engaging the active shooter

Status
Not open for further replies.

W.E.G.

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
7,972
Location
trying to stay focused on the righteous path
engaging the active shooter.

I got this as part of an email today from Gabe Suarez.
(I am well aware of Mr. Suarez’s reputation and detractors on the internet – please focus on his message, and leave character-opinions out of any replies.)


As it pertains to the tactical response of the lone armed-citizen when confronted with an active shooter, I find it hard to disagree with one word of Mr. Suarez’s post.



Napoleon once said that a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. We can learn a great deal from what went wrong here can't we?

Here are some points for you to consider.

1). A pistol will win against a rifle IF the pistolero kills the rifleman before the rifleman sees him. Much of this has to do with tactics, but that should be part of your skill set.

2). If the pistolero fails to drop the rifleman due to an inoperative pistol, a miss, or insufficient damage caused by too few pistol rounds, the rifleman will probably kill the pistolero.

3). The surest way to stop a man in his tracks (with some permanence) is with a shot to the head delivered at close range. Some folks dislike teaching head shots. I require them.

4). Verbalizing or challenging, as in "Halt - Drop The Gun" is not a good idea. In fact, its virtual suicide in a situation like this. You cannot yell and shoot well at the same time, and yelling may alert the bad guy to your location. There is evidence that this occurred in Tacoma.

5). You verbalize and challenge ONLY when you are not certain of what is going on and then ONLY from behind solid cover (if the adversary is armed with a rifle, few things qualify as cover). If you have enough to justify shooting, then shut your trap and work the trigger.

6). There is a great deal of discussions on Defensive Shooting. Shooting in a case of this magnitude is only defensive in concept. It is pro-active and aggressive deliberate and premeditated shooting.

7). Although I like and teach point shooting (in its context), pro-active shooting like this requires traditional marksmanship. Be deliberate! Watch your front sight and press carefully and repeatedly (with your mouth shut).

8). Train with photographic targets and do force on force training. Get used to the idea that you carry your gun to potentially shoot at a human attacker. The more you get comfortable with this the easier it will be. Tommy Lee Jones' character in the movie, The Hunted, told his students that when you can kill in your mind, the physical part is easy. He's right.

9). Consider that under some circumstances you may have to make do with a knife. I'm not saying that you will attack a rifle man with your Spyderco at 50 yards, but that in the event that he is within arm's reach (which was the case with several of the Tacoma hostages) your knife may be the only thing between you and being killed. So learn how to kill with your knife.

10). Last, consider that there may be a reason why God (or fate if you wish) put you, armed and trained, at that very spot and place in time, with the ability to save innocents. This is the life-giving sword (or gun in this context) that some ancient warriors discussed in their writings.
 
1. Has happened to and by me several times in video games ;) In all seriousness, he is right. Tactics > equipment. But if tactics are equal, rifle > pistol.

2. If you're in the situation with a long gun and the long gun fails, the other shooter will probably kill you as well.

3/7. I understand these concepts. Make your first BANG the bang that stops the threat. Otherwise he will be alerted to your position. The one issue is if you want to mag dump, it would be better to be aiming at a bigger target. On the other hand, if he's wearing body armor (and not a load-bearing vest that the media calls "body armor")...

4-6. Obvious. If he's already shooting people, you are beyond the point of negotiating or stopping the attack. The tactically viable option both for stopping the BG and for saving innocent lives would be to physically stop him ASAP.

8. Many ranges do not let you shoot these type of targets. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between being able to shoot a humanoid target and being able to shoot an attacker. Either way, I agree that for ANY defensive situation you need to be mentally able to shoot an attacker.

9. Good advice, but even at contact distance I'd rather use a gun.

10. Personally I'm an agnostic that doesn't believe in fate. However, I believe if I have the opportunity to stop a BG in a situation like this, I have a moral obligation to. Not everyone has that (if your morals are to bug out, by all means bug out) but if I have the capability to make a bad situation better, I should.
 
W.E.G. said:
5). You verbalize and challenge ONLY when you are not certain of what is going on and then ONLY from behind solid cover (if the adversary is armed with a rifle, few things qualify as cover). If you have enough to justify shooting, then shut your trap and work the trigger.

