For an active shooter? Find and engage the threat ASAP. Some agencies have a system in place to alert all personel both on duty and off to respond. No one is being told to shoot first and ask questions later but there is definitely urgency to stop the threat as fast as possible and anyone with a gun out stands a high likelihood of being shot.
Your NPE gun and the active shooter
- Thread starter GEM
- Start date
For an active shooter? Find and engage the threat ASAP. Some agencies have a system in place to alert all personel both on duty and off to respond. No one is being told to shoot first and ask questions later but there is definitely urgency to stop the threat as fast as possible and anyone with a gun out stands a high likelihood of being shot.
.455_Hunter
Member
What I'm looking for are the protocols to avoid getting shot by the responding units. Whether it's an officer with a badge in his wallet or a citizen with a carry permit in his wallet it doesn't make much difference in the moment...
dweis
Member
I have a really different slant than Ellifritz. My policy is to never go unto a gun-free zone unless I must and have no alternative. That might be courthouse, school, or government building. If a proprietor does not want guns on his property. In his mail, at his concert, etc, then I am pleased to not go to those places. I think planning and testing methods to get a gun into a gun-free zone is just stupid. Why take the risk. Can’t you live without being at the gun-free concert? I can. It is just simpler to not gomthan taking the risk of taking a gun where it is restricted. NPE is just more jargon. What’s wrong with gun-free? Damn I am a dinosaur and I love it.
There aren't protocols. Officers are usually encouraged to avoid taking action when off duty and not in uniform unless it's absolutely necessary. Plain clothes officers typically inform uniformed units that they are doing business in the area.
In small towns its likely that all the officers will know each other pretty well and will recognize each other but aside from that no one is looking for badges or IDs. They're looking for guns. The majority of cops, just like armed citizens, aren't adequately trained for something like this and there's going to be alot of tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.
Let's suppose there is a protocol that allows officers to interact with other officers, even those out of uniform to rapidly and accurately identify them.
So, let's think for a moment about the ramifications of the existence of this "secret handshake"... Hmmm... "Secret handshake"...
I'm not saying there is such a thing, I'm only saying that if there were such a thing, it seems unlikely that LE would be happy telling the public about it since that would destroy its usefulness.
.455_Hunter
Member
Let's suppose there is a protocol that allows officers to interact with other officers, even those out of uniform to rapidly and accurately identify them.
So, let's think for a moment about the ramifications of the existence of this "secret handshake"... Hmmm... "Secret handshake"...
I'm not saying there is such a thing, I'm only saying that if there were such a thing, it seems unlikely that LE would be happy telling the public about it since that would destroy its usefulness.
You completely missed the point of the question.
It's not about "secret handshake" silliness.
It's about things like reholstering immediately after firing versus keeping a gun drawn on a downed perp. It's about not picking up the perps weapon versus what happened to citizen Johnny Hurley in Arvada.
Any official guidance would be useful for discussion with the members of the forum.
There have been instances where uniformed officers were shot by responding officers in the dark. Please get the idea that you should engage an active shooter or join the hunt for one out your head. Put it out of your mind. There are only a couple exceptions one is when the shooter is directly in front of you and you know for sure that he’s the shooter (i.e. targeting you or an innocent person) and not another armed citizen. The other is when you are in a location where you know there is a long response time. If you aren’t in one of those situations you need to keep your weapon concealed and get yourself and anyone with you to safety.
If you do shoot, don’t stand around holding your gun on the person you just shot. Holster and conceal it. Do not be visibly armed when responding officers arrive, that’s asking to be shot.
I spent my entire LE career working in a rural area. Everyone with a badge knew each other by sight. None the less on the one occasion I made an off duty arrest (people stealing parts from my neighbor’s truck). I made sure my weapon was holstered when the responding deputy arrived even though dispatch was told who I was and that I was armed.
Unless you have responded to a serious call where there are a lot of people calling 911 you really can’t appreciate the chaos and the confusing updates as dispatch sends out information from different callers.
If you do shoot, don’t stand around holding your gun on the person you just shot. Holster and conceal it. Do not be visibly armed when responding officers arrive, that’s asking to be shot.
I spent my entire LE career working in a rural area. Everyone with a badge knew each other by sight. None the less on the one occasion I made an off duty arrest (people stealing parts from my neighbor’s truck). I made sure my weapon was holstered when the responding deputy arrived even though dispatch was told who I was and that I was armed.
Unless you have responded to a serious call where there are a lot of people calling 911 you really can’t appreciate the chaos and the confusing updates as dispatch sends out information from different callers.
All you can do is make common sense decisions based on thinking about how what you do will appear to a responding officer.
