national ratio for police shootings.

Since you want to compare circumstances, then let's compare the aspect for the need of the bad guy shooter and police shooters to be able to put down their targets. The article itself seemed to be downplaying the bad guy shooters in a manner that was not relevant, by calling them poor shooters for only hitting about 50% of the time. It really doesn't matter if they are good or poor shooters. They don't have to be good shooters for their chosen activity. What matters is the number of people they hit. Compare that to the police where it is critical whether or not they are good shooters not how many people they hit, but who. The police can't afford errant shots.

Of course, most police have considerably more training than your typical active shooters. It is part of their jobs.

So from a goal oriented aspect, the bad guy shooters are doing very well. They hit people 50% of the time when they want to. The cops are not hitting the correct people that often when they want to.

[csmsss]

00Spy, comparing BG hit ratios to police isn't a fair comparison UNLESS you are only talking about the shots the BG's are firing at police. Most of the BG's shots in these situations are at folks who are helpless and not shooting back, whereas LEO's are typically engaged only when the BG is firing at them. That's a big difference there.

Point being, I don't think LEO's are especially bad shots and don't think that BG's are especially good shots - they're just typically taking their shots under different circumstances.

[nemoaz]

Of course, the bad guys are shooting unarmed targets cowering under a table at 7 yards. They have no rules of engagement and can shoot anyone they want, no waiting for a gun to be drawn (or other threat) as the cope has to do. They don't have to worry about innocents in the area of their targets. That does help their hit ratio a bit. I'm sure if the cops pulled up and shot the first person cowering behind a tree or fire hydrant, they'd have a high hit percentage too.

These posts are made by people who've never faced the business end of a firearm in the hands of an enemy. It's easy to be a super operator, internet commando, know-it-all wannabe when your only reference is punching paper targets at 7-15 yards. When the targets start shooting back, moving, hiding behind innocents or cover, it's a different story. Heck, just forcing people to shoot with an elevated pulse and breathing rate really changes things for most people.

[grymster2007]

I'm having a hard time believing that these guys actually seek out "gun free zones". I think it more likely that the places they naturally target just happen to be commonly designated as such.

Schools and places of employment often house the people the killer has issues with. That these places happen to be target-rich environments might well cross their minds also, but I can't imagine them choosing a given venue because it is designated "gun free".

[Slopemeno]

I take quite a few EOC/ICS/NIMS classes for work, and the proper terminology for one of these clowns is now a "violent intruder" -vs- Active Shooter.

[BillCA]

I'm having a hard time believing that these guys actually seek out "gun free zones". I think it more likely that the places they naturally target just happen to be commonly designated as such.

The point can be debated. As you point out, it may be that the shooter picks the location because he holds a grudge with a person within that location or a business in such a location. However, with several of the shopping mall shootings, the shooters did not show a specific goal to target only an individual or only one business. Rather, they initiated the shooting and then began firing on others they encountered.

One can also argue that some of these killers merely seek out large groups of people they can access and many of these are in "gun free" zones. Shopping malls seem almost ideal with lots of open spaces, very little hard cover and generally poor security.

As the economic situation worsens, it would not surprise me if we see more of these incidents. Nor would it surprise me to hear of more occurring in high-rise office buildings. High unemployment will cause high stress among many people and some will blame bosses or companies for their situtations.

Hit ratios:
I think csmsss and nemoaz are on target here. The fact that these killers are shooting at unarmed citizens and making hits at no better than 50% of the time indicates they are not highly skilled shooters. Of course, after the first shots, many of those targets will be moving. But it doesn't take a high degree of skill to make a hit when firing into a crowd or to shoot someone under a table 15 feet away.

[nemoaz]

I worked on a murder in which we seized the computer. One of the things the bad guy did was search for states that did and did not have the death penalty. The **** then took a road trip to the closest non-death state, got off the exit and stopped at the first house that had a long driveway. The norm, no. Did it happen, yes?

I thought the Muslim teen who did the shooting in Utah mall went to another county to find a gunfree zone.

I'll tell you this much, I've yet to hear of an attack at an NRA convention. Coincidence?

[Kline605]

Sorry Double Naught Spy,

I should have responded to you sooner.

They don't have to be good shooters for their chosen activity. What matters is the number of people they hit. Compare that to the police where it is critical whether or not they are good shooters not how many people they hit, but who. The police can't afford errant shots.

