Responding to an active shooter...

imported post

:idea:Nothing prevents me from holding up my ID/CCW/CC/wallet and screaming "I'M ON THE JOB"

That is what some agencies teach their personnel, hold up there badge/ID and state the above.

It doesn't violate any laws and says almost the same thing.
It looks Official enough, especially to other citizens watching/reporting the incident to the LE.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

......I run scenarios through my head all the time. ........ It's part of being tactical, smart, and staying alive. Then when something happens during a critical incident, you may have already decided in your mind how you will deal with it and stay safe.........

Click to expand...

Which is what I do EVERY TIME I leave the house with a gun on my person.

I know that if I ever engage a BG that I will have to Identify myself to any and all who may witness or respond to the call.

There is an inherent risk that is taken by any who aid another person, especially if there is a gun involved.

In the Utah Mall shooting, the off duty LEO, was shouting who he was and what he was doing, all during the time he was engaging the BG. We must all be ready to do the same, IF we chose to engage.

Tarzan

Click to expand...

Well said,

What are your thoughts on how to identify one's self? I have thought about this a lot, but have no really good definitiveanswer.

Click to expand...

I yell;


I'M A GOOD GUY!

And at the same time be ready to lay down my weapon and follow their instructions.

In most of the scenarios that I have run in my head, I assume one of the following;

1. BG is down. I see or hear LEO, I Identify myself and put my hands in the air, and inform them of the condition of the BG.

2. BG is engaged, I am behind coverand I hear or see LEO coming from myside or rear. I identify my self and warn them of location and armament of BG, and with out exposing myself to BG raise my hands and wait for their instructions.

3. BG is engaged, I am behind cover and I see LEO coming from behind BG. I identify myself and tell them the location of the BG. I stay behind cover until they have the situation under control and follow their instructions.

4. BG and I are in a face off. I hear or see LEO, I identify my self and raise my hands letting them control the situation.



Tarzan

imported post

Glad tosee other non LE have thought throught different situations.

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Glad tosee other non LE have thought throught different situations.

Click to expand...

Great ideas. I especially think the holding up a wallet/id is good as I've never heard or seen a bg try to identify himself this way. Another good one is yelling for someone nearby to call 911/Police, as the bg would never do this either.

imported post

I would do that, as I was engaging or prior to engaging if possible.


I hope no idiot uses anything similar to what we have posted to commit or get away with a crime:X.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

......I run scenarios through my head all the time. ........ It's part of being tactical, smart, and staying alive. Then when something happens during a critical incident, you may have already decided in your mind how you will deal with it and stay safe.........

Click to expand...

Which is what I do EVERY TIME I leave the house with a gun on my person.

I know that if I ever engage a BG that I will have to Identify myself to any and all who may witness or respond to the call.

There is an inherent risk that is taken by any who aid another person, especially if there is a gun involved.

In the Utah Mall shooting, the off duty LEO, was shouting who he was and what he was doing, all during the time he was engaging the BG. We must all be ready to do the same, IF we chose to engage.

Tarzan

Click to expand...

Well said,

What are your thoughts on how to identify one's self? I have thought about this a lot, but have no really good definitiveanswer.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of "Dumb and Dumber". "It's OKAY! I'm a limo driver!"

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

vermeire wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

Dare I ask, then, why members of this board talk about "victim disarmament zones" and such when they don't intend to use their handguns to stop an attack if it's not convenient? I'm not calling anyone a coward, and I hope that I would be able to put a 270gr HP .44 or two into an active shooter, but it kind of disproves the idea that higher gun availability will prevent such tragedies as we've been having lately. In other words, if many people are busy carrying their 9mm's and .45's in a mall, and someone opens up with an AK, but none of the gun carriers fire a shot to stop him, what good do those guns do? How effective of a deterrent are armed civilians if none of them want to engage someone with a rifle?

Click to expand...

I think the thing to realize here is there are many circumstances that would have to be right for an armed citizen to neutralize a shooter. The example above of a man with his wife doesn't go into how close they are to the shooter or if there are hundreds of people running all over the place.. All he stated was that he heard shots. I think his explanation of what he would do is exactly the point of carrying a weapon: protection. This extends to himself, family, friends, and then others; in that order. ( Some people may consider themselves second to loved ones, but I would argue that if you are incapacitated they would be next so you staing alive is paramount to their protection. ) Protection is not an offensive action; it means to guard or defend.