Skribs said:
4-6. Obvious. If he's already shooting people, you are beyond the point of negotiating or stopping the attack. The tactically viable option both for stopping the BG and for saving innocent lives would be to physically stop him ASAP.
If you have done any force-on-force training or live fire simulators...with a skilled trainer...you'd know that Not Knowing is more common than Knowing. That is why LEOs responding to those types of situations wear highly visible/recognizable clothing...besides the cool factor. Friendly fire is a very real factor when you don't have the whole picture.

What do you think it looks like from a different POV, if another armed CCW carrier sees you rear up from behind cover to shoot the active shooter...who might be completely out of their line of sight. They see someone "already shooting people"
 
Tunnel vision

The one thing I saw that was ignored is the FACT that you will experience tunnel vision.

It happens to all,yes even those that have been in a shootout and those that do not train to fight that evil trait will be subject to it.

The only way to train is to do drills with force on force AND train yourself to shoot [ at live range ] and SCAN after all strings of fire.

You will need to do this to avoid being the target of another citizen or off duty LEO that is trying to control an active shooter scenario.

Remember that the infamous Miami shootout had LEO's arrive on scene and not have a clue as to who to fire upon.

So wisely they chose no one.

I totally agree as to NOT challenging an active shooter if at all possible.
 
I'm not arguing with the points because they do have merit... If you happen to be in a mall when someone starts shooting and you need to act to protect your family and yourself. Unless you happen to be right there in sight of the shooter I'd have to recommend against taking action. I say again DO NOT go hunting for the suspect!!!

The point about not using verbal challenges is why.... If I responded to an active shooter call and saw you with a gun shooting at someone you probably are going to be shot unless somehow I knew you're the good guy engaging the suspect. As a LEO I have no legal requirements to verbally challenge you in a active shooter situation.
 
First responders are told to use great caution in responding to an emergency because:

"Its not YOUR emergency."

Something to be said for that I suppose when the bad guy is shooting up the food court at the mall.

Its highly unlikely though that I'll need to get my family out of the way.
I'm usually that guy sitting by himself at the Starbucks, wearing the tattered field jacket, and reading a dog-eared copy of "Catcher in the Rye."

Whatever is going to happen on my end will be over very quickly, either by a quick shot, or by retreat.
No Bruce-Willis-esque protracted shootouts for this old man with a limp.
 
If you become involved in an active shooter scenario, you first duty is to stay alive, regardless of whether you are armed or not. A heroic death is still death. Your death is unlikely to save anyone else. Saving your own ass might well let you save others.

IMO, verbal challenges are a really bad idea, except as a distraction tactic, and then you should be pulling the trigger while issuing the challenge. Shoot the SOB in the back if you can.

The advice on head shots is probably pretty sound given that some of these shooters are using body armor these days. Having said that, unless you are an unusually good shot or are very close, a head shot is a lot harder to make. A guy moving around moves his head a fair amount, in a semi-random fashion and it is a smallish target to begin with.
 
I've been practicing 20-yard shots at stationary 8-inch plates with the handgun, and from a prepared, and comfortable, offhand shooting position.

I've gone from missing-most-of-the-time to hitting-most-of-the-time.
If those plates started moving around, I'm pretty sure I would be well-and-truly screwed.
 
I don't know about headshots. I recognize their importance in stopping the threat, especially given the propensity for these shooters to wear body armor (as of late), but I don't think they're practical.

One of my best friends is a Ranger veteran and PMC instructor. Before I moved, we would hit the range together. He shoots a variety of targets rapid fire, and gets super tight groups. He never misses. Not once. His USPSA times are incredible. He told me that in a gunfight he misses all the time, like three out of ten shots make their target, because gunfights are scary and no amount of training can overcome that. Drilling helps make shooting automatic when your mind is scrambled with terror, but odds are you're not going to be a marksman.

I have never been in combat, nor do I claim to have been, but I know people who have, and they all tell me your shooting goes out the window. With the adrenaline you might not even be able to focus on your sight picture when you're engaging a shooter. Have you ever seen footage of a shopkeeper or someone untrained but carrying fending off an armed attacker? Terrible form, lots of trying to shoot around cover (not really cover, just concealment) and there's not a lot of aiming.

I would get whomever I could to safety, and only shoot if absolutely necessary. If that were to happen, I'd shoot (point shoot probably) to center mass until the threat stops or I'm out of ammunition.
 
given the propensity for these shooters to wear body armor

Couple of places most folks don't armor is the neck and pelvis. With the pelvis, you at least have a decent chance of anchoring your target so that you come up with Plan "B" for neutralizing him.

