School board meeting-When to shoot?

[LordTio3]

I subscribe to the following, which is a continuation of force matching the threat level.

1. You notice a possible threat- Your attention level goes to high-alert. You take notice of small, otherwise almost insignificant things (hand placement, proximity, positioning, eye contact, etc...)

2. Threat level increases by verbal contact, proximity, or threat posturing- You ready your weapon to be retrieved (ready to clear cover garments, move closer to cover, gain distance, make verbal contact if appropriate).

3. Weapon is produced - Produce your own weapon and TAKE AIM. It is important to take aim at this point in order to gain the upper hand in the engagement in order to end it.

4. Attacker progresses attack by advancing or aiming - You fire utnil the conflict is resolved.

I feel like this is immediately applicable.

~LT

[Double Naught Spy]

I may have misheard, but I didn't hear him say that in the video.

I don't know what you did or did not hear, but the gunman definitely says that he is going to "die here today." See 1:30/32... here...http://www.viddler.com/explore/wmbbvideo/videos/3476/
then he says, "They are calling the police as we speak....I'm going to die here, okay."
see 3:50/52

Even the board member restated the gunman's words about killing himself, so it would be hard to miss. The gunman made it very clear he was going to die there that day.

Then again, if someone isn't going to take the risk in fighting him, the only other strategy would have been stalling.

I like binary decision trees as much as the next person. It really simplifies things. However in a situation where you are being held hostage, if the hostages are not going to try to fight the hostage taker, there most definitely is not only one other strategy which is negotation. There are a myriad of options, though many center around compliance and escape and those dealing with compliance are often for the benefit of stalling as with negotiating.

That lady is an idiot with guts, IMO. She had the courage to act, but had neither a sound plan or the proper tools to execute her poor plan.

Idiot is a bit harsh. It turns out to not have been a good plan, no doubt. She improvised on the fly when the opportunity presented itself to her. Had it worked, we would all be talking about how clever she was to have seized the opportunity and to have acted decisively to disarm the guy.

I doubt she had ever considered all the improvised weapons she had around her, or how best to take out an attacker.

You are right. Then again, had she taken the time to consider things in detail, the opportunity may have passed. Think about how many times we read or hear people say that they wished they had done something when they had the chance, but didn't, and then things went south.

It is a tough position to be in, especially for a person with isn't trained in such matters.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's watch the comments that person X, Y or Z was cowardly or dumb. Discuss their actions rationally.

All kinds of people freeze, do silly things, do brave things. You don't know what you would have actually done. You can speculate on heroic actions.

[LordTio3]

The woman, Pursewhacker, DOES have some guts. Lots of guts. Guts-galore. I think more people tend to freeze into inaction than don't; even the armchair security force. Honestly, I think if I listen hard enough, I can hear her brain scream, "He's right there! DO SOMETHING!" right before she did the first thing she could think of and hits his hand. It probably wasn't the smartest thing she could come up with. Lord knows she didn't have much time to assess, and it probably won't go down in her memory as one of her more glorious moments. But possibly turning an armed assailant to kill you where you stand takes enormous courage. I think "hero" might be a bit extravagant. But inspiring? You bet. Courageous? Without a doubt. Self-sacrificing? Why not. And she was the only one there who was willing to close distance and make contact with him. Once confronted, she simply did what made the most sense to her to ensure she didn't get killed: Make it an incredibly dishonorable act (more-so than it already was) by forcing him to kill a kneeling, crying, woman after she saw him care enough to ask most of the women to leave.

_______________________________________________________

Another question occurs to me, and it might start a little debate (hopefully the honorable kind).

The security officer, Husfelt, did what he was trained to do; call the police and wait for backup. He made sure that he was in close enough proximity to engage if necessary, but he also could not have a clear view of the precipitating events. If the gunman were to raise his weapon and fire, and a citizen were to engage him with a firearm and take him down; what is the probability that the security guard, hearing the gunfire, comes in and sees one or more people on the floor and a person with a weapon and returns fire on that person.

I realize that the single threat had already been identified, but the time from shots to return fire seemed to be just enough to get in the room and aim a weapon. Those gears are turning mighty fast. Should the guard have been in the room to witness the events as they unfolded in order to make sure to minimize the risk of misinterpretation of the situation that he sees only for a split second?