That's exactly right. They don't have to be good shooters, most of the time the bad guys are initiating the gun fight on their terms and they don't have to worry about how many people they hit, because once they start pulling the trigger everyone else is a fair target. Most LEO's will always start the gun fight behind the power curve because our job is inherently reactive. It is easy to hit targets in a crowd while running away.

[Brit]

Traditional LEO training does not lend it's self to dealing with a person in a School building shooting children and teachers in that building.

For instance long tiled corridors, with doors opening off them? Fit that on a 25 yard by 25 yard outdoor, or indoor range? Hardly, now imagine the pucker factor in advancing down that type of passage, in the usual gun at 45 degrees, cautiously? We now have a large dark clothed individual, with no cover, badge glinting, trapped in a 12' ft wide funnel!

Swat course, 5 day duration

As a visiting firearms Instructor, teaching LEO and Security we were in a recently abandoned middle School in a small City in Tennessee, at a time when the then named active shooter doctrine was just coming in.

We were all carrying hand guns, no ammunition anywhere! We had all been searched prior to entering the training area! WELL SEARCHED! I was the right hand side of the 4 man triangle.

Classrooms were searched as we progressed down the ugly green painted passage, this call was armed teen seen entering, not a shots fired scenario.

Voices from a classroom drew us to an open door, (we had been instructed to take the shot if and when we located this armed teen) the point man took a knee, gun up, and proceeded to instruct the two roll players who were 15 ft from him, in this classroom, verbally.

"Drop the Gun" over and over! In room "Teacher" kneeling, "Teen" behind him, revolver pointing at head of "Teacher" I swapped positions with the kneeling Officer, and saw, what he had seen, in terms of a target, a clear head shot on "Teen" I asked him did he know he was parked in a handy capped parking space, when he started to respond to my idiotic question, I shot him in the head! (A click!) My pistol, Glock 17 with a 5 lb trigger, I had shot thousands of rounds through.

Debrief, point man had A/ never shot from kneeling! B/ was not confident in hitting his target and getting any kind of instant stop. AND! did not know his zero for a two inch tall, 3" long (approximately) impact area of the human head at the range of 5 yards. That one incident brought forward so much discussion.

My concern a selfish one, he only had to lift his arm! and I was the target!

This type of training is so important, and time and budget constraints tend to prohibit it, plus the real "Classroom" is not so easy to come by.

I hope the reader know knows why we have you shoot "Dots" at 5 yards now! A 2" dot equals an eye socket.

[FALPhil]

kline605 wrote:
And comparing the hite rate of a **** shooting unarmed people in a crowd and LEOs fighting for thier lives or someone elses is crappy.

You missed the point. A great many LEOs react by forgetting their training or with a spray and pray mode. Many times, innocent bystanders are hurt or killed. There are many examples of this phenomenon.

I realize that cops are human and they make mistakes. But if you look at the number of rounds expended vs the number of hits by LEOs, it does not look good.

[Kline605]

You missed the point. A great many LEOs react by forgetting their training or with a spray and pray mode. Many times, innocent bystanders are hurt or killed. There are many examples of this phenomenon.

I would definitely have to disagree with this. I review a lot of law enforcement shootings and I have yet to see "Spray and Pray" as a common theme in LEO shootings. I am not saying that it never happens, but it isn't the norm.

Understand that shooting data is very subjective. Shots fired vs hits being one of the most. As an example, how many of these shootings involve vehicles where numerous rounds may have to be fired before a handgun round can penetrate and stop the threat. These rounds were not sent flying into a crowd killing and wounding innocents, but they were still counted in the statistics as misses.

I understand that LEOs are human, and we definitely make our share of mistakes. But I have never seen reckless shooting as a norm in LEO shootings. And I can promise you one thing, any LEO who has been doing the job for any length of time is keenly aware of civil liability. We do miss in gun fights, as do soldiers, and civilians.

[Double Naught Spy]

Since the mass murderer profile is based on the article from PoliceOne that cites Borsch, I would like to add the additional shortcomings to the article that indicate some serious shortcomings.

Borsch's research came primarily from internet research. The claim made in the PoliceOne article that...

