Your NPE gun and the active shooter

[wayneinFL]

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.

There are a million scenarios. I gave you 3. You gave me one.

The risk of getting shot by a cop while in a public venue where carry is against policy is lower than what people are making it out to be. Anti- gunners have said that's one of the reasons people shouldn't be allowed to carry.

Yet, it's rare enough that I've never heard of it, and no one on this thread has thrown out an instance of in which it has happened.

And again, you're already assuming some level of risk by getting involved. If you're that worried about getting shot by the police, you shouldn't be engaging someone who is already killing people. You should leave.

 

[bearcreek]

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.

That'd be great. Problem is, most cops don't have sufficient training to do what they're already doing. There's no way that additional training like what you describe is going to become commonplace. You're on your own.

 

[.455_Hunter]

That'd be great. Problem is, most cops don't have sufficient training to do what they're already doing. There's no way that additional training like what you describe is going to become commonplace. You're on your own.

Far enough. My declaration that SHOOT/NO SHOOT training is done "all the time" is probably ignorant, but doesn't change the validity of needing a more nuanced response to active shooters with regards to whom may also armed on-scene.

 

[Jeff White]

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.

What you are suggesting is a complete revision of the active shooter response that has been successful since the late 1990s. I don't think you understand how officers are trained to respond. Current doctrine calls for responding officers to form into 2 or 3 person teams, enter the structure and hunt the shooter. They don't stop to aid casualties, they don't slowly and methodically clear rooms like a SWAT team would. The mission is to find the shooter and stop the killing as fast as possible. You don't do that by stopping when you see an armed person to determine friend or foe. While the officers are identifying the armed person as a good guy the real shooter may be still killing. Another thing you are ignoring is that as soon as you produce your weapon another citizen armed with just a cell phone is likely going to call 911 and say there is another shooter and give the TC your description.

For example, the guy hiding behind a concrete flower planter with a LCP or snub in his hand is probably NOT the active shooter.

How do you know this? Don't you understand the time element involved. While the officers who are hunting the shooter are tied up identifying a possible good guy the real shooter is still killing. Is that what you want?

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

Johnny Hurley is the perfect example of not being visibly armed when LE arrives.

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.

Taking the time to separate wanna be heroes from active shooters allows the shooter to keep killing innocents. What part of that is so hard to comprehend? The entire response plan is based on locating and stopping the active shooter as fast as possible. THAT is the real situation on the ground.

 

[bearcreek]

I think folks sometimes have a hard time separating a discussion of tactics based on how things are from a discussion of how they'd like things to be. I would like to see us get to a point where the cops wouldn't need any training because the well trained civilians gunned down the active shooter 2 seconds after he/she started shooting. I'm fully aware however, that that isn't realistic. Neither is expecting the cops to have a high level of target discrimination under stress.

 

[.455_Hunter]

What you are suggesting is a complete revision of the active shooter response that has been successful since the late 1990s. I don't think you understand how officers are trained to respond. Current doctrine calls for responding officers to form into 2 or 3 person teams, enter the structure and hunt the shooter. They don't stop to aid casualties, they don't slowly and methodically clear rooms like a SWAT team would. The mission is to find the shooter and stop the killing as fast as possible. You don't do that by stopping when you see an armed person to determine friend or foe. While the officers are identifying the armed person as a good guy the real shooter may be still killing. Another thing you are ignoring is that as soon as you produce your weapon another citizen armed with just a cell phone is likely going to call 911 and say there is another shooter and give the TC your description.



How do you know this? Don't you understand the time element involved. While the officers who are hunting the shooter are tied up identifying a possible good guy the real shooter is still killing. Is that what you want?



Johnny Hurley is the perfect example of not being visibly armed when LE arrives.



Taking the time to separate wanna be heroes from active shooters allows the shooter to keep killing innocents. What part of that is so hard to comprehend? The entire response plan is based on locating and stopping the active shooter as fast as possible. THAT is the real situation on the ground.

Jeff- We are just gonna have to disagree on this.

The fact the "shoot anybody with a gun" protocol has been in place since the late 90's indicates that it is fundamentally outdated and takes into account nothing with regards to the huge expansion of armed citizens, let alone non-uniformed LE.

