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.

[luzyfuerza]

The only logical conclusion is that people tend to not carry, even when they can and/or they tend to not respond to mass shooters even if they are carrying.

The only logical conclusions? Not so fast, please. Your implied definition of "respond" seems to be a bit different than mine.

I carry pretty much any time I'm away from home.

But, my personal rules of engagement are that I will not engage an attacker with deadly force unless 1) I am personally, directly threatened with deadly force, or 2) any of my loved ones is directly threatened with deadly force. I have chosen not to risk my own life to defend strangers against a deadly attack. There are a couple of exceptions to these rules that I won't discuss here.

My "response" to an armed murderer is to avoid him if I can. My first "response" is to escape to safety if a perfectly safe path can be identified. If we can't escape via a route that is known to be perfectly safe, then my next "response" will be to find a place where we can hole up and, if possible, set a counter ambush.

If the El Paso WalMart murderer was shooting up grocery and we could safely escape through tire and auto on the other side of the store, then we're heading out. I'm not sticking around to "respond to [a] mass shooter even if [I am] carrying".

This approach has the triple benefits of reducing the risk of dying at the hands of the mass murderer, reducing the risk of dying at the hands of responding police, and reducing the risk of liability imposed by the legal system.

Only if I can't avoid him will I "respond" (using what I think is your definition of the word). I pray that never happens.

 

[luzyfuerza]

The dilemma is do you stop and take the time to disarm and secure that person and allow the real shooter to continue the killing spree or do you possibly shoot an innocent person and move on?

There is another problem with disarming and securing an unknown person in a scene where a mass murderer is still roaming free: officers assume responsibility for the welfare of any person thus detained. And they and their agencies become liable if she is injured or killed, even if by the murderer.

 

[JohnKSa]

The only logical conclusions? Not so fast, please. Your implied definition of "respond" seems to be a bit different than mine.

The context of the thread is being openly armed when police respond. The context of my post was specifically about engaging mass shooters with a CCW. Here's the portion of the post that you quoted, but including the sentence right before it with some emphasis added: "And yet no armed response from civilians. The only logical conclusion is that people tend to not carry, even when they can and/or they tend to not respond to mass shooters even if they are carrying."

If that's not what you are talking about, then yes, you are talking about something different. If people respond to mass shooters by exiting the scene they won't be openly armed and they won't be in significant danger of being shot by mistake by responding LEOs which is the context of this thread.

If the El Paso WalMart murderer was shooting up grocery and we could safely escape through tire and auto on the other side of the store, then we're heading out. I'm not sticking around to "respond to [a] mass shooter even if [I am] carrying".

As I said in my post, given that we know there were permit holders in the El Paso WalMart and that there were almost certainly some people actually carrying, the only logical conclusion is that people don't carry even when they can and/or they don't respond to mass shooters--that is, they don't mount an armed response. And therefore they aren't in significant danger of being shot by responding LEOs. That's another benefit of avoidance as opposed to engagement.

 

[Jeff White]

There is another problem with disarming and securing an unknown person in a scene where a mass murderer is still roaming free: officers assume responsibility for the welfare of any person thus detained. And they and their agencies become liable if she is injured or killed, even if by the murderer.

Exactly! That detainee would have to be moved from the scene or protected. Both options remove officers from the search.

 

[wayneinFL]

So what are you trying to say? Just ignore the possiblity of armed citizens? What are the protocols for encountering off-duty or other uninformed personnel, like armed three letter guys, especially when those individuals may be in the middle of a tunnel vision/audio episode?

This is not an ethereal discussion for me. The local King Soopers wasn't out primary grocery store, but a secondary one, and where my wife filled her monthly prescriptions. When we lived in Arvada, I was a frequent patron of the military surplus store that Johnny Hurley departed to engage the deranged cop killer across the street.

Imagine you're in the El Paso Walmart. There's probably another dozen people in there armed. Unless you're standing right there behind the killer, how do you know he's the guy? You're in the auto department, there's an off duty cop buying milk, there's a plainclothes officer walking in the other entrance. And a dozen other people scattered throughout the store. If you all head towards the killer, you don't know who's who. You run up and shoot the first guy you see shooting a gun, who might be the killer, or a cop, or just another armed citizen trying to help. It's a terrible situation to try to intervene in.