If you feel like the danger is still enough that you must keep a gun pointed at an attacker and you know an officer will be responding, then you need to create some distance or look for cover so you can safely disengage. You will be told to disarm when the officer arrives and you need to get into a situation where you can do that without jeopardy. I've seen a video where an attacker set upon a group of people in a park with a large rock. They subdued him with some effort, got the rock away from him and were using it to keep him under control. He opportunistically attacked the victims in the presence of the responding officer when the officer told them to drop the rock. They complied with the officer's commands and as soon as the rock was out of play, the attacker sucker-punched one of the female victims.
If you can reholster safely, then do it. I wouldn't get in the habit of "immediately" reholstering after firing because people don't always react the way you expect them to when they get shot. People sometimes get shot multiple times, fall down, lie there awhile, then jump up and restart the festivities. The slowest part of your response is probably drawing your gun, you won't want to put yourself in a position to do that until you are absolutely sure that things are safe--and if you know you will need to reholster because an officer is coming then you need to do what is required to make it safe. Cover or distance.
Best not to mess with the scene in any way past what is absolutely necessary to stop the threat. You don't have any responsibility to collect items at the scene and it's probably best not to approach the attacker even if he's down. Awhile back a guy was blindsided at a party. Shot in the head. Took out an eye, made him deaf in one ear, messed him up pretty badly. He went down and the shooter thought he was dead--I think maybe he thought he was dead too for a little bit. Then he got up and killed the shooter.
I wouldn't secure any weapons with the idea of preserving evidence for law enforcement. They're likely going to want everything exactly where it ended up. Better to try to move people away from evidence than move evidence away from the people.
The only caveat to that is if moving it is absolutely necessary for safety.
The only caveat to that is if moving it is absolutely necessary for safety.
Speedo66
Member
I worked for a state agency in NYC. Between city, state, Federal, and others like Port Authority, there were probably at least 50 different law enforcement agencies of all types there.
My agency frowned on us getting involved off duty. However, at training we were told if we pulled our weapon to also pull our shield, and hold it up where it could be seen, even from behind. We also practiced reacting to calls from responding officers to drop our weapon, and to give a uniform verbal response.
My agency frowned on us getting involved off duty. However, at training we were told if we pulled our weapon to also pull our shield, and hold it up where it could be seen, even from behind. We also practiced reacting to calls from responding officers to drop our weapon, and to give a uniform verbal response.
If there's a cop in the food court, and a guy starts shooting up the food court, I would assume the cop is going to shoot the guy. Why would I pull a gun?
If I'm in the food court, and some guy starts shooting up the food court, and there's no cop around, why wouldn't I try to shoot the guy? I shouldn't pull my gun, because the cops might accidentally shoot me? There's a guy that is going to shoot me on purpose- that's my priority.
If you're saying don't pull your gun out at the Chick-Fil-A at the highway, run across the mall parking lot, through Macy's, the length of the mall, to the food court, yeah, that's probably a bad idea.
I just think the fear is way overblown. When I think of spree killings in public venues, I can think of maybe a dozen cases in which armed people have intervened. I can think of two who were shot. Neither of them were shot by police, and one of them never pulled his gun, because he was afraid of being shot by police.
You should be cognizant of it. You shouldn't be handling a gun after the killer is no longer a threat. You should be ready to drop a gun if the cops show up. You should accept that there is some risk of getting shot by a cop anyway, but if you're already engaging a killer you've assumed some risk.
Heck, you face some risk just being there unarmed. A few years back Bloomberg sent out a story about a mass shooting in NYC where 10 people were shot, then quickly took it down, because 8 of them were bystanders hit by the police. Some guy shot his business partner and pulled his gun when police confronted him in a crowded area.
I think he's right. If you carry in an NPE: (a) there's a chance you'll be caught, regardless of any other variables; and (b) there's some non-zero chance of being shot by the police if you have to use your gun. Each of us must decide how much risk tolerance we have, and for which particular risks.
There is very little, if any, similarity.
The subject at hand involves the risk of a civilian shooting a firearm durinf an incident with an active shooter, and the risk that the civilian will be shot.
The modified gun question comes up when there has been a shooting and when gaps in the evidence gathered after the fact make what happened unclear. Since investigative officers, prosecutors, and criminal defense attorneys are aware that the majority of self defense claims are bogus, evidence that may go to state of mind can be very important.
Do you really think that someone trying to stop an active shooter will "ask questions" before firing?
On another forum, an officer told of a guy with a gun out running across a parking lot towards a mall. There was an active shooter in the mall. Another officer was about to shoot him but was stopped on a guess by the first officer. It was a hubby whose wife was in the mall and he was going to the rescue.
