Active Shooter Training: Lessons from...

[9mmepiphany]

This is an article from Law and Order: The Magazine for Police Management about some joint training run in FL by the local Sheriff's Office and the schools.

We conducted three types of joint training with the schools: 1) shooting blanks from shotguns and pistols in various locations throughout the schools during teacher in-service days; 2) telling students and teachers to evacuate (run) from the school without using any role players or officers; and 3) full-scale, two-hour training scenarios complete with active shooters, students, teachers, principals, parents and responding officers. After each training exercise/scenario, Training Division debriefed all of the participants.

I thought it was interesting enough to share. Pay attention to the introduction of armed staff already in the schools and parents responding to the school.

http://www.hendonpub.com/law_and_order/articles/2014/02/active_shooter_training_lessons_learned

 

[IlikeSA]

Excellent article. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Librarian]

Is there a solution to the problem of 'anybody armed must be the bad guy'? Clearly dangerous to make a different assumption ...

 

[9mmepiphany]

It is more than merely dangerous. It will almost always be fatal.

BGs are very adept at playing the victim to cause an officer to hesitate...that is why gangs often have juvenile members carry their guns; beside the lighter penalties involved...to shoot a child or female. That hesitation combined with always being the second person to know they are in a gunfight would make most responders into bullet sponges.

The solution is not to be seen as the Armed Person.
1. Sheltering in place with a clear "killing zone" waiting for the BG makes sense for armed teachers/staff/security
2. Armed parents have no place at the scene of an Active Shooter incident at a school.

A public place, like a mall, is much more problematic...but that is beyond the scope of the study

 

[MedWheeler]

I would like to see video and hear audio of the incidents in which innocents had been shot by police, particularly the one in which a man had instinctively armed himself with a fallen officer's gun. It's possible there may be some element "planted" to reiterate the government's (and it's "long arm's") desire for there not to be anyone armed, well-intended or not, within a school (or any other public place.) Or, there may not be. That's why I'd like to see the actual encounters.

There are a lot of good points for LEOs to retain out of this, namely becoming familiar with the campuses and their student bodies, and the potential benefit of at least communicating something to victims initially encountered, as well as being receptive, to some degree at least, to communication from them.

 

[IlikeSA]

Having a background in law enforcement and security, I can understand why innocents may be shot, and doubt that this was seeded into the article for discouragement purposes.

When there is a shooting or a fight, people have a tendency to go into tunnel vision. It is very difficult to get out of tunnel vision. In the article, people talked about the police passing up master keys and directions: why? Tunnel vision and audio exclusion. The focus was completely on "find the man with the gun." When they encountered individuals who had armed themselves, they were shot, because of this tunnel vision. Most people when they are in a fight cannot remember the details around them, but are focused on the individual (hopefully one) they are fighting. It is difficult to see anyone else, and is something that has to be trained extensively into you.

 

[MedWheeler]

IlikeSA, I also have a background in LE and security (currently in EMS.) I'd still like to see the video.

For as many incidents in which we hear of a LEO firing on an otherwise-lawfully armed citizen, there are more in which one draws on one, but the need to fire is quickly negated.

Don't read anything into what I'm curious about; I'm not offering any critique at this time.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

When/Where armed personnel in schools are a reality, seems a very solid identifier system (ex: lime green vest) for armed individuals to put on before moving to assist would be valuable. Cops are told "Don't shoot lime green."

Pictures of "good guys" fed to police would seem like a good idea, but given the difficulty they had with maps and basic info, I would doubt the reliability.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Is there a solution to the problem of 'anybody armed must be the bad guy'? Clearly dangerous to make a different assumption ...

If you're unarmed, you're unable to defend yourself and the bag guy kills you.

If you're armed the police kill you.

Hmmmm. . .

 

[Jeff White]

We can go back to a wait for SWAT response and a slow and deliberate clearing of the school. That would cut down or maybe eliminate the chance an armed citizen would be shot by police. But it would not be a fast enough response to save anyone.