The cops who are called have the same problem. Maybe worse, because the dispatchers are taking dozens of calls from frantic idiots who all saw something different at the same place.

There's no training to fix that.

I just wrote the cops have the "same problem". They have the same situation, you have way more problems than the cop. The cop shoots the wrong guy, he feels bad, gets some time off. You shoot the wrong guy and you have an arrest on your record, civil liability, possibly criminal liability, enough that you at least have to hire a lawyer. You just blew your family's life savings, and maybe lost your job, maybe your freedom. Even if you shoot the right guy, you have a lot of that. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain, except keeping a couple of dozen people out of 300 million alive. And it's doubtful any of them would have stopped to help you change a flat, let alone risked their lives for you.

That's a little off topic. Intervene if you want, just understand there is a risk of getting shot while you still have a gun on your hand.

 

[luzyfuerza]

I can’t imagine an officer working now who has no experience dealing with legally armed private citizens. Nearly half of the country is constitutional carry and every other state issues permits.

The problem is with active shooter response. This goes straight to current doctrine. It seems there is a choice between the way it used to be done, which was slow and deliberate but greatly reduced the danger of an innocent person being mistakenly shot and gave the actual shooter more time to kill before he was confronted. Or we can do it the way we do it now, charge in and stop the shooting.

I see no alternative to this approach during the period while the active murderer hasn't yet been neutralized. Intent has to be evaluated at lightning speed, errors will occur, and so the risk to both police and armed defenders is high.

What I've never seen discussed, though, is the protocols police are trained to follow during the next, less urgent phase of their response. That of clearing the scene.

If I'm an armed defender who has retreated to a defensible position, I've probably set an ambush. I'm primed to shoot anyone I see who is armed and who comes through the fatal funnel into that space.

The gun comes through before any uniform.

Shouting "Police!" before officers enter isn't really a solution, either. After all, if I were a mass murderer, I might shout "Police!" before entering an unknown space, too.

From the police perspective, their mission during this phase is to search for and neutralize confederates of the mass murderer. At first glance, an armed defender with loved ones who has set an ambush looks a lot like another mass murderer who has taken hostages.

The only difference is the urgency of the search.

So, my questions are: as police clear a scene, 1) have they been trained to anticipate this situation, and 2) how are they trained to respond to it? Has a consensus developed in the police community?

Note that I'm asking about protocols developed and taught by competent agencies.

We can look at those of agencies like Broward County or Uvalde ISD later.

 

[starnbar]

It's an issue, but as shafter points out, it's not a common one. It seems that not a lot of people carry, and even when they do, it appears that they have a tendency to not respond to mass shootings.

I did a pretty careful analysis of the El Paso WalMart shooting some time ago and the statistics show that there were more than 20 permit holders in the store (99% confidence level) and that it's reasonably likely that there were more like 40-50. If you assume that about 10% of people who have permits carry, then there were 2-5 people carrying in the store and yet nobody confronted the guy. He basically shot people for as long as he wanted and left the scene.

So a store where carry is allowed, in a gun-friendly state, with 2-4 dozen permit holders present, and several people likely carrying. And yet no armed response from civilians. The only logical conclusion is that people tend to not carry, even when they can and/or they tend to not respond to mass shooters even if they are carrying. That is, no doubt, a major factor in why we don't see innocent armed civilians getting shot by cops in the middle of active/mass shooter events. They don't get involved and so they aren't perceived as a threat.

That doesn't solve the problem of what to do if you do get involved. If you do carry and are open to the possibility of responding to an active shooter if you happen to be on the scene, then you certainly need to be aware of the issue.

If there were good protocols, then officers would never shoot other officers thinking they were criminals. The whole reason it's important for people to understand this is precisely because there is no good way for two armed people who don't know each other and who meet during or in the wake of a shooting to instantly verify to each other that they are "good guys" and not deadly threats.

If you want to not get shot when the cops show up to the scene of a shooting you have two main options:

1. Don't be there.
2. Don't be openly armed.

That's the protocol.

It's not a great one--as DNS points out, if you get involved, you may not be able to disengage at will to disarm and/or you may not realize that LE has entered the scene. In that case, you're at significant risk of being shot by responding LE and there's no foolproof way to get everyone on the same page before something bad happens.