I will just go ahead and say that the solution may mean acknowledging and bypassing an armed person in order to move towards other more active threats. As you stated, getting to and stopping the REAL shooter is the most important goal. Is that that process fraught with danger for both the LE and the armed person?- Yes, it is, but so is the whole event.

However, I completely agree that "not being visibly armed when LE arrives" is the BEST policy, but it may not be always be viable based on the tactical situation.

The "whatabouts" list can go on forever.

 

[Mosin77]

I don’t see that a “gun free zone” is going to matter one iota in terms of police response.

It may matter in legal repercussions after the fact.

Responding law enforcement will not want to see anyone armed when they arrive on scene and may shoot anyone visibly holding a gun. This may not be right or just, and may be tactically sound -or not, but it is the expected outcome, officers being scared, determined, adrenalined-up humans like the rest of us. They may have reports of the Good Samaritan being the shooter, too. Therefore I would plan to reholster my gun or to drop it on the ground once I was sure the initial threat was no longer a threat. I would not flee from the scene except as necessary to deal with the initial threat. I’d probably opt to reholster if possible because it will not be visible therefore less alarming, and shows better care for a dangerous weapon. I’d be prepared to surrender it as soon as requested.

This is my $0.02 which is worth what you paid for it.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Neither is expecting the cops to have a high level of target discrimination under stress.

As a taxpaying citizen, I can expect some level of discrimination beyond a binary solution of automatically shooting every visibly armed person who is contacted in such a scenario. I fully realize it's not gonna be perfect (see Johnny Hurley again).

 

[Kleanbore]

...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.

Do not try that strategy in a self defense scenario. The idea is naive, and very dangerous.

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.

When shots have bee nfired? I think you are wrong on all counts.

What might be your "better idea"?

The fact the "shoot anybody with a gun" protocol has been in place since the late 90's indicates that it is fundamentally outdated

That is absurd.

I will just go ahead and say that the solution may mean acknowledging and bypassing an armed person in order to move towards other more active threats.

That is naive, and it would require omniscience that no one can have.

Enough of armchair stuff. Get out and try several different FoF scenarios, several times each, both as an officer and as a civilian with an officer who does not know who you are. Tell us what worked, if anything.

 

[Skribs]

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.

I meant as far as internet advice goes. You hear something all the time on forums, but there aren't even anecdotes of it happening. Or if there are, it's few and far between.

Do you really think that someone trying to stop an active shooter will "ask questions" before firing?

Do I think everyone does? No.

Do I think it happens with regularity? Absolutely.

 

[fastbolt]

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?

Yep, the info being given out is only as good as the info received, and sorting out the good from the bad in a dynamic, evolving and chaotic environment is difficult, to put it mildly.

Eye witnesses don't necessarily see what there is to actually be seen, but relay what they think they see ... or they heard ... or were told by someone else in the tried & true 'telephone game' ... but decided to add their call to the flood going into the 911 center because they can. Then, imagine the potential for conflicting info to be put out on the air when on-scene personnel are trying to put out info updates on the same channel(s).

Then, imagine how a major event might have been assigned one channel, but suddenly dispatch is having to assign responding units on a primary channel, while another dispatcher may be trying to separate info coming in from 911 calls and dedicated personnel working the event. And perhaps event private security?

The potential for miscommunication and identification is Murphy's favorite playground. Let's add to it by deciding to skirt the private property (for the event) rules by smuggling a weapon into the property, and then, let's present the weapon where panicked event attendees - and perhaps cops - suddenly see a man-with-a-gun and assume he's the active shooter.

The debriefing may be a killer.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Do not try that strategy in a self defense scenario. The idea is naive, and very dangerous.
When shots have bee nfired? I think you are wrong on all counts.

What might be your "better idea"?

That is absurd.

That is naive, and it would require omniscience that no one can have.

Enough of armchair stuff. Get out and try several different FoF scenarios, several times each, both as an officer and as a civilian with an officer who does not know who you are. Tell us what worked, if anything.

So really the only thing we all can agree on is that not having your gun out when LE arrives is the BEST course of action. Beyond that, you have your viewpoints and opinions, and I have mine.

 

[Kleanbore]

ou hear something all the time on forums, but there aren't even anecdotes of it happening.

Bull.

You would have no way of knowing when those things come up, or whether is comes up at trial or during the charging decision process.