~LT

[Jt1971]

People tend to stick around when things get odd. They like to stare and watch so they can get a good story for their friends. However, its always best to leave when the situation seems to be getting beyond the point of normal.

One tactic is the five person rush. Before a situation gets out of control, five people rush the man. Each person grabs a limb...i.e. one person grabs a leg while another person grabs an arm. The fifth person disarms the man. This is something that you can practice with a group of people at work as a way to handle these situations. In this situation, while the man was spray painting the wall, 5 people could have rushed and each grabbed a limb. Another moment was when the lady came in and hit the man with her purse. The board members could have rushed him.

The key ingredient is to take care of these situations at the start rather then waiting for it to escalate. Human nature is to stay still, be quiet and hope that help arrives. However, if someone produces a weapon in the workplace then they mean to use it. There is usually one or two opportune moments where an attacker can be rushed and disarmed. By practicing these situations with your work team then you can defuse these situations. The key is for everyone to move at once and act quickly.

Another idea is to search handbags and do a minimal pat-down. If a pat-down is not practical, then at least look in hand-bags, have people wearing baggy/loose clothing lift up their shirt to see the waistband, have people open up their jackets and look for bulges that would suggest they might have a weapon. Im not sure why an armed officer or security guard was not stationed in the room. I know at small town meetings around here there is always a uniformed officer standing somewhere inside. Its also a good idea to place these meetings near a police station. Around here, the town hall and police station are side by side so meetings are right next to the station.

When you have groups of public officials meeting in one place, especially when people are getting terminated from their employment in mass, then its a good idea to have at least minimal security. I would be careful about attending public meetings where there is no security.

[yourang?]

on the nightly news it was just said that the
gun was a "smith and wesson 9mm"

i dont think they said more than that

they possibly could have added "semi automatic" but i
cant remember

sorry for not being more precise or able to give a
specific citation

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If the shooter had wanted to shoot everyone, the 5 person rush from behind a desk is a nonstarter. Let's be real.

A reasonable shooter could from a surprise start (to the victims) put a shot in everyone in about 3 seconds. You going to get up and over the desk in that time? How long to overcome shock and surprise?

Remember the table of police officers shot at the coffee shop.

I've tried a simulation of the mass charge from behind desks with a shooter at reasonable room distance. You get shot if you are in the front.

Let's have naked public meetings, pat downs, X-ray scenes, etc.

We might argue for carry. If you are trained and not immediately shot by surprise, you had a chance here.

[thawntex]

I have no definitive answer for the OP's question, but what astounds me is the assumption that Clay Duke's gun was loaded with blanks. Even after the gunfight ends you can hear a man proclaiming, "They're not real, I don't think. He had caps, Mike, that's what he wanted right there."

If someone is pointing a gun at you, does it not seem hazardous to assume that it's loaded with blanks and that the gunman only wants to harm himself and not you? And then, even after the guy points at you and fires, to continue to labor under the same assumption?

[BILLtheDJguy]

does it not seem hazardous to assume that it's loaded with blanks

I was always tought to treat EVERY gun as if it was loaded.
ESPECIALLY, if it's being held by someone else.
Even at the LGS, I frequent, when someone is playing with the merchandise and I already watched both the salesman and the customer check the chamber, I still don't like the muzzle pointed in my direction...
Call me crazy...

[Double Naught Spy]

One tactic is the five person rush. Before a situation gets out of control, five people rush the man. Each person grabs a limb...i.e. one person grabs a leg while another person grabs an arm. The fifth person disarms the man. This is something that you can practice with a group of people at work as a way to handle these situations.

Let's not limit the training to a 5 man bum's rush. That is only applicable to a very limited number of situations and so just training for that seems awfully short-sighted. All of the board members obviously need extensive training in any one of several martial arts as individuals and then need the additional training in team tactics. Of course, this should probably be applied to the entire staff, right?

So just when are these folks going to actually have time to do their jobs?

In this situation, while the man was spray painting the wall, 5 people could have rushed and each grabbed a limb.

