This is what an active shooter response looks like. THink about how quickly this went down as you contemplate being on scene with a visible firearm.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,911
Location
Alma Illinois
Back in September a detainee at a juvenile detention center in Springfield Illinois got a gun, took another detainee hostage and attempted to shoot his way out of the facility. The Springfield police department released this video of the response. It's been compiled from security footage inside the facility, dispatch recordings and body camera footage.


There is no word on how the detainee got the gun. That's not relevant for our purposes anyway. The video was put together by Springfield PD so it's not unedited raw video. I'm sure it was produced to put the best take on the incident. What's important for our purposes here is how quickly the officers engaged and the range he fired from. Think about that the next time you think of being visibly armed when the police arrive to a shooting call.
 
I’m sure the fact that he had to shoot a teenager weighs heavily on the officer, but hopefully he takes comfort in the fact that he made the right call.

Being visibly armed may be unwise under a lot of circumstances. Under what circumstances is it justification for first responders to shoot?

That’s a fair point, but how else would you expect the officer to respond? Never once was there a description of the suspect or what he’s wearing. If a responding officer rolls up on a scene and he sees a guy with a gun pulling a girl along, it would probably be a defendable conclusion that it was the shooter.

Even if it was later ruled a “bad” shoot, that wouldn’t change the fact that the “good guy” was dead because he had a gun out during an active shooter incident. It’s not always as simple as having right on your side…
 
It has been shown time and again that having a gun doesn't get you shot. If you are not presenting a danger to anyone you likely won't be shot... you act crazy with any weapon your likely going to be put down. There are zero guarantees either way... if any officer was involved I would engage verbally and try and deflate any tension. Doing what your told massively improves your chances of success.
 
Never once was there a description of the suspect or what he’s wearing. If a responding officer rolls up on a scene and he sees a guy with a gun pulling a girl along, it would probably be a defendable conclusion that it was the shooter.
We don’t know if a description was broadcast or not. This isn’t raw video, it was produced at taxpayer expense by a professional video production company. We don’t get all of the radio traffic or see what was sent electronically to the MDCs in the squad cars.

The incident happened at a juvenile detention center where it was unlikely that the officers would encounter members of the public.
 
It's a single shooter that's obviously acting with malice and easily identified as such by his behavior.

It's not happening in a public venue.
And what keeps responding officers from reacting the same way to a private citizen shooting at the attacker? Are you selling halos now?

I acknowledged it wasn’t a public venue when I posted the video and I also posted the disclaimer that the video was produced by Springfield PD…..twice. That doesn’t detract from my point that responding officers (and other armed citizens) are likely going to engage anyone unknown to them who is armed in a situation like that.
 
And what keeps responding officers from reacting the same way to a private citizen shooting at the attacker? Are you selling halos now?

I acknowledged it wasn’t a public venue when I posted the video and I also posted the disclaimer that the video was produced by Springfield PD…..twice. That doesn’t detract from my point that responding officers (and other armed citizens) are likely going to engage anyone unknown to them who is armed in a situation like that.
Training, awareness, and criminal/civil prosecution of cops that shoot citizens lawfully bearing a firearm in self-defense.

It's a fact that there are armed privated citizens in public that might be lawfully using their gun in self-defense that an officer(s) might respond to.

Rule 4 applies - Be sure of your target. Shooting an innocent person that's lawfully exercising their Constitutional right in public, as affirmed by the Bruen decision, is criminal negligence and a civil rights violation.
 
Rule 4 applies - Be sure of your target. Shooting an innocent person that's lawfully exercising their Constitutional right in public, as affirmed by the Bruen decision, is criminal negligence and a civil rights violation.
We already established that nothing in Bruen established a right to self defense.

As for the rest of it, you can go ahead and advocate that armed citizens ignore the danger involved in taking action in an active shooter situation because it’s their constitutional right. I’m sure that will be great comfort to their survivors.

I don’t know what makes you think that LE doesn’t train to avoid blue on blue shootings. The fact is that when you have a second or less to make a shoot or no shoot decision the legal standard is if the decision to shoot was correct based on what you reasonably assumed to be the facts when you made the decision. That standard has kept plenty of private citizens out of prison.

What are you going to advocate next, shooting the suspect in the leg, or maybe shoot the gun out of his hand? You come here and whine about how things are but you offer no solution. You scream more training, why don’t you inform us how to do that? More training is pretty vague.

The fact is that even the highly trained soldiers in Tier One special operations units have made mistakes that cost friendly lives. Someone is out of place and mistaken for the enemy. It’s rare but it happens. I used to run a MILES exercise where I took the batteries out of the transmitters on the OPFOR so they could be “killed” but couldn’t “kill” anyone. The look on the faces of the troops during the AAR when it was revealed that all of the casualties were caused by “friendly” fire was priceless, it really emphasized the need for control measures. On the LE side I’ve ran plenty of exercises where we did our best to simulate all of confusion involved in a multiagency response to an active shooter. I don’t know why you think that training isn’t happening.

Even with all of that blue on blue engagements still happen and I will continue to advocate to everyone, private citizen or LE that if they are caught up in a situation like that not to have a weapon in hand when responding officers arrive.

