Active Shooter Scenario

[AKPastor]

As part of my work, I receive a lot of updates about church issues. I received one with a link to an article discussing what to do if an active shooter came into a church.

For this thread - I think the scenario would apply to many types of public buildings.

Anyway, for discussion:

What did the author get right? Why is it right?

What did he get wrong? What are the flawed assumptions that might have led to that wrong strategy?

Because I am responsible for a weekly meeting of lots of folks on a weekly basis, I am very interested in a critique of the article

As well as thoughts on how to make such a situation more secure for the good guys and to actively engage the bad guy and neutralize the BG as a threat

The link
http://www.buildingchurchleaders.com/articles/2007/070606.html?start=1

The link does go to a website that is religious in nature. But this is not an attempt to proselytize.

 

[J.Boyette]

For that article this is my taking on it.

Steps 1- 2 : Are great advice and will help after the first 100 to 200 shots are fired. And if the shooter or shooters stop at the round count.
BUT keep in mind a police force is reactive not pro-active. Also almost all police forces on Sunday's run the lowest man levels of the whole week. So reaction times are now slower then what you would have had on any other day of the week.

Step 3 : Is only a delay barrier at best. To ballistic breach a door takes less then 5 seconds on a lock, and 15 seconds on the hinges if using a shotgun. Using a Pistol it takes twice as long, and to use a rifle half of the original time frame.

Step 4 : Same as Step 3, its a delay barrier at best. The main issue with step 4 is fire codes. No one in there right mind would want to have locked doors in a building at any time that holds people tapped in a building.

I would summit to you to have a meeting of the church congregation and find out who in the church is a CCW holders and ask them to carry during services. This is the fastest and most random way to protect a group of people. I would also say once this is found out to hold training at your site with airsoft pistols and practice a shoot no shoot situations.

If your church congregation is faced with this issue you will need competent people to engage and put down the threat.

Hope that helps a little.

John Boyette

 

[heeler]

Frankly I thought #1 was a waste of print.
Once an active shooters is on the scene how the cops handle it will be their call totally and you are not going to have any say in that so I am not sure of the point there at all.
Not to mention that once some nut is blasting away every man woman and child is basically on their own to try and flee the area.
#3 and 4 made sense too me.

 

[Sam1911]

I would summit to you to have a meeting of the church congregation and find out who in the church is a CCW holders and ask them to carry during services. This is the fastest and most random way to protect a group of people. I would also say once this is found out to hold training at your site with airsoft pistols and practice a shoot no shoot situations.

There are very serious legal concerns with a church or other community/volunteer organizaton officially encouraging or, certainly, requesting patricipants to go armed and act in defense of the group.

We discussed this most recently here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6963598

... Like with a great many other (less life-altering) issues, the churches may be encouraging a "good neighbor" and "do unto others" mindset among the congregation. That may work o.k. when organizing a pot-luck dinner (though there's always the [strike]chance [/strike] likelihood that you'll end up with sixteen string-bean casseroles and no roast beef), but it really isn't a very safe -- and I'd even say ethical -- way of dealing with congregants acting as armed guards.

There is always the chance that, if a pcp-addled junkie armed with a machete barges in during communion, Deacon Jones will put him down with one carefully placed shot and will be lauded by the congregation, cheered by the community, and kissed on both cheeks by the Commissioner of Police.

But almost every other possible armed altercation has a much less clear, clean, and rosy outcome. And what then? Does the church empty it's coffers to fight a civil suit from the poor, unfortunate attacker's family? Does the church somehow become a party to the criminal case when some witnesses say the "attacker" had turned to leave before he was shot, that he had a butter knife, not a machete, that he said "I'm gonna BLESS you," not "I'm gonna KILL you," -- and District Attorney does not agree that Deacon Jones' act of lethal force was justified?

Does the church even have some mechanism by which its own congregants agree not to sue Deacon Jones for the errant shot that passed through (or, more likely, by the attacker) and tore through Miss Mable in her wheelchair ... or the nursery beyond?

It's not like any of these things are better if Deacon Jones was just acting to save his own hide, but the (perceived or expressed) "duty" to act in some official capacity may spur someone to act far beyond what a reasonable person should do -- and certainly opens up the pastor, BOD, and church itself to a world of trouble.

It is a "tread cautiously" kind of thing. I don't think I'd want to accept that charge, if asked.

 

[MaterDei]

The article is about preventing and reacting to a shooter. Prayer works! Step one on the prevent list should be prayers for the safety of the congregation.

I attend a church which is in downtown Houston in what would not be considered a very nice part of town. The men in our parish and the ushers in particular watch people coming into the building very closely. It is usually pretty easy to spot somebody who might be a problem, violent or otherwise. They are allowed to enter for Mass, of course, but they are watched very closely. Also, I know for a fact that there are at least a few of us who carry while there.

 

[Sam1911]

Many of the statements made by the author appear to be aimed at very large church buildings/congregations. In most of the churches I've been to it would take less than ten steps (and one perforated door greeter) for a shooter to move from outside to in-range of the congregation and/or minister. "Denying access" sounds great, but absent some very discerning and forceful people at the door (the exact opposite of those usually appointed to those duties) even the most non-violent of threats are not going to be successfully turned back or delayed. This is a complete non-starter for most churches.

Working with the police ahead of time may make some sense. Again, especially in very large churches where floorplans and blueprints may help them strategize their siege and infiltration of the structure. That may help them, when they finally arrive. (How many people can an active shooter kill in 5-15+ minutes before an officer arrives?) It isn't going to do a lot to save many lives.

An active shooter will have the most "success" in that kind of scenario in the first minute or so. He's going to be in a target rich environment facing shocked and bewildered people who will hit every exit simultaneously.