There isn't any "official" guidance on what civilians should do in that situation. Most police have minimal training on what to do in that situation while in uniform, let alone how to deal with non uniformed, unidentified good guys with guns out. Be behind cover with the gun put away when they arrive.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Not LEO here, but it seems to me that any responding LEO to an active shooting event isn't going to question whether the venue he's headed into is designated as a GFZ by law or by owner. All the LEO knows is that he's headed into an area where a reported active shooting event has taken place or is in progress. Nothing else reliable will be known until AFTER they have control of the area and have secured it.
Until that happens, tensions will be high and the level of danger will also be presumed to be high.
To that end, the issue of carrying NPE is no different than carrying outside an NPE.
Now, the LEGAL consequences of being caught inside an NPE with a firearm will be different than being caught outside an NPE with a firearm...whether you used the firearm or not.
Which means this all boils down to the nitty-gritty of determining whether the circumstances at the moment the event unfolds warrants the use of deadly force by the person carrying the firearm, period.
Because the fact is that whether you're in an NPE or not, you WILL be the subject of a police investigation for having drawn and used a firearm. The only practical difference is whether they can charge the person for carrying where they weren't supposed to have been carrying in addition to anything else.
Until that happens, tensions will be high and the level of danger will also be presumed to be high.
To that end, the issue of carrying NPE is no different than carrying outside an NPE.
Now, the LEGAL consequences of being caught inside an NPE with a firearm will be different than being caught outside an NPE with a firearm...whether you used the firearm or not.
Which means this all boils down to the nitty-gritty of determining whether the circumstances at the moment the event unfolds warrants the use of deadly force by the person carrying the firearm, period.
Because the fact is that whether you're in an NPE or not, you WILL be the subject of a police investigation for having drawn and used a firearm. The only practical difference is whether they can charge the person for carrying where they weren't supposed to have been carrying in addition to anything else.
If you doubt that after an investigation, some antigun DA won't go for you, even in a 'good' shoot' - read this:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/m...urder-charges-against-wounded-robbery-victim/
Guy is shot, gets gun and fights back with it, charged with gun possession and murder!
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/m...urder-charges-against-wounded-robbery-victim/
Guy is shot, gets gun and fights back with it, charged with gun possession and murder!
.455_Hunter
Member
I didn't ask about official guidance for civilians. I asked what official guidance is provided to plain cloths, undercover, or off-duty LE who may get caught-up in one of these scenarios and need to deploy their weapon. Simply put- What do their corresponding agencies train on how to avoid getting shot by the responding uniformed LE? Some of that content may be useful to civilians.
Conversely, if uniformed LE active shooter response training is not including the possibility that may be other armed individuals present at the scene, that needs to be rectified. An automatic "see a gun, open fire" engagement protocol is problematic on multiple levels in these scenarios. Some of you folks may not like my viewpoint, but that's OK.
Seeking out and targeting the active shooter can be highly effective (as shown by Johnny Hurley), but also very risky (as also unfortunately shown by Johnny Hurley). As with many things in life, you choice has many repercussions, including death, injury, legal, financial, mental and emotional. It's not a clear cut yes or no question. People who say they will "always engage" because of XYZ or "never engage" because of ABC are kidding themselves.
Last edited:
Sorry. I assumed you were, based on this post.
I'm sure it varies by the department. I strongly suspect that there aren't any official protocols for that in most places. I know there aren't at my local department, although I'm sure it's helpful that there are only a few deputies and they all know each other. Several also know me, so I have that going for me, if I ever got into the situation we're discussing.
There are lots of reasons why it may not play out that way. You might be right next to the guy or have line of sight. The cop may be on the other wide and hear gunfire and see two armed suspects. There are a million scenarios, none of them are likely to happen to any one of us statistically, but weird things happen when bullets start flying.
fastbolt
Member
If local police are told by an event coordinator that firearms will not be permitted into the event, except for authorized LE assigned to work the event, and that screeners will check for them at the entrances, it would be reasonable for police working the event, as well as responding to any active shooter incidents, to operate with this knowledge.
Now, would a uniformed cop shoot someone else not recognized as permitted LE at such an event, who is actively presenting a firearm? Depends. It would certainly merit and draw attention at an active shooter incident. What's the person doing, though? Is he/she busy shooting and killing obvious unarmed innocents, or perhaps engaging another armed person, such as an active shooter, who is shooting at innocents? Whole lotta maybes to think about on the fly ... and someone smuggling an unauthorized firearm into such an event just added another layer of complexity for the local cops to consider in the chaotic, exigent situation. That's something that could've been prevented.
Off-duty cops? I've known of entertainment venues to work closely with local LE to familiarize them with their policies, and even seen local LE agencies develop policies regarding whether they wished their people to refrain from carrying off-duty weapons to certain venues. Depends.