The researcher "...has found no evidence of any LEO in the U.S. yet being wounded or killed in an active-shooting incident "

If that is the case, then the researcher on whom all this is based did some poor research.

What poor research? Glad you asked. So no officers have been injured or killed during active shooter situations in the US. BULL! Mind you, I am not the expert, but by golly I can find lots of incidents to the contrary using the exact same resource he used, the internet. I found a "lot" when you consider the apsect that there aren't supposed to be ANY such indcidents.

Officer Billy Paul Speed was killed by Charles Whitman. Speed was one of the first officers arriving on scene at UT, responding to the shooting. UT is in Texas and was part of the United States at the time of the shooting. This is just one internet references of dozens that were apparently missed by Borsch...http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...n/index_1.html

Officer Allen Mcleod was killed and three other officers wounded by Frederick Cowan during his mass murder active shooter rampage in New York. At the time of the shooting, New York was part of the United States.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...einhard_4.html

Officer Elmo Gabbert was shot in the hip by Kenneth Tornes during a standoff after cops chased Tornes after he killed is wife and then several firefighters at a fire station. This happened in Mississippi which was part of the US at the time of the shooting.
http://emernet.emergency.com/ff-shoot.htm

Officer John Warde responded to a workplace shooting and was shot by Arturo Reyes Torres who also wounded Officer Art Romo via flying glass from a shot that missed that officer. Torres had shot and killed four coworkers and wounded another in California, located in the western United States.
http://articles.latimes.com/p/1997/dec/20/news/mn-431

And I will add the Tyler Courthouse incident where a Tyler Police Detective, Two Smith County Sheriff's Deputies were injured and CCW holder Mark Wilson was killed by David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr. And Texas was still part of the USA when this one happened as well.
http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?S=2994393

Well gee, I am no expert, but I can see that there are lots of officers injured or killed by active shooter mass murderers in the US. The danger is VERY REAL to officers and the article cited above misrepresents that danger to officers.

Unlike the article, I provided some links. You may or may not agree with a couple of the selections, but there is no excuse for missing classic mass murder active shooter examples such as with Whitman and Cowan. Those are fairly well known and ANYBODY researching this sort of thing should have found them.

I am certain there are more, but I think I have made my point to call into question the accuracy in profiling of mass murderer active shooters and their threat to police officers. Note that I have not included incidents like Klebold and Harris where they attempted to harm officers during the actual incident but were unsuccessful. I did not include incidents where the shooters tried to do harm to officers after being caught (like Kip Kinkel). I also didn't include Hank Earl Carr who was a mass murderer who made cops part of the mass that he murdered. AND, I didn't use any incidents that came AFTER Borsch's research was conducted such as the Alabama shooting that left 10 dead and at least one officer injured or the incident in Philly that resulted in the deaths of three officers.

Given the obvious examples of officers killed or wounded while trying to engage mass murdering active shooters that were obviously missed in the research, do you really feel inclined to believe the percentage data used to make of the profile? I would be inclined to believe that without seeing the author's actual data, the profile he has created is likely quite faulty.

Were Whitman and Cowan poor shooters? Nope. Even if the shooters were poor shooters as is being claimed, they have still managed to kill and wound several officers. You really want to address an active shooter with the assumption that the shooter will be a poor shot (hence apparently pose less risk) as claimed by Borsch?

Truthing a lot of this garbage isn't that hard.

[GetYerShells]

This is an interesting read. Yesterday was Students for Concealed Carry here in Texas. My wife wore my holster yesterday to all her classes. There is a bill right now in the Texas legistlature written by former UTSA students and faculty that would allow liscenced faculty and students to conceal carry their firearms on college campus. I hope it passes.

[David Armstrong]

So no officers have been injured or killed during active shooter situations in the US. BULL! Mind you, I am not the expert, but by golly I can find lots of incidents to the contrary using the exact same resource he used, the internet.

Semantics rears it ugly head again, as the definitions become important. None of the shootings you listed would be classified as active shooter under some definitions. On the other hand, some departments classify it so broadly that any mass murders or spree killings could be called active shooters. That is one of the problems in researching some of these things, we can't get everybody to agree on the terminology.