Another thing to consider is that any hit is better than no hit.
 
10). Last, consider that there may be a reason why God (or fate if you wish) put you, armed and trained, at that very spot and place in time, with the ability to save innocents. This is the life-giving sword (or gun in this context) that some ancient warriors discussed in their writings.

LOL, or consider that God or fate may just want you dead. You are there to be slaughtered, not to save others. If one is going to invoke and recognize the believed supernatural determinants, then one must recognize that being a mere mortal that the supernatural determinants may not have your corporeal best interest in mind.

Invocation of the supernatural as part of a lecture on stragegy and tactics is pretty darned silly, especially when only a biased benevolent presentation is given.
 
The problem with discussing this is that posters start to project their own values and priorities onto others. There is a trend of thinking "This is what is wise to me so that must mean is the only appropriate thing to do".

No one can dictate your values to you. Not even an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

you need to act to protect your family and yourself.

Unless you don't have a family or choose to value numerous innocent people over your own single life.

you first duty is to stay alive,

Unless you decide that something else is your first duty, such as keeping as many other people alive as you can. That's up to each person to decide.



Notice how I did not say "You should definitely do _____" at any time.

That's up to you. And what I do is up to me. I will not lecture another man and tell him it's his duty to abandon his family or even just risk himself. His life is his. It's not my right to tell him what I think his highest obligation should be. But in return, do not tell anyone else what you think they should do. That's their choice. We can discuss how to do various things, and what likely outcomes might be. But the why is and will always be up to the individual, no one else, and certainly not an internet consensus. I will choose my values. I will choose my first duty. You will choose yours. I will not tell you what to choose. I ask you not to tell me or anyone else what they should choose in return.
 
Many shooters have been described as having worn body armor but how many were actually just a load bearing vest or some type of tacticool outerwear?

Also remember that even standard body armor (there are several "levels" of protection) will not defeat some higher energy handgun rounds, and that even if penetration is stopped, I understand it still hurts a fiar bit, which can serve to temporarily disable the shooter and/or interrupt his OODA loop.

Also consider that active shooter training has evolved to the point that LEOs are taught to utilize unaimed suppressing fire, in the hope that the shooter will follow pattern and withdraw/terminate when faced with opposition.

Here's a brief review of body armor protection levels, with a chart:

http://njlawman.com/Feature Pieces/Body Armor.htm
 
Re: subjects with body armor. In most cases the suspect upon being confronted, or knowing that an armed threat to them existed they have displaced and either surrendered or more commonly committed suicide. So even if you're not doing anything or then bruising some ribs odds are the suspect will retreat. Also don't forget that torso body coverage does not cover the hands, arms, weapon etc. When shooting COM in FoF scenarios most folks get hits on the suspects hands and arms rather then clear torso hits. This can easily take the suspect out of the fight.

Unaimed suppresive fire is probably not the best phrasing for the technique. Target indicated fire is a better one. Basically you don't have a clear positive view of the target, but you do have a positive threat and an obvious target point to aim at. Muzzle flash is the most obvious target point to work with.

-Jerick
 
I kinda disagree with 3. I think you should most definitely train and be able to make headshots, but if there are better options, take them.

For example, if it looks like they're wearing armor, you have no choice. Head shots are your only option. If you can plainly see that all they are wearing is a t shirt, and you have good shots at their chest, take those instead. The head is just so small, and your chances of missing and giving up your location are greater.
 
Many shooters have been described as having worn body armor but how many were actually just a load bearing vest or some type of tacticool outerwear?

Also remember that even standard body armor (there are several "levels" of protection) will not defeat some higher energy handgun rounds, and that even if penetration is stopped, I understand it still hurts a fiar bit, which can serve to temporarily disable the shooter and/or interrupt his OODA loop.

Also consider that active shooter training has evolved to the point that LEOs are taught to utilize unaimed suppressing fire, in the hope that the shooter will follow pattern and withdraw/terminate when faced with opposition.