I really doubt that 5 people behind the desk are going to be stealthy enough and fast enough to get to the guy while painting without him turning, seeing the threat, drawing his gun, and shooting them.

Another moment was when the lady came in and hit the man with her purse. The board members could have rushed him.

It was an opportunity, but a tough one to act on and an even tougher one for an entire group to act on in unison.

It is easy to know what to do after we know what happened. It isn't easy to know what to do when it is actually happening.

The key ingredient is to take care of these situations at the start rather then waiting for it to escalate.

So escalate now instead of later? Okay, but before the situation escalates, how do you determine that escalation is necessary?

Human nature is to stay still, be quiet and hope that help arrives.

Remaining still and quiet is but one type of reaction of human nature. I don't know that waiting for help to arrive is human nature as much as it is a taught behavior.

However, if someone produces a weapon in the workplace then they mean to use it.

It is probably most wise to assume they intend to use it, but time and time again, people produce guns in workplaces and don't use them. It depends on the circumstance.

There is usually one or two opportune moments where an attacker can be rushed and disarmed. By practicing these situations with your work team then you can defuse these situations. The key is for everyone to move at once and act quickly.

Okay, and those 1 or 2 instances are not always readily apparent when they are happening or in a manner that a response can be mounted before the opporunity passes. Given that the key is for everyone to move at once, basically what you are saying is that it is almost certain to be doomed to fail as there is virtualy no way that you are going to get 5 people to react simultaneously to such a situation. Even if trained, they all must be able to see the situation in the same manner so as to know when to make the rush. If they don't all have the same knowledge, they won't all know when to react.

Once again, when are these folks going to have the time to do their actual jobs.? Training to be an efficient, tight knit unarmed reaction force that can react in unison to unplanned circumstances to overwhelm an attacker is going to take months or years to accomplish.

Okay, we have that settled. Now we need to train the school board to be able to handle two attackers with guns. Bad guys aren't always solo. How long will that take?

Of course, they need to be trained to handle the school board meeting situation, but also must have the same training when doing their regular school administration duties when they aren't in the meeting room.

Wait, we need everyone to have all this training because bad guys don't always just attack school boards.

Somehow, it just doesn't seem so easy anymore. The reality of the unknown is much more complex to plan for than an event that has already passed.

[DG45]

I just saw a TV interview with the security guard who took down the shooter. It answered some questions I had about why he didn't shoot before the gunman shot at the school board members. He was outside the door and the gunman was between him and the school board, and all of the school board members were sitting upright before the shooter started firing. This meant that the security guard had to get inside the door before he could get off an aimed shot, and opening the door may have incited the shooter to start firing. In any case, the security guard would be shooting in the same direction of the board members. That's why he had to wait until the guy fired a shot to come in and shoot.

The security guard didn't say so, but I also believe some of the people in the room didn't believe the shooters gun was real. One apparently didn't believe he was firing real bullets even after the shooting was over.

[zxcvbob]

I've tried a simulation of the mass charge from behind desks with a shooter at reasonable room distance. You get shot if you are in the front.

Are your chances for survival better tho' if the shooter has to take an unaimed shot at you while you rush him? Or waiting for him to line you up and shoot you in the head? (which may not happen)

I don't have an answer because of the "may not happen" part.

[Jt1971]

Im not saying to have naked public meetings, but at the least, a minimal amount of security. Have an armed uniformed police officer or security guard stand over to the side looking over the room. Take a glance into handbags and anyone wearing loose clothing or a jacket take a look inside. After this incident, I would expect increased security at public meetings nationwide. If I walked into a public meeting after this incident and was asked to submit to a pat down then I would understand as to why. In fact, if there was no security at the meeting then I would be concerned and bewildered.

I know when there are mass layoffs at certain private companies they do hire off-duty police officers or armed security guards to hang around the property for a few weeks until things settle down. If the school board just had a big layoff, then they should have implemented some type of security. The police department should have done something to assist with the meeting.

As for the rush, I believe there are some active shooters who have every intention on killing as many people as possible. Some active shooters would have killed all six men or may have not let anyone in the meeting room go and then tried to unload on everybody. A "rush" is a risky maneuver and someone is going to get shot, but I think I would rather take my chances rushing the man then have myself get lined up and shot or shot in place. If I am moving while I am shot, then chances are I will be hit in a place that he is not aiming for.