You can scream: “It’s my constitutional right!” All you want. Until someone invents a fool proof IFF system and everyone uses it blue on blue engagements are going to happen.
 
Under what circumstances is it justification for first responders to shoot?
Same as for you and me.

The reasonable belief that what they are doing is necessary to defend themselves or other innocents. That does not mean they have to be right, only that their actions need to be reasonable based on the information they had available to them at the time.
Shooting an innocent person that's lawfully exercising their Constitutional right in public, as affirmed by the Bruen decision, is criminal negligence and a civil rights violation.
That's not correct at all. Kraig Brownlow was not even charged for killing Johnny Hurley even though Hurley was innocent. It's completely possible to shoot an innocent person who is engaged in lawful activity without being negligent, without committing a crime and without violating anyone's civil rights. Certainly it would be tragic, but justification would hinge on whether or not the person who fires the shots had a reasonable belief that they were defending themselves or other innocent persons against a serious crime likely to cause serious injury or death. It's not difficult to see how such a reasonable belief could arise.

Deadly force justification is not necessarily about being right, it's about the reasonable belief of the person at the time that the incident was taking place.

That is why, for example, shooting someone who is using a realistic toy gun while committing a violent felony would be justified. Even though the defender was wrong about the gun being real, if their belief was reasonable at the time, they would be justified.

Unfortunately, this is one of those situations that can't really be fixed. The best that can be done is to find some sort of balance. People need to understand that there's inherent danger in being visibly armed in the middle of a violent felony, both from the person committing the felony and from other responders. If you pull your gun and go towards the sound of shooting, there's a real chance that someone's going to figure you're a threat and act accordingly. I'm not saying that should drive people to inactivity, but they do need to understand the reality of the situation. It's really hard to tell good guys from bad guys just by looking at them.
 
Back in September a detainee at a juvenile detention center in Springfield Illinois got a gun, took another detainee hostage and attempted to shoot his way out of the facility. The Springfield police department released this video of the response. It's been compiled from security footage inside the facility, dispatch recordings and body camera footage.


There is no word on how the detainee got the gun. That's not relevant for our purposes anyway. The video was put together by Springfield PD so it's not unedited raw video. I'm sure it was produced to put the best take on the incident. What's important for our purposes here is how quickly the officers engaged and the range he fired from. Think about that the next time you think of being visibly armed when the police arrive to a shooting call.
Is there a way to view this video without signing up for twitter?

Edit: I found the video on multiple sites, but haven't found one that shows the actual shooting.
 
Last edited:
This shows some of it. They cut before the actual shooting, but around 1:10, you can see the point at which the officer begins to engage to get a feel for the distance involved and how fast the officer reacted.

Here's the entire video on youtube. They may take it down or make it sign-in view only.
 
This shows some of it. They cut before the actual shooting, but around 1:10, you can see the point at which the officer begins to engage to get a feel for the distance involved and how fast the officer reacted.

Here's the entire video on youtube. They may take it down or make it sign-in view only.
Thanks. I saw the link to this video earlier, but we have spotty internet connection here, and I couldn't get it to load. I was able to watch it after you posted the link.
 
Back in September a detainee at a juvenile detention center in Springfield Illinois got a gun, took another detainee hostage and attempted to shoot his way out of the facility. The Springfield police department released this video of the response. It's been compiled from security footage inside the facility, dispatch recordings and body camera footage.


There is no word on how the detainee got the gun. That's not relevant for our purposes anyway. The video was put together by Springfield PD so it's not unedited raw video. I'm sure it was produced to put the best take on the incident. What's important for our purposes here is how quickly the officers engaged and the range he fired from. Think about that the next time you think of being visibly armed when the police arrive to a shooting call.
Ok so what is the problem the kid fired multiple shots inside a detention facility those not familiar with facilities like that need to know that firearms are not allowed within the secure confines of the facility he also had a hostage and was attempting an escape in actuality he did escape as he was outside the secure portion on the facility. The real problem here is the kid or kids with him was not patted down correctly or somebody left a lock box not secured firearms do not just appear in a facility there was a security breach due to bad searches or negligent weapons retention the result one down.
 
The "problem" is that the officer engages the shooter at distance and very rapidly after seeing him--sort of exactly what we want officers to do in active shooter situations. But that means that it's easily possible to confuse a shooter with a hostage with an armed civilian or off duty cop guiding someone to safety at that distance and with the amount of time it took him to make the decision to shoot.

The point is that getting involved in a situation like that brings potential danger from first responders. There's a good chance that they will reasonably believe that a person armed at the scene of an active shooter is the shooter or shooters. It's common for there to be confusion about the number of shooters based on multiple 911 calls from different sources and perhaps as to the description of the shooter. In the case of the Allen mall shooting, the officer was close enough to hear the shots when they started and so he didn't get any description or information on the number of shooters. Anyone armed is going to be in danger from officers coming on scene looking for the shooter.
 
Well generally I am not on scene with my firearm in detention facilities and I spend the vast majority of my life not in the presence of law enforcement/security personnel. I tend to think about how quickly these things don't go down when there aren't a bunch of cops in the immediate area. I mean, look at how fast the cops engaged this active shooter, right?

