Run, Hide, FIGHT

[shafter]

Not having a firearm, makes fighting contrary to basic instincts, but it is likely the best option if trapped with a crowd.



Best course of action is to bum-rush the attacker with as many others as are willing, and overwhelm the attacker.

In a panicked crowd of drunk strangers you're going to coordinate a counterattack? You might get your chance depending on where you are in the room in relation to the shooter. Up close when it starts and you're sober, you might have a chance to attack. Across the room with everyone moving your way for the exits? Just get out and try not to block the door.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

These cowardly bastages look for targets where victims will be least likely to be armed or try to mount a counterattack.

I don't know. Mateen had been to the club several times and knew the club had armed security (off duty cop).

Best course of action is to bum-rush the attacker with as many others as are willing, and overwhelm the attacker.

It is, but you have to be smart about it. Multiple people tried this at Luby's, Fort Hood, VT and all ended up shot and many ended up dead. It certainly did work against Loughner, Seattle Pacific University (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Qb2kNaw0), and various other school shootings, sometimes by people already wounded.

More than one eyewitness account said that at first they thought the gunfire was part of the music. We're talking about a dark environment with very loud music and flashing lights. It's disorienting to begin with. I think a lot of them didn't even know what was happening until it was too late.

This is a common theme among interviewed survivors/witnesses at many such events. In this case, people thought it was part of the music or goings-on of the club. Some realized it was unusual, but thought it was a prank (common misperception). People often say that they thought the shots were fireworks. In the process of realizing what is going on, many on seeing a person or persons with guns, many still have thoughts that the situation is a prank, can't be happening, etc. These people often lose critical seconds of time. You can see such reactions in many security videos of events with bad guys. Even many trained professionals lose critical seconds of needed reaction, not because they can't react faster, but because they haven't processed the information going into their brains sufficiently to to react.

The hero of the Pennsylvania mall shooting back '85 walked up and disarmed Seegrist after seeing her shoot people. He thought the whole event was a staged pre-Halloween prank. He quickly go fed up with the distasteful joke and walked up to Seegrist and grabbed her gun and grabbed her as well putting an end to the joke. He saved a lot of people from harm, thinking he was saving them from a distasteful prank.

Last night I learned that over 60 lives were actually saved by a fine young man who succeeded in opening one of those doors, see http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...ting/85860320/

This guy did good, no doubt about it. He was the paid bouncer who worked at the club who knew the layout of the building. He opened a door nobody else was opening and he and 60+ others ran from the club.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Until you have been in somebody's field of fire, anything you think is just conjecture.

I tend to agree with this.


Pete's encounter is a prime example. Sorry you had to go through that Pete.

 

[DIY-Pete]

I tend to agree with this.


Pete's encounter is a prime example. Sorry you had to go through that Pete.

I agree with it as well. I truly believe that visualizing your actions like mentioned earlier in this thread is a useful tactic.

Pete

 

[Deaf Smith]

In a panicked crowd of drunk strangers you're going to coordinate a counterattack? You might get your chance depending on where you are in the room in relation to the shooter. Up close when it starts and you're sober, you might have a chance to attack. Across the room with everyone moving your way for the exits? Just get out and try not to block the door.

Studies where groups of people in rooms, where one person was armed with a simulation gun, shows in such scenarios that it worked very well when attackers burst in.

The attackers were to confused with everyone running in different directions to see the defending shooter in time.

Deaf

 

[old lady new shooter]

I ain't most people... and where I'm at I can. And a lot of places you CAN carry (but get fired from your job if found out).

You take your pick and pay your price.

Deaf

Around here there are a LOT of people carrying even though nobody can get a permit. Will be very interesting to see what happens when there will be a case where one of them shoots a BG.

 

[old lady new shooter]

In a panicked crowd of drunk strangers you're going to coordinate a counterattack? You might get your chance depending on where you are in the room in relation to the shooter. Up close when it starts and you're sober, you might have a chance to attack. Across the room with everyone moving your way for the exits? Just get out and try not to block the door.

One of the survivors who was interviewed was shot in both legs and couldn't even get up, never mind walk. He said other people simply trampled him in their rush to get out.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Studies where groups of people in rooms, where one person was armed with a simulation gun, shows in such scenarios that it worked very well when attackers burst in.

The attackers were to confused with everyone running in different directions to see the defending shooter in time.

Deaf

How do you avoid hitting the innocent people in that scenario?

