Please give us the benefit of your years of personal experience training for and responding to incidents and tell us how it should be done. Not one of the people who think that not having a gun in your hand when first responders arrive is an assault on their manhood has come up with an alternative response that gives the same ability to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. I’m waiting to hear your plan.
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.
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
Bcwitt
Member
Manhood?? You make sure the person you are going to KILL is actually the bad guy. An armed citizen @ the scene will have a better idea whom that is then anybody that arrives later. Is nonsense to assume anyone w a gun, especially in that situation, is a bad guy. You just ASSUME they are. Insane. Is logical that folks would try to put up a defense. No, just sit there & die like good citizen. What country is this?
You just show up & shoot anyone exercising there right to defend themselves? Is that how you train?
You just show up & shoot anyone exercising there right to defend themselves? Is that how you train?
If you draw your weapon in an active shooter situation there will probably be multiple calls to 911 identifying you as a shooter. Think about that….let it sink in.
Bcwitt
Member
It would be over by then.
Really? How so?
And how do you know that you will engage the actual shooter and not another armed citizen or off duty/plainclothes officer responding to the threat?
Bcwitt
Member
You would know if you witnessed it.
You think you know but in reality you don’t know what you don’t know. Too many people whose only experience with violence was a shoving match on the playground in third grade and what they see in the movies and on TV think they know exactly what it will look like and how they will react. Reality is a lot different. No one has the ability to look at a violent, chaotic situation in a crowd of people and instantly know what’s really happening.
You are in a crowded venue and you hear shots. People are screaming and running, an armed person runs past, the shooter? Another armed citizen? Off duty plainclothes officer? How do you tell friend from foe?
In the meantime multiple people have seen that you are armed and are giving 911 your description as the shooter.
I don’t understand why people think that this is a simple, clear environment where anyone can tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Bcwitt
Member
You can tell if you WITNESSED the entire scenario develop. If you WITNESS that happening, you will have a far better understanding of the situation then anyone arriving @ the scene.
Again, LEs must verify who it is. Phone descriptions aren't verifiable. How do you know the 911 callers know? You cannot go by that. You just said so.
Why don't you just drop a tac nuke on the entire area? Osage avenue style. You are sure to get your man that way.
I believe the concept of a witness is fairly well accepted in our legal system, is it not?
So what if anyone has seen you armed?? That's not illegal. Is it not logical there might be an armed citizen responding to an emminent threat, as per their rights? Does your training not cover that? How do you know the 911 callers IDed the right guy? Are you afraid someone will spoil your dirty Harry fantasy?
Again, LEs must verify who it is. Phone descriptions aren't verifiable. How do you know the 911 callers know? You cannot go by that. You just said so.
Why don't you just drop a tac nuke on the entire area? Osage avenue style. You are sure to get your man that way.
Do off duty/plainclothes randomly shoot into crowds of people? Again, it's obvious for whomever is there when it happens, yet very unclear for a responder.
I believe the concept of a witness is fairly well accepted in our legal system, is it not?
So what if anyone has seen you armed?? That's not illegal. Is it not logical there might be an armed citizen responding to an emminent threat, as per their rights? Does your training not cover that? How do you know the 911 callers IDed the right guy? Are you afraid someone will spoil your dirty Harry fantasy?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Whhat situation?
They are justified in shooting if and only if they reasonably believe that it immediately necessary to do so to defend themselves or others or others from imminent death or great bodily harm. Seeing someone with gun in hand during a shooting incident is a vwey good indication that such an immediate necessity exists.
That is absurd in the extreme.
That is beyond naive.
If you are serious, you are waaay off base, and you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how use of force incidents develop and occur, and in particular, of the speed in which they happen.
If you are not, knock it off--now. We do not allow jokes here.
Bcwitt
Member
Is it reasonable to fire back when fired upon? I think so.
If 'reasonable' means: 'very likely to get you shot at a lot more', then yes.
If your goal is to stay alive, there are much better responses than shooting back--in fact just about any response you can think of will be better than that. If you really think that knowingly shooting back at LE when they have mistaken you for a mass shooter is 'reasonable', I'm not sure what to say.
Look, no one is saying that this is a wonderful state of affairs, but it is the unpleasant reality we are faced with. The whole point of this thread is how to deal with such situations constructively. Railing against reality is pointless.
Bcwitt
Member
What difference does it make if you get shot by the shooter or the stupid trigger happy cowboys that think they are the militery? Your flesh doesn't care which bullet did the job. Please take care how you word that, it could be extrapolated that you have a desire to do so.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
How?