[Double Naught Spy]

I said you may disagree with some and that is fine, but Whitman, Cowan, Arroyo seem to fit as active shooters under just about any definition. Borsch should not have missed them. If Borsch is excluding incidents where police are responding to shots-fired/man with a gun incidents where the shooter is in the process of continuing to attempt to kill people or has already killed lots of people, then he is doing the police a huge disservice by claiming such incidents are easy.

So I'll bite, why would Charlie Whitman's incident not be considered an active shooter incident by some definitions? Did he not shoot enough rounds? Enough people? Were his targets not confined enough? The shooting was ongoing when the cops responded, was it not? If Whitman wasn't an active shooter, then what was he? Is it that active shooters, by some definitions, are only those folks who kill themselves before the cops get a chance to intervene?

[David Armstrong]

So I'll bite, why would Charlie Whitman's incident not be considered an active shooter incident by some definitions? Did he not shoot enough rounds? Enough people? Were his targets not confined enough?

Again, it depends on definition, and that is one of them. A number of active shooter definitions say that the potential targets must be confined within a restricted location from which exit is limited. Other definitions focus on the shooter, for example if his movement is restricted, as Whitman's was.

[Double Naught Spy]

So he wasn't an active shooter because of a lack of confinement? Source?

That certainly would not appear to be a common definition of "active shooter," would it? So assuming you are correct, why would Borsch use a less common definition? We woud Borsch speak in such generalized terms and yet use an overly specific definition without explaining it?

I realize you don't have the answer for that. I am just casting aspersions on the notion that Borsch was using a more obscure definition in order to justify his claim of how LEOs are really not in any danger in these easy situations.

Why wasn't Cowan?

[Double Naught Spy]

Let me take another tact. Operationally speaking, how if the incidents I cited were not active shooter situations, what sort of situations were they?

Given the conflicting definitions of "active shooter" you seem to indicate exist, can you name any where both the shooters and victims are not confined?

Just what definition of active shooter do you think Borsch was using? How does a cop responding to a scene know if he has an "active shooter" as per Borsch's definition and hence knows it will be an easy situation to handle such that he can just rush right in as claimed and the shooter will fold up shop and either surrender or commit suicide?

Holy crap, if the issue is semantic definition, then those little semantic differences may get cops killed, don't you think?

Borsch does not appear to be using a highly restricted definition of active shooter, however.

He lists the following as active shooter incidents where the shooter was subdued by the first armed person encountered...
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/featu...featureID=3593

Mall shooting in Kansas City Mo.
Church shooting in Colorado Springs
Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City
School shooting at high school in Pearl Miss.
Santee California High School shooting
Fairchild Air Force Base shooting
El Cajon California high school shooting
Dimebag Darrell concert shooting, Columbus Ohio
Topeka KS domestic violence shooter incident

Note that these are fairly generalized incidents. Borsch states...

Since response to an active-shooter incident is a race, a race between the responder(s) stopping the shooter and the shooter racking up a greater and greater body count, I strongly advocate that officers should move to contact as quickly as possible, and by themselves if need be, to expedite stopping the shooter from killing more victims.

It does not sound to me like Borsch would claim Whitman wasn't an active shooter, or Cowan, or any of the others.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Interesting.

I always thought "active-shooter" meant that a bad guy was actively shooting non-bad guys, as in "happening right now", "active".

[David Armstrong]

So he wasn't an active shooter because of a lack of confinement? Source?

Again, definitional.

So assuming you are correct, why would Borsch use a less common definition?

Can't speak for him, won't speak for him. I'm just pointing out that when people use terminology that is open to interpretation, it behooves them to provide the definition that they are using. Since we don't know what definition Borsch was using we don't know if his inclusions or exclusions are accurate.

Operationally speaking, how if the incidents I cited were not active shooter situations, what sort of situations were they?

Whitman, for example, has traditionally been classified as a barricaded sniper, IIRC. But that is where the definition issue comes up, because some consider all barricaded snipers as active shooters.

How does a cop responding to a scene know if he has an "active shooter" as per Borsch's definition and hence knows it will be an easy situation to handle such that he can just rush right in as claimed and the shooter will fold up shop and either surrender or commit suicide?

I think you are misrepresenting what Borsch has said. I don't see anything that suggests the BG will automatically just fold up shop if the officer rushes in or that it will be an easy situation.

[Double Naught Spy]

Whitman is classified as a barricaded sniper? LOL. They did know he was barricaded until after most of the killing was done, did they?