Massad Ayoob has written and spoken on the subject at some length

 

[fastbolt]

Far enough. My declaration that SHOOT/NO SHOOT training is done "all the time" is probably ignorant, but doesn't change the validity of needing a more nuanced response to active shooters with regards to whom may also armed on-scene.

I'd not say it's ignorant, per se. Some courts have agreed upon the importance of including judgment based drills and “live-fire shoot/no-shoot drills” being part of police firearms training. Here's a short list that has a couple of the more well known ones. Not being able to adequately and reasonably identify a threat is a big deal. When courts start using language like "deliberate indifference" or "deliberately indifferent", talking about police firearms training and risks to the Public, it's more than a hint.

https://www.motoshot.com/2017/02/07/case-law-judgment-training/

 

[GEM]

A civilian challenging the guy - great plan :

Dominick Maldonado entered the Tacoma shopping mall around 12:15pm, November 20, 2005, and quickly opened fire with a MAK-90 semi-automatic rifle. During the course of the shooting, Brendan (Dan) McKown, a mall employee, intervened. McKown drew his 9 mm CZ pistol but then had second thoughts of shooting "a kid". McKown (with his handgun still holstered)[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting

Another nuance, Greg didn't mention. Lots of shooters in school and firms are grievance driven and target the locale. Now, in an NPE firm, for example, known to be NPE - the law or security arrives and sees you with a gun out. Conclusion, you are not supposed to have a gun, you have a gun, you are the grievance nut! Bang. Especially, if you have a history of being a gun guy, complained about the gun policy.

The bottom line is that a gun in an NPE is an added risk, be aware of it. I've been in a FOF with a crew of BGs, disarmed one and shot said bad person (gets me charged in NYC!). The SWAT guys arrive. I dropped the gun and had my hands way up. In another, FOF I was a bystander with my hands up - and got shot. AAR from the officer, I moved.

Jeff made the points well. I was a 'terrorist' with an Iraqi war vet, we took over an office complex. The good guy LEOs who were learning made a foolish entrance and we wiped them out. They cannot fool around. Some other runs, I was righteously shot. Once I surrendered, put down the long arm - then reached being my back for a BUG and airsofted one guy in the face mask. Then, I 'died'.

If in that alcove, Hale was standing there, a good guy had the drop on her, the law arrives, she yells - SAVE ME. Think about it.

 

[fastbolt]

Folks, regardless of what some 'cop' might say about being willing to 'shoot anyone with a gun' under the hypothetical circumstance being discussed, the laws regarding the use of deadly force are clear, meaning they're in black and white, for both LE and the Public. The situations may be frantic, chaotic and unclear, but the legal framework to make the use of deadly force reasonable, appropriate and justified (for the circumstances, as may be reasonably known at the moment in time) are going to be considered and applied under bright light and careful scrutiny.

Note that cops have made serious errors in judgment and have ended up finding themselves being seated at the wrong table in a courtroom. That's after they've been trained at the academy, FTO and ongoing in-service levels, too. How much more easily might the average private person find him/herself making a rash decision that puts them on the wrong side of the law, even if they (mistakenly) believe they're acting right?

 

[wayneinFL]

As a taxpaying citizen, I can expect some level of discrimination beyond a binary solution of automatically shooting every visibly armed person who is contacted in such a scenario. I fully realize it's not gonna be perfect (see Johnny Hurley again).

Do you think the other dozen or two armed people at the venue have all this extra training? You can put police through the ringer on this, make them announce themselves and get shot, which is usually a really dumb idea. You'll still get shot by another guy just like you.

To whoever- I can't find the guy who referred to "wanna be heroes". I can't speak for everyone here, but I worked retail for 7 years and all I "wanna be" is the hell out of whatever store I'm in. If I'm in a mall, I'm there to get my work done or get my Chick-Fil-A and get out. I have no heroic intent whatsoever. The last thing I want is some weirdo to come out of the restroom with a gun, and not get to finish my Chick-Fil-A without getting shot or dragged away by the cops.

 

[Jeff White]

Jeff- We are just gonna have to disagree on this.

The fact the "shoot anybody with a gun" protocol has been in place since the late 90's indicates that it is fundamentally outdated and takes into account nothing with regards to the huge expansion of armed citizens, let alone non-uniformed LE.

I will just go ahead and say that the solution may mean acknowledging and bypassing an armed person in order to move towards other more active threats. As you stated, getting to and stopping the REAL shooter is the most important goal. Is that that process fraught with danger for both the LE and the armed person?- Yes, it is, but so is the whole event.