Here's a brief review of body armor protection levels, with a chart:

I am not sure what you mean by most standard body armor, IIa vests stop the typical handgun calibers carried by CCW people, ESPECIALLY when loaded with hollowpoint ammo that actually inhibits penetration through ballistic armor. On top of that, some of the folks wearning armor wear multiple or customized armor that seems to do a great job of dealing with anything the bad guys expect to encounter such as with North Hollywood and Tyler. Sorry, but few folks CCW .44 mags and .500 S&Ws and if you are engaging an active shooter with a handgun, it is probably your CCW.

I don't know any law enforcement groups that are teaching unaimed suppressive fire. I think you are gravely misinformed. That would be 180 degrees counter to everything I have seen.
 
If you consult the chart I linked, you'll see that IIa vests are not rated for 357 Magnum, and I assume 357 Sig. These calibers are not rare amongst permitted citizens.

As to suppressive fire, I went to some considerable trouble to track down where I read that. Take it for what you believe it's worth:

http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html

I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff's deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity.


#3) What is the solution to stopping mass shootings?

...active-duty police detective...

He went on to explain that in the training they have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that ANY engagement of an active shooter -- even shots that don't hit the shooter -- are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to "confirm your sight picture" of weapon sights on the target before pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of rounds, even returning so-called "suppressing fire" is now considered tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is to go in and engage the shooter, even if you're just one officer on the scene.

This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes against most cops' safety rules which include, "always know what is BEYOND your target." But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim when laying down suppressing fire.

It is therefore believed, I was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can effectively lay down that "suppressing fire" even if they are not nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction.
 
you'll see that IIa vests are not rated for 357 Magnum, and I assume 357 Sig

You are correct that a IIa is not rated for them. Also that chart is a little old, check out: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf page 3, that is the current NIJ .06 standard. Most surplus vests these days are IIIa, as that is the most common choice for LEO's, as it's the most protective soft armor available. Also IIa under the new standard is not particularly lighter or more flexible then IIIa anymore (used to be much lighter and more flexible), so there's no a lot of reasons to go down in protection. A IIIa vest is rated up to a .44 mag. Also, although the vest or ballistic product may not be certified for it, a IIIa will normally stop a shot gun slug. Yes there is a ton of back face deformation, but no penetration.

Again, the current teach of "suppression fire" is much closer to shooting at muzzle flashes at night, then true military suppression fire.

-Jenrick
 
What about those two NYC cops that shot several bystanders while trying to engage one target? Was that 'suppressive fire'?

There is certainly an opportunity cost to inaction, and I could see situations where suppressive fire could be safely and justly called for, but at the same time the calculus should remain to first 'do no harm'. If the gunman was randomly firing out a window of a school without a clear line of sight to the target, would it really make sense to just start dumping lead into the school?

I think the lesson we should all take away is that always more training is needed, by those at all levels from personal CCW to security guards to standard police officer to police special units. I think FOF makes a lot of sense if done properly and safely and in a realistic and serious manner.

As for body armor, at one time it was possible to get ceramic plate 'Ranger' armor, which as I understand will stop 30-06. If someone is wearing that serious of armor, I don't know that they will even feel a 9mm or .380. There was that case in CA a while back with two bank robbers who had full armor and were shot multiple times until one of them got hit in the foot, I think the other did himself in. They didn't seem to feel or exhibit any injury when they were shot on the armor. So I wouldn't want to rely on the shock of the impact if using a pistol caliber against armor; go right for the head.
 
Last edited:
tuj said:
What about those two NYC cops that shot several bystanders while trying to engage one target? Was that 'suppressive fire'?
From watching the video clip several times, I would say it isn't.

They were trying to put telling hit onto the target...they just weren't very good at it
 
From watching the video clip several times, I would say it isn't.

Right, which is my point that two 'trained' professionals in a real situation couldn't put rounds on target without hitting no-shoots when confronted with an armed adversary. So the idea of 'suppressive fire' for the average patrolman seems troubling for me.
 
Paramedic, not specifically referring to "covering fire" but to the subject of potential misses still being a better option than just letting the BG rampage...I've considered that. I guess it falls under the moral/ethic question of "can you potentially kill an innocent bystander in order to save the lives of more innocent bystanders." The morbid version of cost/effectiveness.

I think there is no correct answer there. Regardless, I think trying to stop the BG in as tactically-viable a method as possible (act with surprise, take an aimed shot at a critical zone on the body) is better than trying to use covering fire (as he might then turn to attack you instead of running away), so that tactic would mean lower likelihood of hitting an innocent than spraying covering fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top