Isn't a barricaded person engaged in actively shooting people an active shooter? I gather from Borsch's description of active shooters that Whitman would definitely qualify. So would Cowan.

Whitman, for example, has traditionally been classified as a barricaded sniper, IIRC. But that is where the definition issue comes up, because some consider all barricaded snipers as active shooters.

Given how Borsch describes active shooters and there being a race to stop them before racking up body counts, I would say he would as well. So I stand by my claim that Borsch missed several incidents where cops were killed and injured by active shooters, incidents he claims never have happened in the US.

So you don't see anything from Borsch to suggest active shooters will just fold up or that it will be easy?

From the first post of the thread...

They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

Easy, well the easiest man with a gun call the officers will ever handle, apparently. From Borsch... This citation is from the PoliceOne link in the very first post of this thread...

Because active shooters seem so intent on killing, it’s often difficult to convince first responders that “this bad guy is one of the easiest man-with-gun encounters they will ever have,” Borsch observes.

So the active shooters will likely be the easiest man with a gun calls officers will ever handle because his extensive study indicates such shooters will fold up and won't hurt the cops in any way as they never have before, which is completely wrong.

By his own description of active shooters, Borsh missed significant information that is directly contrary to his claims and therefore is misrepresenting the threat posed by active shooter mass murders to cops.

[Deaf Smith]

Here in Texas you can use deadly force to protect an innocent third party, PC 9.33 (and I'm real sure these mass murders would qualify.) But, you are still open to civil lawsuits (wrongful death PC 9.06.) Plus in PC 9.05 below if you kill an innocent third party:

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Now what this means is, if say at the local high school which you are visiting to pick up your kids, and you hear gunfire and screaming, and you go in with your weapon, you are taking a big chance as you don't have the immunity the police have.

Now I'm not saying to run away, but just make sure you are skilled and realize the dangers. I hope and pray I have the guts to go in, and according to the study you actually have a good chance if you keep your cool. But you or I can still wind up in a world of hurt or worse.

And even if you succeed, it isn't over yet!

Now let's say you terminate the monster(s). The cops will be coming real soon (if they are not there now.) I strongly suggest you put the gun up and act like a terrorized teacher until things are sorted out. It would be real easy for the police to think YOU are the gunman and open fire.

This goes double if it's a workplace massacre since everyone is probably an adult and they will look real carefully as to if anyone is the shooter.

So think carefully.

[David Armstrong]

Whitman is classified as a barricaded sniper? LOL. They did know he was barricaded until after most of the killing was done, did they?

Hiding behind a wall, in a tower that has been blocked at the entrance...yeah, that is a barricaded sniper.

Isn't a barricaded person engaged in actively shooting people an active shooter?

Depends on your definition. I certainly wouldn't classify Whitman as an active shooter incident, others might.

So I stand by my claim that Borsch missed several incidents where cops were killed and injured by active shooters, incidents he claims never have happened in the US.

OK. You're certainly entitled to do that. I think it just as likely, perhaps more so, that Borsch was working from a different definition than you are, as some of the incidents you mention are well coverfed in the literature and common knowledge.

So you don't see anything from Borsch to suggest active shooters will just fold up or that it will be easy?

No, I don't.

From the first post of the thread...

"Typically fold" is very different from "will fold". Nowhere does Borsch suggest that an active shooter will always give up and pose no danger to the officer. His point seems to be more that many active shooters are not particulalry aggressive beyond their immediate goal, and thus the officer can attampt to contain the damage sooner than we might have previously believed appropriate .

So the active shooters will likely be the easiest man with a gun calls officers will ever handle ...

Similarly, the "easiest man with a gun call" does not mean it is an easy call, it means in the spectrum of a particualrly dangerous call one type will be easier than others.

By his own description of active shooters, Borsh missed significant information that is directly contrary to his claims and therefore is misrepresenting the threat posed by active shooter mass murders to cops.

OK. I think you've completely misinterpreted Borsch and what he has said, but everyone is welcome to interpret things in their own light. In fact, in the original article he specifically says that he feels this will "lessen the toll of casualties while exposing the responders involved to little additional risk." He doesn't say there is no risk, only that a one or two-officer assault does not expose the officer to much in the way of dangers other than would be present if they waited for the more commonly recommended 3 or 4 officer team.