Defense against an active shooter

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm assuming we're talking about the NY shooting yesterday.

There's no magical answer for what anyone should do in a similar scenario.

For most folks the thing that makes the most sense is to extract yourself from the situation unless directly confronted with the assailant.

I know everyone wants to be a hero online but having a sensible plan is infinitely more important.
 
For an armored active shooter with a rifle, the likelihood of his or her success is high. The shooter came to that location because of a target rich environment; you are a target. Engaging the shooter with your run of the mill EDC firearm may well be doomed from the start.
If survival is your end game, and who wouldn't want to survive, doing a gray man fade, and exit would be the best strategy. Yes it's a tragedy what's occurring, but you neither created or contributed to the situation, and you are over your head. Live again to fight another day.
 
I believe the average armed citizen who could not run or hide, who had to shoot back, would attempt to put hits on center mass. Just to notice the body armor in time to react and take head shots, adds a huge element of luck. Most people, IMO won’t notice body armor and will put 10 shots on center mass if the bad guy were to allow it. As said numerous times, not engaging is best and if one must, it will probably take a great deal of luck to succeed.
 
I know I need to get out more but I had never heard of having a security guard in a grocery store before this incident. Banks, jewelry stores, etc, I get, but a grocery store? That tells me that store is already having issues, and as such I would think it's probably a good idea to remain as inconspicuous as possible so as to not attract undue attention, precluding visible long guns. Just my amateur, non-worldly pov.
 
I know I need to get out more but I had never heard of having a security guard in a grocery store before this incident. Banks, jewelry stores, etc, I get, but a grocery store? That tells me that store is already having issues, and as such I would think it's probably a good idea to remain as inconspicuous as possible so as to not attract undue attention, precluding visible long guns. Just my amateur, non-worldly pov.

A lot of cash on a daily basis? Would be target for a robbery? Maybe that’s the explanation.
 
For an active shooter, run.
Only shoot at them if they trap you, which could be part of their design.
As the last guy showed the only resistance he planned on until the cops show up was the security guard and caught the guard by surprise.

He didn't really catch the security guard by surprise. The security guard responded to, and engaged the shooter, first, and then lost out in the battle between the two. It isn't as if the shooter walked in and shot the guard from behind. The guard apparently heard or saw him coming.

Most security guards are trained for loss prevention.
That is their main job stopping theft.

Maybe so. Then again, most security guards aren't armed. In this case, the guard was armed and was a retired cop.

I believe the average armed citizen who could not run or hide, who had to shoot back, would attempt to put hits on center mass. Just to notice the body armor in time to react and take head shots, adds a huge element of luck. Most people, IMO won’t notice body armor and will put 10 shots on center mass if the bad guy were to allow it.

RIP Mark Wilson (Tyler, Texas), an above average armed citizen who did this, failed to notice. However, it isn't just failing to notice that the suspect has armor, but failing to transition when you realize your shots are not having an impact, which happens on unarmored people sometimes as well. Wilson was also a firearms instructor and gun range owner where he taught defensive pistol. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/texas-chl-holder-gives-life-forces-rampage-shooter-flee
 
I've noticed two camps in this thread; Those who advocate engaging an armored active shooter while not having a duty to, and those of us who has trained to do so, along with those who have actually done so, who advocate situational awareness, cover and egress.

Indeed. I do wonder if any of those advocating to avoid the fight would feel differently if it were happening in (for example) their church during a service, rather than at a local grocery store.

Personally, I'm on the fence about it. And I realize I can't know unless/until I find myself in such a situation.
 
I've noticed two camps in this thread; Those who advocate engaging an armored active shooter while not having a duty to, and those of us who has trained to do so, along with those who have actually done so, who advocate situational awareness, cover and egress.

Want to survive an encounter with an active shooter, be lucky!. If you have the time and space to recognize there is an active shooter, you have the chance to increase the distance between you and the shooter, and you may survive. If you don't, the active shooter will probably kill you. You must assume the active shooter is better armed, better armored, so get out the area as fast as possible and wait for LEO with big enough weapons to take down the shooter.
 
I know I need to get out more but I had never heard of having a security guard in a grocery store before this incident
Most supermarkets in our area have them.

Their duty is to protect store property. Deadly force may not be used for that. They are unarmed.

That is also true of the guards on the commuter trains, at the zoo, in malls, at museums, and at stadiums.
 