However, I completely agree that "not being visibly armed when LE arrives" is the BEST policy, but it may not be always be viable based on the tactical situation.

The "whatabouts" list can go on forever.

The huge expansion of armed citizens has nothing at all to do with this. No one is going to bypass a visibly armed person because they "think" it might be a legally armed citizen. That is the most tactically unsound thing you've said. Would you allow an armed possible threat behind you? Of course not. The only way to ascertain that person is a well intentioned armed citizen is to STOP, DISARM and SECURE the armed citizen and leave him/her to other officers.

As for the tactical situation. As a private citizen the tactical situation is that you are in an area where there is an active shooter, LE is responding and you need to figure out a way to get you and any loved ones you have with you, out of the situation. Those are the only safe tactics for you to employ except in very limited circumstances. A carry permit or possession of a firearm in a constitutional carry state does not give any powers or duty to protect the public. It gives you the ability to protect yourself and your loved ones from the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. If you want to protect the public there are departments all over the country who are having problems hiring. Just yesterday I received an email from a recruiter asking if I was interested in a position on a department. I am 66 years old and the chances of me going back to work as an officer are less than zero but that's how bad things are.

We talk all of the time about tunnel vision, weapons focus and stress that affect decision making in a deadly force encounter. You are asking officers (or anyone for that matter) who know they are going into a deadly force situation and who probably have a dozen conflicting reports of the location and description of the shooter and quite possibly reports of multiple shooters to differentiate between a legally armed (although this thread is about NPE, so quite possibly not legally armed) citizen without slowing the response and allowing the actual active shooter to continue killing. I simply don't see how any amount of training will accomplish that. The chances of LE bypassing an armed person in that situation are exactly zero. If you aren't shot outright, you will be taken down at gunpoint, disarmed, cuffed and searched. An hour or two later when the investigation gets going you will get a chance to tell your story to the detectives and maybe released.

 

[Kleanbore]

So really the only thing we all can agree on is that not having your gun out when LE arrives is the BEST course of action.

I'd say iit is the only prudent thing to do.

This true not only in an active shooter situation, but in the much more likely situation in which officers arrive after a homeowner has used deadly force in his own home

 

[wayneinFL]

Somebody keeps bringing up John Hurley.

That might be a good topic for this subforum, in and of itself.

The guy sees some nut shooting up police cars on the side of the road. Why would there be police cars? Was it a police car factory? No. Police drove them there. There had to be police around. The nut probably wanted to suicide himself by cop.

The police responded in about 2 minutes. Hurley had taken the nut out and had picked up the rifle. Yeah, he had a different color shirt than the guy the cops watched in the surveillance camera. But yiu see a guy who wants to shoot it out with cops, they're not going to want to discuss it at length. They're going to shoot quick. Is it the same guy? Did he change his shirt? Is there a second nut they didn't see?

They had a guy out there wanting to shoot at cops with a rifle, and when they came out of the office, there was a guy with a rifle. That's just a bad spot to be in and it's avoidable.

He may have saved a cop's life. And I'm sure he wasn't thinking straight afterward, he was having a bad day. I don't even really fault him for it. But that's just a really bad position to be in.

 

[fastbolt]

...
If in that alcove, Hale was standing there, a good guy had the drop on her, the law arrives, she yells - SAVE ME. Think about it.

Sneaky. I like it. Being angry and having a grievance doesn't necessarily mean being stupid.

Just like being fearful and caught up in an active shooter event doesn't mean you're suddenly going to become smart enough to make good decisions.

Remember folks, it's not unusual for people who become active shooters to have spent days, weeks or months thinking their eventual attack. That can include planning, in any or all of its forms. Maybe involving leaving behind a 'manifesto', and maybe not. (Remember the LV shooter at the concert, who left a vacuum of motive for investigators to find?)

You think such an angry (or mentally disturbed) person may not have an active social media presence, including reading internet gun forums, watching videos, etc?

 

[.455_Hunter]

Somebody keeps bringing up John Hurley.

I bring up Johnny Hurley because it has a few very relevant points.