[Jt1971]

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-29/j...ce?_s=PM:CRIME

I took a moment to study the article about the 4 officers at the coffee shop. It appears that two officers were shot while sitting. They probably had no time to react. A third officer barely had time to stand up. Then the fourth officer was able to react and rush the shooter. I dont believe they had time to do anything let alone rush the suspect as a group.

In this situation, there were a few opportune moments and there was time. This active shooter decided to fire and miss. Other active shooters would not have been so kind.

"Training to be an efficient, tight knit unarmed reaction force that can react in unison to unplanned circumstances to overwhelm an attacker is going to take months or years to accomplish."

Morgan Stanley's Chief of Security Cyril Rescorla made the Morgan Stanley employees go through drills after the truck bombing in 1992. He made sure that every Morgan Stanley employee working in that building had specific training in regards to evacuation. He ran periodic fire drills where Morgan Stanley employees would evacuate the building. Cyril was not concerned when Morgan's employees could do their jobs. If it was not for his efforts, then then some 2700 employees would not be living today. He actually ignored the advice the authorities were given to him and evacuated the building according to his plan.

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

Today there are domestic threats and these incidents are popping up. Each company has to have a plan and drill periodically.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The rush - your chances are crappy. That's why we should push for carry.

I assume competent shooters at the worst case. Some rampage shooters have practiced. At VT, Cho hosed a charging brave young man.

Like I said, in simulation, I've seen good shooters at a normal room distance manage to put rounds into chargers.

One can say - OH, you shouldn't give up and die. Or do nothing.

My point is posting heroic sounding posturing isn't that useful. Realistic evaluation is better than tough guy talk.

Watch a good shooter from the start engage multiple targets. If you think you could have gotten up and to the school shooter, you are mistaken.

It is possible that you could have drawn and engaged if not the first one shot.

So, spare me the rhetoric about being lined up and die. Sure, if you are going to die, go for it but be realistic. All this about grabbing his limbs, blah, blah.

This is another reason for quality FOF training. Try it. The NTI does this kind of thing. I charged - I died. Another time, I was real close and did a disarm.

Don't just through out impractical plans as if you are expert and telling us what to do as if they would work.

We all aren't Taffy 3 at Leyte Gulf.

Now about patting everyone down at public meetings. If legal, I carry at public places. So, should Mister Security Guard disarm me when I want to just say my piece? Just ban guns!! That will stop felons from carrying them at all.

Should Mr. Security Guard almost give me a happy ending because I know how to conceal better than the described pat down. Get real again.

Captain Hindsight - go watch SouthPark.

[Double Naught Spy]

Are your chances for survival better tho' if the shooter has to take an unaimed shot at you while you rush him? Or waiting for him to line you up and shoot you in the head? (which may not happen)

I don't have an answer because of the "may not happen" part.

The closer you get to the bad guy, the less he needs to aim to hit you. Proximinity negates skill. The closer you get to the bad guy, the larger your relative size. At contact distance, the bad guy can be blind and deaf and hit you with every shot.

We all aren't Taffy 3 at Leyte Gulf.

But we would be dead heroes, or a lot of us would.

[k31]

i am very disappointed with the lack of effort by those who left the room to get help it sounded like there was a safty officer of some sort who did come in and then quickly left
the old lady is the only one who tried to do anything
maybe the outcome would have been different and maybe not
there were multiple exits in that room which means multiple entries there were so many things that could have been done but people sat and watched and never stood up for what they know to be right
thank you mainstream America for another job left to some one else because it is risk, difficult, or some other way inconvenient for you. our forefathers are beaming at us now!
call it a tough guy act or what ever you want
i was taught that if you know something is right and you dont act on it you are doing the wrong thing (jamse4 17) integrity has little to do with religion
that woman with the purse was as far from tough as it gets
tring to beat down a man 4 times your size with a purse aint to smart either
those are the cards she had so she played them
we dont always get the best hand but that shouldnt be any reason just to sit there with you tail down

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That will do it. We aren't being productive.

Closed.