Lime green vests aren't really an answer as there have been plenty of incidents where uniformed police officers have shot each other by mistake.

The only real option is for armed teachers or other armed personnel to hunker down and protect those around them.

Armed citizens working in the school need to be taught to put their weapon up when they are encountering an officer. That only makes sense. Years ago I made an off duty assist at my next door neighbors home. I was holding the burglary suspects at gunpoint, the dispatcher knew I was holding them at gunpoint and I knew the responding officers personally although they worked for a different agency. I still holstered as the on duty officers arrived.

If an armed staff member goes out hunting the shooter, that staff member is very likely going to be shot by the responding officers who are doing the same thing. I really don't see a good way around it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If an armed staff member goes out hunting the shooter, that staff member is very likely going to be shot by the responding officers who are doing the same thing. I really don't see a good way around it.

How about more training?

For example, if the police announce themselves, an active defender can put his gun down. Also, if there is a defender or victim on the phone, he can tell incoming police what the situation is.

 

[Jeff White]

How effective is the defender going to be if he is out searching for the shooter and giving continuous location updates to a dispatcher on the phone?

The dispatcher then will have to break into the rest of the radio traffic (other units reporting arrival at the school, internal communications between groups of officers conducting the search, detectives who are starting to interview evacuees and putting out updated descriptions that might be wrong BTW) to start giving location updates on one or more armed citizens who are also hunting the shooter.

A lot of agencies don't have enough radio frequencies to handle all of this different traffic and keep it compartmentalized and to continue regular operations. Remember, the world won't stop while this is going on. The phones in dispatch are going to continue to ring with unrelated 911 calls and other calls for service.

In an active shooter incident in a rural area you are going to have officers from different jurisdictions arriving and entering the net as they do. This is all going to add to the confusion. Remember these incidents aren't planned in advance so you are going to go through most of it with the tele-communicators you have on the job when it starts and it's probably going to be pretty much over with by the time the first one you call in gets to work to assist.

There isn't really an easy solution. Armed staff in the school are great assets to defend student against an attack. But I think that if they are going to take an offensive role and try to hunt the shooter down they are just going to add to the confusion, quite possibly with tragic results.

Remember there are a lot of rifles in patrol cars now. The teams of officers who are hunting the shooter will engage an armed person at a lot longer distance then they would if they only had handguns. Say a team of three officer armed with patrol rifles is moving down a long corridor checking classrooms, bathrooms, closets, etc and an armed person moves into the "T" intersection of the corridor and that person is 150 maybe 200 feet from the team of officers. The officer have the capability and will most likely engage that person from where they are because their mission is to stop the shooter now, not take him into custody.

What's the answer?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How effective is the defender going to be if he is out searching for the shooter and giving continuous location updates to a dispatcher on the phone?

First of all, the defender should DEFEND -- not go and look for the shooter. He should let the shooter come to him, not go to the shooter. If possible, he should gather other people and protect them -- and the ideal situation would be to have one man with the gun, one on the phone.

The dispatcher then will have to break into the rest of the radio traffic (other units reporting arrival at the school, internal communications between groups of officers conducting the search, detectives who are starting to interview evacuees and putting out updated descriptions that might be wrong BTW) to start giving location updates on one or more armed citizens who are also hunting the shooter.

In a situation where lives are at stake, information coming directly from the scene should have priority -- would you want to go into a life-threatening situation completely ignorant of what was going on, when someone else could easily tell you?

 

[Librarian]

During one scenario, a first responding officer was fatally shot as he came into the library. A father was in the library with his daughter as part of the school’s reading program. The father took the downed officer’s gun. He was fatally shot by other responding officers. “I took the gun to protect myself. I never thought about the police thinking I was the shooter.”

This is the part to which I referred, and there just isn't enough info here to be sure.