The active shooter opened his spree by shooting an Arvada Officer in the back of the head at point blank range with a shotgun. Hurley, a patron in the military surplus store across the street, apparently moved outside to confront the shooter. In the meantime, the shooter fired more shots from the shotgun, and then went back to his truck to get an AR-platform. Hurley, no doubt seeing the downed officer laying on the sidewalk on his immediate vicinity, took a covered position behind a brick service wall and ambushed the shooter with a barrage of ~8 rounds at medium distance. The shooter dropped instantly. Hurley then moved towards the shooter and secured his rifle, attempting to do something like clearing(?) when he was fired upon by a responding Arvada Officer. I do not believe the officer yelled any commands.

In summary:

Hurley didn't run away, he moved towards the sound of the gunfire. You can interpret that however your biased lens allows.

His engagement of the shooter was effective and decisive (not really open to debate).

His decision to pick-up the perps rifle, seemingly a good idea at the time, was a fatal mistake.

This case is of interest to me at it occured in the town we lived in for 11 years, plus I have walked the site and spoken to witnesses who work in the surplus store.

 

[GEM]

IIRC, the Parkland shooter blended with the students to escape. He was caught later. Not all shooters are stupid.

Probably not a good idea to wear camo pants and a vest for everyday wear. Mas discusses that we haven't ever seen a criminal deliberately target some in a shoot me first vest. Don't know about the law's opinion. Hale looked geared up though. I've come home from classes and matches, sort of gear up in 'tactical' pants and a multi pocketed vests. I don't know if I want to go into the supermarket like that anymore. I have gone into restaurants with about 10 guys with all of us geared up. However, the owner knew us as we were always there after the match.

@Jeff White - you think officers would look askance at a 'tacky' outfit, arriving at a scene. In an NPE - it might look inappropriate. I have plenty of vests that aren't tactical. Puffy or fleece is common here.

 

[Jeff White]

@Jeff White - you think officers would look askance at a 'tacky' outfit, arriving at a scene. In an NPE - it might look inappropriate. I have plenty of vests that aren't tactical. Puffy or fleece is common here.

I think it's only natural to look hard at anyone who's dress doesn't fit in. Even in this day and age you can expect to see people dressed a certain way at an event. Walmart and the supermarket my wife works at (and other places like that) are the exception, one can expect to see any form of dress there.

I don't really see the "tactical uniform" much around here. Maybe at the range. I go to a lot of concerts and other events in St Louis and I don't see it there either so anyone in 5.11s, a gun company or 2d Amendment T shirt and a photographers vest is going to stand out. Officers have been advised for years to save that kind of dress for the range or training sessions for that very reason.

 

[wayneinFL]

I bring up Johnny Hurley because it has a few very relevant points.

The active shooter opened his spree by shooting an Arvada Officer in the back of the head at point blank range with a shotgun. Hurley, a patron in the military surplus store across the street, apparently moved outside to confront the shooter. In the meantime, the shooter fired more shots from the shotgun, and then went back to his truck to get an AR-platform. Hurley, no doubt seeing the downed officer laying on the sidewalk on his immediate vicinity, took a covered position behind a brick service wall and ambushed the shooter with a barrage of ~8 rounds at medium distance. The shooter dropped instantly. Hurley then moved towards the shooter and secured his rifle, attempting to do something like clearing(?) when he was fired upon by a responding Arvada Officer. I do not believe the officer yelled any commands.

In summary:

Hurley didn't run away, he moved towards the sound of the gunfire. You can interpret that however your biased lens allows.

His engagement of the shooter was effective and decisive (not really open to debate).

His decision to pick-up the perps rifle, seemingly a good idea at the time, was a fatal mistake.

This case is of interest to me at it occured in the town we lived in for 11 years, plus I have walked the site and spoken to witnesses who work in the surplus store.

Cops on here have called CCW people wanna be heroes. They have said if you want to help, be a cop. They said that your CCW license doesn't give you a duty to help anybody, police are the only ones with a duty to protect. They don't take that duty any more seriously than when another cop gets shot.

They don't want your help!

If you assist an officer with medical help, you can be sued. If you're even there, a LOT of police officers are going to show up, tackle you to the ground, and put you into handcuffs. If you have a gun, it will be taken. If you have a gun in your hand, you will be shot.

If I ever see a cop shot, I am getting as far away as I can as fast as I can.

I don't even want to be on the roads when every cop in the county is barreling down collector streets 80mph on their way to I95.

John Hurley should have got in his car, and went home, and watched it on the news.