Plainclothes cops working such events? This is the sort of thing where a working plan could be devised that would allow for private security and uniformed cops present (and those who might be called to respond for assistance) to be provided information about the plainclothes cops working such details, how to recognize them, etc. Organizational plans need to take such things into account.
Bottom line, or one of them, at least? If someone deliberately chooses to disregard a private property venue's policy of not allowing firearms (or other weapons) to be carried onto the premises for a posted event - even if it's not against local/state laws - that person has willingly decided to create a potential added level of risk to themselves, and possibly others. After all, what if more than one person smuggles a weapon into such an event? Or someone decides to act against the unknown 'good guy with a gun' in some unexpected, albeit unarmed way (using a field expedient weapon from the armed person's blind spot)? Lotta maybes. The TANSTAAFL principle comes to mind. Also, why help Murphy make things interesting?
Just my thoughts.
Now, would a uniformed cop shoot someone else not recognized as permitted LE at such an event, who is actively presenting a firearm? Depends. It would certainly merit and draw attention at an active shooter incident. What's the person doing, though? Is he/she busy shooting and killing obvious unarmed innocents, or perhaps engaging another armed person, such as an active shooter, who is shooting at innocents? Whole lotta maybes to think about on the fly ... and someone smuggling an unauthorized firearm into such an event just added another layer of complexity for the local cops to consider in the chaotic, exigent situation. That's something that could've been prevented.
Off-duty cops? I've known of entertainment venues to work closely with local LE to familiarize them with their policies, and even seen local LE agencies develop policies regarding whether they wished their people to refrain from carrying off-duty weapons to certain venues. Depends.
Plainclothes cops working such events? This is the sort of thing where a working plan could be devised that would allow for private security and uniformed cops present (and those who might be called to respond for assistance) to be provided information about the plainclothes cops working such details, how to recognize them, etc. Organizational plans need to take such things into account.
Bottom line, or one of them, at least? If someone deliberately chooses to disregard a private property venue's policy of not allowing firearms (or other weapons) to be carried onto the premises for a posted event - even if it's not against local/state laws - that person has willingly decided to create a potential added level of risk to themselves, and possibly others. After all, what if more than one person smuggles a weapon into such an event? Or someone decides to act against the unknown 'good guy with a gun' in some unexpected, albeit unarmed way (using a field expedient weapon from the armed person's blind spot)? Lotta maybes. The TANSTAAFL principle comes to mind. Also, why help Murphy make things interesting?
Just my thoughts.
Please explain how you would handle this without slowing the response to the point we should go back to waiting for SWAT? Tell me exactly how this will work in real life? You are aware of the FACT that responding officers are going to get multiple reports of the shooters location and description and most of them will be false. How many reports have you heard that are released to the public while an active shooter incident is in progress that said there were multiple shooters that turned out not to be true when it was over.
What protocols do you recommend?
fastbolt
Member
It likely varies.
Large events may involve creating operational plans which may involve ways for both uniformed and plainclothes/UC people assigned to the event to recognize those not in uniform. Depending on the agency, there might even be a policy to recommend (or advise) off-duty personnel who may be planning to attend the event not to carry their off-duty weapons. Or to inform the agency of their plans so their presence may be known by those working the event. Depends. If alcohol is going to be sold, then whatever policy is in effect for consumption of alcohol and carrying weapons while off-duty needs to be considered.
Naturally, specific tactics that may be adopted and utilized by LE in such circumstances aren't usually for public dissemination.
.455_Hunter
Member
I see we have some ruffled feathers, but that's good.
The protocols I suggest would be training on the ability to make better situational assessments in real time, because non-uniformed LE and armed citizens are a real possibilities, regardless of the venue, that need to be considered for these scenarios. SHOOT/NO SHOOT training is done all the time, but active shooter response engagement is a different beast than traffic stops, responding to a DV call, suspicious person, etc.
For example, the guy hiding behind a concrete flower planter with a LCP or snub in his hand is probably NOT the active shooter. Is it reasonable to verbally engage him, tell him to drop the weapon, and get on the ground- Absolutely yes. Is it reasonable to open fire on him without warning? In this citizen, taxpayer and veteran's opinion- Absolutely not.
Conversely, the guy in the out in the open with a prominently displayed weapon is on the other end of the scale- Much higher probability of being the active shooter. Unfortunately, as the Johnny Hurley incident illustrates, this is NOT always the case.
None of this is perfect, but the concept of an automatic "see ANY gun = open fire" protocol for this scenario is completely outdated, rather arrogant, and not reflective of the real situation on the ground.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