 

[old lady new shooter]

They showed us a training video at work (a "gun-free zone") where the pretend victims are trapped in a room when the pretend gunman comes busting through the door firing. One person goes to cold-cock him with a fire extinguisher, another with a desk chair. They freeze-framed right there.

I saw a video of a real-life terror situation in Israel, two guys used chairs to pin the terrorist against a wall. But in that one the terrorist had a knife, not a gun. There are places in the US where knives are very popular attack weapons (e.g. NYC), so this technique is still good to remember.

 

[Plan2Live]

“The road of life is paved with flattened squirrels who couldn’t make a decision!”

And with many of their brothers who made the wrong decision.

 

[Deaf Smith]

How do you avoid hitting the innocent people in that scenario?

Wait for a clear shot. Most people don't run TOWARD the shooter or gunfire. They run away from gunfire. Others will just drop or dive to any cover. A few may just stand there cause they have no idea what to do.

In such situations you first have to identify the shooter (if possible after you have moved to cover), then engage as the situation unfolds.

One thing for sure, no two situations will be exactly the same.

Deaf

 

[X-Rap]

How do you avoid hitting the innocent people in that scenario?

It may sound calloused but we may have to face the fact that there will be collateral damage if we are indeed to successful in fighting this ever growing threat.
If 47 or 48 of those killed could have been saved at the cost of one killed or wounded by a pass through, ricochet, or miss would it be acceptable?
What happened to the armed guard who initially engaged the shooter? Where did all of his bullets go? Did any hit the shooter?
What was going on for the 3 hours between the first gunfire and the eventual raid that ended the attack? Where did all those bullets go?
I haven't been following this as closely as some but I find those few things to be curious.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It may sound calloused but we may have to face the fact that there will be collateral damage if we are indeed to successful in fighting this ever growing threat.
If 47 or 48 of those killed could have been saved at the cost of one killed or wounded by a pass through, ricochet, or miss would it be acceptable?

While you and others may or may not find "collateral damage" in the form of innocent lives lost morally acceptable, it is never going to be legally acceptable. If a coroner determines that one of the deceased died as a result of a shot you fired, you'd better be ready to face manslaughter charges.

Bureaucrat beancounters can get away with those kind of greater good calculations, and the resulting loss of life. Private citizens have no such immunity.

 

[Deaf Smith]

One more thing Old Lady New Shooter.

Ever been to a restaurant and, even though you knew who you were looking for, how hard it was to find that person? Now imagine how hard it would be for a nutjob to identify one person, whom they have never seen before, in a crowd that is scrambling to get away, who is drawing their gun while also moving to cover.

One has a good chance of engaging them if they train and are ready for such a possibility.

Deaf

 

[old lady new shooter]

What was going on for the 3 hours between the first gunfire and the eventual raid that ended the attack? Where did all those bullets go?

The terrorist was going around finishing off all the people he only wounded the first time. Interestingly for someone who reportedly aced all his marksmanship tests as a security guard, he wasn't very accurate at this endeavor. Or maybe he just wanted to inflict more suffering. One survivor who was interviewed (the guy who was initially shot in both legs) said when the terrorist got to him he appeared to be aiming for his head but instead hit his hand and some other place I forget now.

While you and others may or may not find "collateral damage" in the form of innocent lives lost morally acceptable, it is never going to be legally acceptable. If a coroner determines that one of the deceased died as a result of a shot you fired, you'd better be ready to face manslaughter charges.

Agreed, but what jury would convict under those circumstances? That said, civil suits might be filed by the families.

imagine how hard it would be for a nutjob to identify one person, whom they have never seen before, in a crowd that is scrambling to get away, who is drawing their gun while also moving to cover.

Given that most places won't really have cover, only concealment, what do you (or anyone) think about getting down on the floor like many will anyway be doing, and then shooting while lying on your strong side? (One plus of that position is that the floor supports your arm.) Would you kind of melt into the mass of bodies and not register as a threat?

 

[Malamute]

I don't think there was any shooting going on for that 3 hours, that's why they weren't rushing in. That's what ive seen so far, though early report are often incorrect.

Its possible his poor finishing shots were due to the sight offset.

Rather than overthinking all the details of accidentally hitting someone else in a chaotic situation, Id suggest just focus on doing the best you can and not get too distracted until its over.