Wikipedia article on Concealed Carry in the United States

Firearms permit holders in active shooter incidents

In 2016 FBI analyzed 40 "active shooter incidents" in 2014 and 2015 where bystanders were put in peril in on-going incidents that could be affected by police or citizen response. Six incidents were successfully ended when citizens intervened. In two stops citizens restrained the shooters, one unarmed, one with pepper spray. In two stops at schools, the shooters were confronted by teachers: one shooter disarmed, one committed suicide. In two stops citizens with firearms permits exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In a failed stop attempt, a citizen with a firearms permit was killed by the shooter.[150]

In 2018 the FBI analyzed 50 active shooter incidents in 2016 and 2017. This report focused on policies to neutralize active shooters to save lives. In 10 incidents citizens confronted an active shooter. In eight incidents the citizens stopped the shooter. Four stops involved unarmed citizens who confronted and restrained or blocked the shooter or talked the shooter into surrender. Four stops involved citizens with firearms permits: two exchanged gunfire with a shooter and two detained the shooter at gunpoint for arrest by responding police. Of the two failed stops, one involved a permit holder who exchanged gunfire with the shooter but the shooter fled and continued shooting and the other involved a permit holder who was wounded by the shooter. "Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives."[151]

150. Schweit, Katherine W., "Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2014 and 2015", Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooterincidentsus_2014-2015.pdf

151. "Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017", Federal Bureau of Investigation, April 2018. "The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. ... The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation."
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf
 
"…Would you still run?…"
The family that shops together, runs from homicidal maniacs together.

Naturally this is more complex an issue if the 10 y.o. and the 8 y.o. are out shopping with grandma and grandpa. In that instance…if the grandparents have limited mobility…one would hope their final loving words would be to encourage their grandchildren to run as fast as they can and not stop until they run to a police officer.

Another reality is flexible little kids can hide anywhere. Safest spot in the store (if escape isn't possible) is probably on the bottom shelf of family-size Cheerios or paper towels, hidden at the back, and laying on your stomach. None of us are lithe enough to crawl back there…yet our young kids, nieces, nephews, and grandkids sure can squirm into the tiniest of places.
 
You must assume the active shooter is better armed, better armored, so get out the area as fast as possible and wait for LEO with big enough weapons to take down the shooter.

Nothing wrong with trying to get out, if you can, but know that waiting for the LEOs to respond can take anywhere from 0 minutes to 20 or 30 minutes, and those are just the first responders, not necessarily the LEOs with big enough weapons to take down the shooter. Most active shootings end in under 5 minutes. So sometimes, the cops never get there while the shooter is active. That is just reality. Reliance on the cops to resolve the issue is most definitely a gamble in and of its own.

The Vegas concert shooting had the police being in the kill zone at the time the shooting started. Response by responding officers to stop the shooter was pretty good and they managed to shutdown the shooter in about 10 minutes, but that was 10 minutes the shooter continued to engage targets.

The Tyler Square and Sutherland Springs Church shootings lasted long enough for 3rd parties to respond, engage the shooter, and the shooter flee before LEOs with big enough guns could respond. Tyler Square involved cops already shooting it out with the suspect when Mark Wilson came down from his apartment to engage the shooter. Sutherland Springs lasted long enough for Stephen Willeford to grad a rifle from his gun safe, grab a magazine, and load it while proceeding on foot from his home to the church where he engaged and later gave vehicular pursuit to the shooter before cops ever arrived.

The Aurora theater shooting took cops several minutes to confront the shooter, approximately 7 minutes after the first 911 call, but the first 911 call didn't happen until after the shooter had already done quite a bit of his shooting. Basically, he was done and leaving when confronted by the cops.

It took cops roughly 5 minutes to respond to the King Soupers shooting in Colorodo. That was to arrive on scene. It was another 2 minutes before officers entered the store and a minute after that before the first engagement with the shooter who came out on top of that engagement, sadly killing one responding officer. With their noses effectively bloodied, officers reverted to the surround and contain strategy that had largely been abandoned more than 20 years after the Columbine fiasco. There an officer was on scene at the time of that shooting, did briefly engaged one shooter, but waited outside (as was doctrine of the day) for other officers to arrive and surround the school, to contain the situation, all the while the shooters were killing people inside. Fortunately, at King Soupers, the shooter did not continue to search for, and kill shoppers hiding in the store while the cops waited outside.

Cops were on scene virtually from the start of the North Hollywood bank robbery that lasted some 44 minutes. A prolonged gunbattle ensued before LAPD got SWAT cops on scene and could get their act together enough to allow any of the SWAT officers into the battle, despite some having arrived piecemeal with rifles (one famously seen in PT shorts and vest, helmet, rifle) well before they actually engaged with rifles. Civilians were wounded after police had arrived on scene. Tactics have changed since then and more officers are armed with patrol rifles, but bumbling police response is still a reality. Call it fog of war, inexperience, doctrine, training, command paralysis, or whatever, but just because the police show up doesn't mean you are safe. Folks often don't like to admit it, but cops are just people, sometimes highly trained, but are still just people.