Bcwitt
Member
The guy walking around w a rifle killing everyone is the BAD GUY. The guy clinging to cover w a pistol is the GOOD GUY. Not that hard. Once again, no one arriving @ the scene can know the situation as well as an eyewitness. Apparently the police solution is just shoot everyone in the area.
Shooting back will make you an even more obvious (and valid) target. Do you think they teach officers who come under friendly fire to shoot back at their fellow officers?
I always try to take care how I word things, and there's nothing at all that remotely suggests that I have any desire to be shot by, or to shoot at the good guys.
That's ridiculously oversimplified.
You are trying hard to make it sound like the cops WANT to shoot good guys which is pure idiocy. We are talking about misunderstandings--mistakes--and how to avoid them.
Which is precisely why the cops arriving on the scene of a shooting sometimes make mistakes when they try to rapidly assess the situation while also trying not to get killed.
No, it's not. Not remotely. It's not even to shoot everyone in the area who is armed. But it certainly can happen--it has happened--and the reasons it can happen are pretty obvious. You can rail against reality or you can learn lessons from it and try to make constructive decisions based on those lessons.
You are assuming that every mass shooting incident follows a script you have predetermined in your mind. There have been plenty of mass shooting where the shooter used a handgun. You are also totally discounting that someone else is going to see you crouching behind cover with a handgun and call 911 and say; "There is another shooter!" and give the telecommunicator your description.
Bcwitt
Member
What is the issue w ordering the visibly armed to disarm? That wasn't mentioned @ all. One would hope an officer would have common sense & a little discernment.
So based on a phone call (from a total stranger) to a mediator, then to the field officer, ( that's 3) you decide to end a life? It should be common sense that if anyone in the area was armed, they might be making ready a defense. If this was Russia , China or Iran, what you are saying would fit there play book perfectly.
That would enable a gang member to eliminate a rival w a LEO.
So based on a phone call (from a total stranger) to a mediator, then to the field officer, ( that's 3) you decide to end a life? It should be common sense that if anyone in the area was armed, they might be making ready a defense. If this was Russia , China or Iran, what you are saying would fit there play book perfectly.
That would enable a gang member to eliminate a rival w a LEO.
So, when the cops hear hoofbeats, they should immediately assume that it's zebras? Come on--they are responding to an active shooting--armed person or persons who are committing violent crime. When they come on the scene and see armed persons, you think they should immediately assume that they are good guys? They are going to try to figure out what's going on--if you are the armed defender, do you want to help them make that determination or do you want to just keep doing what you're doing and hope they figure it out on their own?
In the video the shooter is leaving the building with a hostage. Tell me how you would immediately determine the difference between a shooter running with a hostage and an armed defender helping someone exit the field of fire.
That kind of thing can certainly happen--look up "Swatting" for examples. It's not a perfect world--you can complain about the lack of perfection or you can learn lessons from reality and use them to make yourself safer.
You clearly have never watched any dashcam/badgecam footage. Verbal commands are VERY commonly given to armed persons.
There's no issue at all with that if it's feasible. Sometimes it's not feasible. In the situation in the video, the shooter had a hostage. Giving notice could have easily resulted in the shooter killing the hostage. Or it might endanger the responding officer, allowing the shooter to get off shots at the officer by drawing the officer and the officer's position his attention.
Bcwitt
Member
So the cops see an armed citizen in the land of the free & you just assume he is the target? Again, it makes no difference whoms bullet kills you.
You reject the idea of "Giving notice" ?
Are you actually reading what I'm posting or are you so caught up in your rant that you just make stuff up?
Correct. But the cop doesn't want to shoot you--will not, in fact, shoot you if they can determine, in time, that you are not the threat. You are posting as if there's no way to keep from being shot by cops which is incorrect.
That is so very clearly NOT what I said that it makes no sense for me to rebut your statement.
Bcwitt
Member
Thank you for the clarification.
Let them kill you and then they can investigate themselves and determine if they did anything wrong? Is that your answer?
Best bet is to hide from the cops when they show up so they don't kill you and wait till it is over.
BC, you would probably benefit from several well-scripted FoF exercises simulating an acive whooter scenario. You get to be the man in blue, the bad guy, and the dolt who does not know to put his gun away.
If you try what you have been espousing here, I have no doubt that you will end up asthe "shootee" in every role.
If you try what you have been espousing here, I have no doubt that you will end up asthe "shootee" in every role.