I'm guessing the father stayed in the library to continue to protect himself and his daughter.

But if the (scenario) officer is shot entering a library, and a person with a gun is discovered in the library, it sure looks to subsequent responders that 'there is a shooter in the library'.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Which is why the people in the situation need cell phones, and the police need a communications plan that allow them to know exactly what the people inside are saying.

 

[GEM]

Thanks for the link. Fascinating take on the problem. For what it is worth, when I was in exercises like this:

1. As a good guy I was shot while surrendering. Hands up, I came out and a team member shot me.

2. I understand the need for police to be very cautious. An 'active shooter' team mate and I found it not that difficult to engage the officers.

It is all very dangerous. I would not want to be charging around with a gun as a civilian.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Thanks for the link. Fascinating take on the problem. For what it is worth, when I was in exercises like this:

1. As a good guy I was shot while surrendering. Hands up, I came out and a team member shot me.

What happens in real life when an officer shoots an unarmed man with his hands up?

Usually the officer faces criminal charges.

 

[GEM]

That's really irrelevant to my comment. Given I was probably 'dead' or badly injured, I was relating to the risks in a dynamic situation.

A lawyer or DA and jury can parse whether such a mistake in an ongoing active shooter situation suggests prosecution.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That's really irrelevant to my comment. Given I was probably 'dead' or badly injured, I was relating to the risks in a dynamic situation.

Not irrelevant at all -- one of the most important outcomes of an exercise like this is Lessons Learned.

Now, shooting an unarmed, innocent man with his hands in the air is not a GOOD thing. The police department that conducted this drill ought to be carefully analyzing it to determine what procedures should be implemented to ensure that in a real world situation this would NOT happen.

 

[GEM]

Obviously, they did such an analysis.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Where can we find a copy? What measures did they institute to keep from killing unarmed, innocent people?

 

[9mmepiphany]

I doubt very seriously that that information will be shared with the general public...it is already hard enough to keep the BGs out of the game plan...but I can see it as training material to be shared with other agencies

 

[9mmepiphany]

When/Where armed personnel in schools are a reality, seems a very solid identifier system (ex: lime green vest) for armed individuals to put on before moving to assist would be valuable. Cops are told "Don't shoot lime green."

I would think that would be as effective as the orange tips on airsoft guns...in other words, not at all.

All you have to consider is officers, in raid jackets (clearly marked as POLICE) being shot by other officers

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I would recommend things like a communications minimize plan, to keep a channel open so reports from inside the building could be relayed rapidly to the entry team. In addition, operators should be trained to ask relevant questions so the officers entering the building would know if there were armed defenders, and where they were.

And of course armed defenders should be warned to stay put.

 

[Jenrick]

There's a lot of background logistics work that goes into active shooter response. 80% is agency or location specific, and all should probably confidential.

I will say this from being involved in active shooter response in LE since a bit after Columbine:

People who flee the scene are almost NEVER injured or wounded unless they have the extreme bad luck to run directly into the shooter. If there is the opportunity to get the heck out of dodge, TAKE IT.

If that doesn't work, then barricade yourself into as impregnable of a position as you possibly can. I'm talking bookshelves in front of the door, backed up with large furniture etc. Heck if you weld the door short, DO SO. Then hunker down behind COVER that will stop a round. It should require the fire department to cut you out of your safe area. If you can manage this, the odds of being hurt or killed are very minimal.

Only as a very last resort should you attempt to take on the attacker. If you have a weapon system that will allow you some success, and are forced into proximity to the attacker, then by all means go for it. However I would HIGHLY recommend NOT going hunting in these types of situations. If you have a weapon out, you are a potential threat to responding officers, who may even receive your description as the shooter. As an officer, if I was there in plain clothes, unless I was able to immediately engage the shooter, I would probably team up with responding officers rather then go it alone.

It's a bad situation all the way around, no question.

-Jenrick