For example, the Parkland (FL) school shooting had an officer on scene at the time of the shooting who failed to engage and actually hampered other officers from engaging. The shooter escaped several minutes after the shooting started while they bumbled around.

Officers were nearby for a workplace shooting in Manhattan and who engaged the suspect on the street while fleeing the shooting. The cops killed the suspect, but the cops managed to wound 9 bystanders in the process. Numerically, the cops in their attempt to stop the workplace (but not mass) shooter, became mass shooters, themselves. Fortunately, most people injured by the cops were just fragged by ricochets.

A lot can happen before and after the cops arrive. We each have our own issues with which to contend on deciding whether to actively engage a shooter or flee. Some may only engage the shooter as a last resort. What is the best decision at the time of the event from your perspective inside of the event certainly may not be perceived in the same manner by those who examine it after the event. You have to do what you think is right and deal with the consequences accordingly. These situations are inherently fluid and dangerous.
 
Indeed. I do wonder if any of those advocating to avoid the fight would feel differently if it were happening in (for example) their church during a service, rather than at a local grocery store.

Personally, I'm on the fence about it. And I realize I can't know unless/until I find myself in such a situation.

Nope, I spent my entire adult life in positions where I had a duty to act. Along with that duty came resources that I no longer have as private citizen. Thankfully I never had to respond to an actual active shooter, but I have hours and hours of training for it, including some very realistic exercises using simunitions. Do one has yet to bring up the "friendly fire" problem in this thread but I assure you it's a real danger to any private citizen who would engage the shooter. A search will bring up threads on private citizens and other police officers who were mistakenly shot by responding officers.
 
Nope, I spent my entire adult life in positions where I had a duty to act. Along with that duty came resources that I no longer have as private citizen. Thankfully I never had to respond to an actual active shooter, but I have hours and hours of training for it, including some very realistic exercises using simunitions. Do one has yet to bring up the "friendly fire" problem in this thread but I assure you it's a real danger to any private citizen who would engage the shooter. A search will bring up threads on private citizens and other police officers who were mistakenly shot by responding officers.

I understand what you're saying Jeff. It's certainly a dangerous proposition, no matter where it takes place. And as you've mentioned, there are other concerns besides the active shooter.
 
"Defense against an active shooter"

If by "defense" you mean shooting back, then the only effective way to do this is to target unarmored portions of the body as opportunity presents itself.

Most people think "head shots", which is a perfectly viable option PROVIDED the opportunity presents itself for such. But the reality is ANY unarmored portion of the body should be targeted from the earliest opportunity. That includes extremities.

Why are even extremities important? Because if the shooter is shooting from a position of cover, your options are even more limited. ANYTHING which injures the shooter or causes the shooter to move to a more exposed position is therefore a high value target.


As for shotguns...this brings up the ever popular question of "best gun for the job". The reality is the best gun for the job is the one a person has on them at the time, regardless. If we tried outfitting ourselves for the best gun for EVERY conceivable job, then we'd all soon be way loaded down with far too much armament to effectively bring to bear the ideal choice for the given scenario.

Consider, for example, what it would be like to carry around (all day, every day), your chosen pistol, your chosen rifle, and your chosen shotgun, on top of body armor as well as your chosen loadout of ammunition for each. (Plus whatever else a security guard might also routinely carry.)

Be alert. Use your training and brain. Aim and hit the exposed unarmored targets, whatever they may be.

And never forget...cover and evacuation is, by far the most important aspect of civilian defensive moves for the protection of people in public places. The sooner they all start taking cover and evacuating, the better off they'll be.
 
Indeed. I do wonder if any of those advocating to avoid the fight would feel differently if it were happening in (for example) their church during a service, rather than at a local grocery store.

Personally, I'm on the fence about it. And I realize I can't know unless/until I find myself in such a situation.

If I was in church / store and someone started shooting people, women, kids and I chose to exit rather than try to stop the killing I would not be able to live with myself later; I do know that. I could not live with 17 deaths on my conscience that might have been prevented like that Parkland security guard. I'm not a cop or security guard, but my moral compass could not bear that.
 
Can't live with yourself. That's an Internet gun cliche. What does it actually mean? Will you kill yourself after fleeing? Will suffer from a psychiatric disorder such that you will not be able to function or interact with society and loved ones? Yes, you may suffer from psychological trauma but we have some very effective therapies nowadays for trauma related stress disorders. Thus, I don't buy that cliche. Folks have survived all kinds of trauma and got on with their lives.