Officers were on scene quickly at the Tyler Square shooting, being as officers worked in the courthouse on the square of the shooting. Of course, it was a CCW, Mark Wilson, credited with wounding the shooter, not the cops.

JohnKSa mentioned the Allen shooting and the cop already being on scene. He was on scene. It still took him 4 minutes to find and down the shooter. FOUR minutes is a long time to not be drawing a gun and defending yourself out of fear that responding cops might have some issues with threat assessment.

Compare that with the response of officers making entry on the Orlando Pulse night club shooting. Aside from the officer on duty at the door, once the shooter was inside, he had a lot of time. Eventually, it turned into a standoff, he had so much time.

Maybe you are a teacher carrying illegally at your school in Florida when a student starts shooting people, but you don't draw your gun out of fear the award winning SRO will appear and dispatch the shooter before he kills you or your students, and that might be the case of the SRO wasn't cowering outside and actually keeping other responders from coming to save you.

Then again, maybe you want to wish you did draw your gun and engage the bad guy so that maybe the cops wouldn't become the mass shooters themselves, right? Cops responded to an active shooter in the Empire State Building and ended up engaging him on the street. They got the shooter and 9 other people in the process - NINE. Of course, here the good news is that only 3 non-involved civilians were hit by direct fire and the other 6 by ricochets. The officers fired a total of 16 rounds, killing 1 bad guy and injuring 9 non-involved civilians.

Of course in the case of the OP's detention facility incident, the officers were there really fast, 2 minutes and 39 seconds from the time of the call to arrive on scene. Fortunately, the gunman was exiting the facility with a hostage when the cops arrived, so there wasn't the delay that we saw at places like the school shooting in Nashville waiting for the officers to post up in teams to make entry.

It has been shown time and again that having a gun doesn't get you shot.

And then once in a while, you do get shot, sometimes even if you are the hero who has already neutralized the threat and you are trying to secure the weapon in case the threat re-alives.

Never mind all the friendly fire incidents on off duty or under cover cops, such as this one where the responding officer saw the homeowner and off duty officer (already stabbed many times) with a GUN heading into the residence and shoots the threat. Never mind that the actual bad guy is inside, trying to get the off duty officer's wife.

------------------------------

The point is, every situation is unique. No one rule is going to fit all situations. I would be just as concerned drawing my gun in a mass shooting as I would in a robbery. After all, how do I know that anyone around me isn't an off duty cop or armed citizen with situational awareness deficits and may be more prone to harm me than the threat I am engaging? Brendon McKowning the situation isn't good either.
 
Last edited:
Not having access to all the 911 dialog to this incident doesn't help one of the callers at the detention facility may have given responders a detailed description of the shooter and point of travel. Even so a person exiting a secure facility with an open firearm visible not in a uniform begs the question good or bad due to the person not in pursuit of another fleeing the area it was a judgement call.
 
Training, awareness, and criminal/civil prosecution of cops that shoot citizens lawfully bearing a firearm in self-defense.

It's a fact that there are armed privated citizens in public that might be lawfully using their gun in self-defense that an officer(s) might respond to.

Rule 4 applies - Be sure of your target. Shooting an innocent person that's lawfully exercising their Constitutional right in public, as affirmed by the Bruen decision, is criminal negligence and a civil rights violation.
Two things can be true at once. What you said can be true, and at the same time, non-leo's can realize that getting shot by responding leo's is possible and take steps to mitigate that. The ideal isn't necessarily the same thing as reality and it's always a good idea to recognize and adjust our actions to the way things are, rather than the way they should be. Doesn't mean we can't continue to advocate and work towards the ideal, but we shouldn't pretend to ourselves that it has arrived, when it clearly hasn't.
 
We already established that nothing in Bruen established a right to self defense.
Bruen specifically affirmed the right of private citizens to "bear" arms for self-defense in public.

Ability, Opportunity, Intent, and Preclusion. These are the elements of lawful use of force.

Ability means a person is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon.

Opportunity means the armed person is in position to use that weapon against another.

Intent means actions or words that indicate the armed person intends to harm another.

Preclusion means no other reasonable option exists except to use force to stop the armed person.

Intent is the difference between an armed private citizen and an active shooter, and the defender's actions and or words are going to be markedly different than an active shooter.

Preclusion includes deescalation, and it's the duty of police to attempt to deescalate before rushing to judgment and shooting an innocent person who's lawfully exercising his/her Constitutional right to "bear" arms in self-defense.
 
Looks like a pretty solid response. It's an edited video so some portions of dispatch was probably edited out but it looked like dispatch was gathering a lot of first hand information which was likely relayed to the officers.

Having a gun in your hand at the scene of an active shooter is definitely putting yourself at a high level of risk for being shot. If there's one area where cops may get some leniency for being quick to shoot its going to be at an active shooter. The media typically isn't flying any flags for law enforcement or armed citizens but I think they'd go with law enforcement in a situation like this.

It's not a good idea to build your plan around cops being a certain amount of time away from the scene. They could be 30 minutes away or they could be 30 seconds.
 
Back
Top