Last negative point: lockdown plan! First off, the idea of isolating the shooter sounds wonderful, until you consider that you'd be locking him IN, WITH his victims. And then consider that he's going to want to be in the most populous part of the church when he starts his attack, which is the sanctuary. And then pause to reflect that most churches are largely deserted except for the sanctuary during services. (Nurseries, etc. aside.) So what a lockdown accomplishes is dropping a piranha in the goldfish bowl and patting yourself on the back because he can't get out. Yeah. And all his targets are locked into the biggest room in the building, with him. This is a church service, not a college dorm, classroom block, or office building.

Fortunately, most life safety and fire codes are going to prevent this from being enacted anyway. Public assembly places MUST have exits unlocked at all times the building is in use. Wiring up some kind of remote "lockdown switch" would require electric door locks, or door closers with the doors set to lock automatically, neither of which are going to be common outside a prison (or again, probably even legal from a building code standpoint).

In the end, his core suggestions are the only good ones. Direct physical confrontation. Close the distance (as he said) and engage the threat. That involves great courage and presence of mind by the congregants who can do so, but it is the only practical way of slowing down an active shooter and ending his actions as soon as possible.

Massed counterattack by the largest number of able congregants, using any contact or edged weapon they have or can find, has ended the actions of active shooters (even coordinated terrorist efforts) in the past, and is certainly making the very best of a horrifying situation.

Considering the collateral-target-rich environment, any counterattack using firearms is extremely risky and should be undertaken with great caution. Of course, ending a killing spree may justify grave risk, but any possible positioning or shot angle adjustments should be made to reduce the likelihood of hitting others trying to escape.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Personally, I got more out of reading http://www.charlvanwyk.info/books_shootingback.html than the referenced article.

How many people can an active shooter kill in 5-15+ minutes before an officer arrives? is the critical question IMHO. The answer to me seems fairly obvious, but the potential legal ramifications of the 'obvious' approach could well be pretty hefty. I recall (or maybe misremember) a certain amount of tippy-toe rhetoric about the official status of the person who stopped the shooter at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs about four years ago ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/summer/5.77.html ).

lpl

 

[dovedescending]

Hypothetically, I would quietly and discreetly discuss this with the other permit holders in my church, and sit in tactically advantageous places in the room. Hypothetically.

 

[J.Boyette]

I will tell you what.

I could care less at the (idea) of armed church members and the legal side of it before the shooting happens.

We all know that afterward it will work out due to the fact of no better system in place.

If the police reaction worked then the idea of a active shooter would not take place at all correct?

John

 

[Crusader103]

There are very serious legal concerns with a church or other community/volunteer organizaton officially encouraging or, certainly, requesting patricipants to go armed and act in defense of the group.

I have undergone several professional level courses in active shooter training. I now conduct active shooter training for law enforcement agencies, and have even done so for churches.

The quote above is a very true statement. No matter how much we would like to ignore it until after the fact, legal issues are of great concern before we (or a congregation) ever make a resolution of armed defense.

Especially as it concerns an organization, you cannot ignore issues of insurance and civil liability. To do so may very well destroy the church. Encouraging regular attenders to take up arms can also open even a church to criminal liability. This could very well be the case in which church leadership promotes the carrying of a firearm yet has no training in place to attempt to prevent the loss of innocent life at the hands of an apparent defender. Surely, if a member dies in any part because the church promoted the carrying of firearms but did not provide training, they are indeed criminally negligent.

A case can be made for the unspoken acknowledgement by church leadership that some of their members are known to carry. If the church does not provide training, it is in their best interest to have a written policy that governing law should apply. In most circumstances, if they neither promote nor discourage a practice, they will be ok as long as their known standing is simply to allow members to abide by applicable state and local CCW laws.

There is yet another concern that must be addressed by even an individual member who chooses to carry a weapon in church.....

Unlike most defensive situations involving the use of a firearm, there is potentially going to be a great number of innocent bystanders involved and the distances at which a life saving shot must be taken may very well be increased significantly. Very few CCW holders are capable of making the necessary shot from what may be a significant distance with many other people frantically milling about. I am not saying that it cannot be done or should not be attempted - simply that it must be considered well before hand.

An active shooter situation with many innocents present is one of very few incidents in which I promote an aggressive advance on the threat. It is not ideal and presents a significant threat to the safety of the defender, but there are very few better options.

A violence of action towards the aggressor will often overwhelm their sensory inputs and create just enough of a delay for you to close the gap and fire multiple rapid shots. It is as if you are attempting to create a "deer in the headlights look." It is nearly the same as a SWAT team making entry on a perpetrator who knows they are coming. The SWAT team attempts to make as much noise as possible while advancing aggressively. They are obviously not getting out of the line of fire but relying instead on their own actions startling the perpetrator so badly so as to be frozen until overtaken.

Having taught several day courses on this very subject I could no doubt expand this already lengthy post, but I will end on this.

If you can remember to do just two things in response to an active shooter in a church, do this:

1) Overwhelm the attacker with a violence of action.
2) The moment the intial threat is neutralized, do not hesitate. Advance to the children's area and ensure it's security.

Don't ask me how I know, but it is known that certain elements are now planning almost diversionary attacks to take advantage of the vulnerable. That is where you need to be.

 

[ichiban]

It's too bad that all churches can't have a Jeanne Assam on their security team.
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1639408-Former-Minn-officer-saved-lives-during-Colo-church-rampage/

A great interview with a true hero.
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/3297401-Jeanne-Assam-It-was-me-the-gunman-and-God/

It is sad that churches can be targets for such violence. It is even more sad if a church refuses to acknowledge this possibility.