Now, what I have just stated would be totally different if one was in close proximity to the shooter and had a clean shot. (I don't remember which forum I saw it on, but I read a first hand account of the Omaha shooting. The writer would have been in the prime location for this type of action.) This shot would fall under the pretense of protecting others. However ensuring the safety of oneself, family, and friends would have to have been completed first.

To answer your last sentence: if enough of us are carrying there WILL be someone in the position to protect others as I have described it. If there are not enough of us armed then there will never be anyone who is "in the right place at the right time". This is why we must soften the aversion that the general population has to guns and to them being carried by the general population.



To the OP, nice thread. Not being in LE, I'll take it into consideration for my home invasion and SHTF plans.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. We just need to be a little more truthful, then... it's not just that a certain location bans guns that makes it a target, but a lack of people carrying. Many of the arguments I've read here make it seem as though if only these places (malls, churches, schools, etc) allowed people to carry firearms, then these shootings would not be so devastating. But alas, this is not the case. Many gun carriers, who aren't within a few yards of the shooter, and not going to use their guns to stop an attack.

Like I've said, I'm not calling anyone a coward for not going into a situation where the odds are against them, or even for choosing not to fire their gun. That's a personal choice that I am in no place to judge. But let's not blame the "gun-free zones", then.

Click to expand...

The fact that a place bans guns ENSURES that there is a lack of people carrying. I think a shooting can be equally devastating in a "gun-free zone" or in a gun friendly environment. In a gun friendly environment there is a greater chance that someone will be in the position to curb the devastation. So for the problem as a whole, the "gun-free zones" are not 100% to blame. However, for an attack in a "gun-free zone", such zone is much more culpable than any other factor.

To expand on my previous post, I think most people fall in the middle of the road as far as what their actions would be in a mall shooting or similar situation. The two extremes would be one that secures his family and hides/runs and the individual who would actively persue a shooter who is in an unknown location with in a building. My first responsibility is to ensure the safety of myself and family. Once they are, I'm not going to continue to hide or run, I would most likely made minimal advances to try to locate the threat. This would include things like moving to the entrance of the store i may be in or moving to the intersection of two hallways. Bear in mind that the timing of the situation plays a large role here as well. If it takes me several minutes to secure anyone that is with me I would be less likely to make advances. This is because there is a larger chance that LE is on the scene. If I am close to the threat, ensuring my family's safety entails neutralizing the threat; much like that of if we are being attacked directly.

One thing that we all need to keep in mind is that no situation is going to play out the way we have immagined. Through training LE can keep a situation within certain paramaters but even training does not cover all circumstances that may arise.

Bottom line is that having more armed individuals (LE or non, all citizens ), in more locations, and with more proper training is the key to BGs realizing that we are not going to accept their actions.

imported post

spurrit wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This reminds me of .......

Click to expand...

If we fail to plan......We plan to fail.





Tarzan

imported post

vermeire wrote:

However, for an attack in a "gun-free zone", such zone is much more culpable than any other factor.

Click to expand...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culpable

meriting condemnation, censure or blame, especially as something wrong, harmful or injurious; blameworthy

Click to expand...

Blaming the per se zone is worse than hoplophobia, blaming the thing.

Or accept the (BGs') nonsense.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

imported post

vermeire wrote:

Bottom line is that having more armed individuals (LE or non, all citizens ), in more locations, and with more proper training is the key to BGs realizing that we are not going to accept their actions.

Click to expand...

I'm all for that. The only issue with the bg is that by the time they are carrying out their plan/shooting, they have the same mindset as a suicide bomber. They don't care anymore, and are fully prepared to die.

These types of individuals are the most dangerous to deal withbecause they cannot typically be reasoned with, and want to die. Taking someone else with them means nothing to them, at that point.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

.........The only issue with the bg is that by the time they are carrying out their plan/shooting, they have the same mindset as a suicide bomber. They don't care anymore, and are fully prepared to die.........

Click to expand...