 

[X-Rap]

Part of my point in #37 was regarding the guard who by all accounts was armed and engaged the shooter. I have not heard if he was killed, ran, shot others by accident, it seems unusual that he is not being heralded as a hero or charged with assault.
On the three hour lapse in engagement by police, it doesn't look like they weren't following the current active shooter protocols of immediate contact by responders.
Three hours is a long time if the shooter did indeed continue firing at the wounded.
I suspect collateral damage will continue to be unacceptable until circumstances change and lives are actually spared. It's important to note that we are in times that are changing and as this fight gets brought to us we will have to make adjustments to the norms we have become accustom to.

 

[Malamute]

On the three hour lapse in engagement by police, it doesn't look like they weren't following the current active shooter protocols of immediate contact by responders.

Three hours is a long time if the shooter did indeed continue firing at the wounded.

They did engage at first, it was a back and forth fight. He retreated into a bathroom with hostages. With no shots being fired, they talked to him, both him calling police, and them calling him back. He said he had explosives, and would put explosive vests on 4 hostages. It was also reported that he claimed to have 4 snipers outside that would engage if they attempted to come in again (which turned out to be false, as was the bomb claim) It was after the several hours of negotiating that it was decided he was not going to come out and they had to take the chance of a full on attack, which I believe included flashbangs and they tried unsuccessfully with explosives on the back wall to access the area where the hostages were. They ended up breaking through the wall with the Bearcat on the second attempt. They got officers in and hostages out through the holes. It was all over very shortly after that.

 

[X-Rap]

I won't go to far Monday morning quarterbacking so that explains the three hours but I still find it odd that there is no talk of the armed guard.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[MachIVshooter]

Agreed, but what jury would convict under those circumstances? That said, civil suits might be filed by the families.

I wouldn't bet on jury nullification when you're on trial for taking an innocent life. Remember, the jury's directive is deciding guilt or innocence based on evidence provided; they don't rule on whether or not an otherwise criminal act is excusable (justified) unless the defendant makes an affirmative defense.

 

[Shane in MT]

In a panicked crowd of drunk strangers you're going to coordinate a counterattack? You might get your chance depending on where you are in the room in relation to the shooter. Up close when it starts and you're sober, you might have a chance to attack. Across the room with everyone moving your way for the exits? Just get out and try not to block the door.

I'd try.

Sometimes when people are terrified, they want to do something but they don't know what to do. They will often follow a leader.

I know the odds are long. But if you are trapped in a kill zone, the only option is to attack.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, the main thing I had thought of so far was that a mag change would be the best opportunity to do something.

The best opportunity to do something would be if you had your own gun.

 

[Plan2Live]

The best opportunity to do something would be if you had your own gun.

It was 2am in a nightclub. Are we really suggesting that going into a nightclub at 2am is a good idea? Are we going to double down on that and suggest that carrying a firearm into a nightclub at 2am is a good idea? Unless you are paid onsite armed security why would you want to be around a bunch of drunk (and potentially high) people while armed? I know someone who owns an armed security company that contracts with a nightclub. They are challenged, threatened, spat on and taunted every hour of every night they are on duty because they are dealing with drunk people. Why would you voluntarily insert yourself into such an environment if you aren't being paid to do so? And knowing you will be surrounded by drunk and irresponsible people why would you carry a firearm?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It was 2am in a nightclub. Are we really suggesting that going into a nightclub at 2am is a good idea?

It is my understanding the victims were already there -- no one wandered in after the shooting started.

Are we going to double down on that and suggest that carrying a firearm into a nightclub at 2am is a good idea?

I'll raise you about 50 dead and about 50 more wounded that not having a gun with you at all times is a BAD idea.

Unless you are paid onsite armed security why would you want to be around a bunch of drunk (and potentially high) people while armed?

I wouldn't -- but wherever I was, I'd be armed. And maybe if some of these people had been armed, there would be fewer dead.

I know someone who owns an armed security company that contracts with a nightclub. They are challenged, threatened, spat on and taunted every hour of every night they are on duty because they are dealing with drunk people. Why would you voluntarily insert yourself into such an environment if you aren't being paid to do so? And knowing you will be surrounded by drunk and irresponsible people why would you carry a firearm?

If I knew I were going to be surrounded by drunk and irresponsible people, I would definitely carry a firearm. Wouldn't you?

 

[IWAC]

I wonder about the difference in mindset between the customers of the Orlando club, and the event where students at an Arizona College took down a shooter after he began shooting others.
They also had been partying, and the question would seem to be; was the natural desire to run dampened by what they had been drinking, and/or bravado increased by the same thing? Either way, it was a better result.