For info some of the responses:

1. Armed personnel in grocery stores. Welcome to TX. A local supermarket near me for years had an old woman with gray hair as a security guard. She carried a big old SS 686 and about 4 speed loaders on the other side. She radiated 'predator'. Her eyes were cold. I asked someone about her and they said she was real deal. Another market was located across from the Jewish Community Center. After the Paris attacks, off duty cops with full gear appeared. I asked one why? He pointed across the street and saId that you know. The store specialized in items for that community. The local center here is getting police presence given they are on the target list for the 'replacement' terrorists.

2. A review piece of failure to stop drills: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunMagWare...o_to_the_body_one_to_the_head_thats_what_the/

Need practice those, need to have more realistic training than worrying about this or that gun and just shooting groups at the square range or a rock at the ranch.
 
If one finds himself/herself in the back of grocery aisle# 4 and finds himself/herself running all the way to the front of grocery aisle #23 to somehow "help" seems of rather limited benefit. How is that innocent total stranger supposed to accurately differentiate between good guys and bad guys now running at them?

Frowning down upon people (even honorable armed people) who opt to quickly flee is disingenuous.
That person who evacuates the store likely has many valid reasons why mounting a fight is not ideal.
 
How many people have trained and qualified using shotguns? Not using low recoil bird or skeet shot. Full-power or reduced power Buck and Slugs? Or trained and qualified people using them?

If a supermarket I patronized armed its security guards with shotguns, I'd not be going to that store. First, because somebody thought they needed shotguns in that store. Second, because the average person is probably much less skilled at shooting shotguns controllably and accurately than shooting their pistols controllably and accurately. And that's just on a range ...

This sort of hyper-sensationalized, fantasy scenario is something better suited to video games or Hollywood scripts. ;)

An understandable question about perhaps encountering another crazy, blood-in-their-eye person looking for their 15 minutes of fame in murdering innocents, though. They've been coming out of the woodwork for at least the last 20 years, though - and the media eagerly covers every blood stain left at the scenes, or on the clothing of survivors, and records the pathos for eager viewers, etc.

Anybody remember the North Hollywood Bank Robbery shooting? That was what started the ball rolling for CA LE to consider training its cops to use and be issued Patrol Rifles. To defeat standard LI/II body armor. One of the things that wasn't often mentioned (at least outside some LE debriefs and training circles) is that even though some of the distances involved during that incident occurred at relatively close range, head shots reportedly weren't being attempted with duty pistols carried by cops. In some training circles among LE agencies that was given some attention and discussion. My agency had always included failure-to-stop scenarios, meaning making precise/aimed head shots, but after that incident it was revisited and given even more attention. Besides, it was a slow rollout to begin rifle training and issuing rifles (including deciding to whom to issue them, and devise policy of when they would be deployed and used). Cops were already carrying handguns, though, so some attention to increasing skills and talking about tactics was ... obvious.

As a retired cop who carries a retirement weapon, I always have a thought in the back of my mind about how a supermarket is such a soft target. It's also one that usually limits entrance/egress, and funnels customers into long aisles, with little or nothing in the way of cover. I never take my safety for granted in such circumstances, and always keep an eye out for anyone looking 'out of place', acting oddly, in the parking lot and inside the stores. Somebody gets out of their car with garments that could mean body armor, and carrying a long gun (or two), or strides into a store like they're hunting? That's a clue.
 
If one finds himself/herself in the back of grocery aisle# 4 and finds himself/herself running all the way to the front of grocery aisle #23 to somehow "help" seems of rather limited benefit. How is that innocent total stranger supposed to accurately differentiate between good guys and bad guys now running at them?

Certainly good points.

On the other hand, one may hear gunfire, turn, and see an active shooter facing the opposite direction, moving and shooting in that direction at maybe less than 20 yards away. Which could well produce the opportunity for a shot to be taken.

No one knows where they may be and how such a situation may unfold. For myself, I'd prefer to decide in the moment (should I ever be so unfortunate) rather than chose before hand whilst imagining a scenario that might be totally wrong.
 
I know I need to get out more but I had never heard of having a security guard in a grocery store before this incident. Banks, jewelry stores, etc, I get, but a grocery store? That tells me that store is already having issues, and as such I would think it's probably a good idea to remain as inconspicuous as possible so as to not attract undue attention, precluding visible long guns. Just my amateur, non-worldly pov.
Native Buffalonian here, the Jefferson Ave store has a shoplifting/panhandling problem, nothing unusual in any urban setting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top