I agree on the "stand and fight" BG or the "Out with glory" BG, but the "Just in case" BG, are more likely to turn and run if they see armed resistance.

This third kind, which statistically are by far the largest group, are the ones that we really don't have to worry about as armed citizens. We are not LEO and it is not our job to catch them.

We just let them go, call the police and tell them what happened when they get there.



Tarzan

imported post

BUT, an active shooter is one who is already shooting.

imported post

spurrit wrote:

BUT, an active shooter is one who is already shooting.

Click to expand...

That is true, unless he is actively running away.:lol::lol:



Good thought spurrit.

"Responding to an active shooter" does imply that the shooter is doing more than just standing there with his gun up his nose.



Tarzan

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Dare I ask, then, why members of this board talk about "victim disarmament zones" and such when they don't intend to use their handguns to stop an attack if it's not convenient? I'm not calling anyone a coward, and I hope that I would be able to put a 270gr HP .44 or two into an active shooter, but it kind of disproves the idea that higher gun availability will prevent such tragedies as we've been having lately. In other words, if many people are busy carrying their 9mm's and .45's in a mall, and someone opens up with an AK, but none of the gun carriers fire a shot to stop him, what good do those guns do? How effective of a deterrent are armed civilians if none of them want to engage someone with a rifle?

Click to expand...

Nary a shoot need be fired. I think a part of the deterrent for someBG shooteris the fact that SOME people MAY be armed in a mall, not whether they will shoot back, but that they could shoot back. Just seeing someone open carry a gun may be enough of a deterrent for them tomove on somewhere else. But as it stands now if an area is a "Gun free Zone" the BG knows his chances of encountering an armed GG is lower than if people are allowed to have guns for protection.

So then the question is a matter of perception forBG, is he willing to go into a gun welcomed area or not. You seldom hear of mass shootings in police precincts or gun ranges.

imported post

Being as I have an active imagination and like to make stories in my headout of possible scenes, I have been musing over the idea of "what if" you could go back in time to certain mass shooting events, and with knowledge of how the incident goes down, be able to engage the shooter.

Take the Killeen TX shooting Oct 16 1991. Would you actually go into the Luby's and wait for him to drive his truck in, show a gun, then take a shot at him?

I guess you could go through how the shooter acted in past incidents to predict how one might act in a future incident, since these types are likley all suffering the same mental problem. Does a mink rampaging through a chicken coop always act the same? Think of the BG crazed killer as being nothing more than an angry rampaging predator. Is there a set of predictable behaviors that goes among all of them?

Anyway, whatI just wrote might not mean anything to any of you or maybe it does. I dunno. Just me thinking out loud again.

WouldI engage? Hard to say. First I need to be really close, I am a sucky shot further than 20-25 feet. 2nd I need element of surprise, sneak up to BG and not let him see me. Think like a predator to engage a predator. Next, who am I protecting? Me, or the "sheeple"? Are my parents there? A good friend with me? IfI am alone, canI retreat instead? If retreat is not an option, likeI have to go by the BG to get away, I have no choice but to engage.

As to gun free zones vs places were carry is allowed- after talking to 3 different PA residents with carry permits, I conclude that many people may have such a permit, but get lax about using it. All 3 said they rarely carry.

As to "sheeple", you can be nasty and say " well that's their problem they are stupid and didn't buy a gun, take a class, and get a carry permit". But sheeple are sheeple, WOULD they ever do such a thing, even after surviving such an event? Mainly the women at least. I am thinking of some of the women who survived the Killeen event, older women who by the looks of them and how they talked, would be too scared to even touch a gun. The only tough one in the bunch intervewed by John Walsh for America's Most Wanted was the very lady who was behind TX going shall-issue( her name is eluding me). I have a recording of this show and was watching it last night. I think it aired back in 1992. She does not mention having a gun in her car.

Then you have the problem of states that are no- issue or may-issue. Defy the law and ccw anyway? In this case if you carry illegally, you better have the BGalmoston top ofyou before you draw, and when you are out and about be sure to conceal well. No heroics for strangers. DA's/grand juries more sympathy if you are defending just yourself. Pizza delivery guy in WI got off the first time for carrying illegally and shooting a robber, heard he did it again, but nothing new on wether charges dropped. Anyone?