Where did you draw your information from was it an incident report, or interviews?

 

[luzyfuerza]

@JohnKSa I really do understand the logic of your posts and the context of this discussion. You explain your thinking nicely.

My answers are intended to encourage you (and other members) to take a more thoughtful, nuanced, less binary approach to the concept of "armed response". To step beyond a narrow "hunt the murderer down" kind of definition.

I think that there is value in going into that space.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think that there is value in going into that space.

No question. But it does open up the potential for confusion when that definition of "response" is used in a discussion that is exclusively about being openly armed when LEOs arrive on the scene of a shooting and the possible repercussions of that situation.

Where did you draw your information from was it an incident report, or interviews?

There was a lot of information published about how many people were in the WalMart at the time of the shooting and how many were Mexican Nationals. Then I used DPS numbers (DPS administers the TX handgun licensing program in TX) to estimate the percentage of TX residents with permits in that county. Did the statistics and confidence level calculations with that information to determine how many permit holders were in the WalMart when the shooting started. Finally, as stated, I used my own estimate/assumption of how many people with permits actually carry on a regular basis (10%) to estimate how many of the permit holders were legally carrying at the time.

The main takeaway was the figure that there were 23 +/- 2 permit holders in the store (99% confidence level) and possibly as many as 4 dozen. That number alone is enough to draw the conclusion that permit holders either aren't carrying or have a strong tendency to not mount an armed response in the event of a mass shooting. I ran the numbers because it was an example of a mass shooting that took place in a gun-friendly state and location and yet the shooter basically had free reign the whole time and was only stopped when he was arrested after he voluntarily stopped shooting and was leaving the scene.

I ran the numbers because the El Paso shooting was an eye-opener to me in two ways--it sort of blew up the narrative that the reason for high body counts in mass shootings was because they always happened in gun-free zones where no one could be legally armed and it made it hard for me to continue claiming that armed citizens were likely to have an impact on mass shootings. Of course they can have an impact, it just doesn't seem likely.

 

[luzyfuerza]

@JohnKSa your analysis was sound. You just examined the wrong population.

The presence of GFZs (in the absence of armed guards and effective control of ingress and egress) does not significantly affect the consequences of a mass murder event for those who choose not to arm themselves.

The effect of GFZs on those who DO choose to arm themselves can be immense, however. But primarily only for them.

Any benefits for the unarmed associated with eliminating GFZs are secondary. And small.

 

[DeepSouth]

When I was a teenager me and a buddy of mine were sitting on his tailgate BS’ing and listening to some music, as teenagers do. I had a 65 mustang and he had a bluish 80 something Chevy pick up. A cop pulled up at probably 2am, he got out of the car and was pissed. He told us he got a call about us racing, which we had not been doing, we told him it wasn’t us. I’ll never forget what he said “well it’s mighty funny I get a call about a red mustang and blue truck racing and low and behold I pull in town and here is red mustang and blue truck right beside each other!”

He was absolutely and completely convinced we were the guilty parties before he ever got out of his car, and I certainly see how he came to that conclusion, however wrong it was.

The last thing I want to be if Leo shows up to an active shooter event is what television would call a prime suspect.


Also I know who Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford jr was and what happened to him. If that doesn’t convince you, well you want be convinced by reason. This really isn’t complicated.

 

[Jeff White]

What I see in this thread is a lot of members who have never experienced the dangers and confusion of multiple armed people converging in an area where shots have been fired or have been reported to have been fired, either in the military or LE looking for an answer that will let them draw their weapon and not have to worry about being mistaken for the bad guy. Unfortunately there is no answer to that question and there isn't one on the horizon. Off duty and plainclothes officers are taught not to be visibly armed and to only take action if the shooter is right there to minimize the chances of being shot by responding officers. For some reason a lot of armed citizens think that this very good advice shouldn't apply to them. I'd really like someone to tell me why that advice shouldn't apply to armed citizens. The consensus seems to be that the police need to change their response but no one has come up with what it should be changed to.

I'd like everyone to look at at footage coming out of the many war zones and pay attention to the anti-fratricide measures the combatant forces are using. Flags and brightly colored VS-17 panels on vehicles, armbands, IR reflective patches, IR strobes and other measures on personnel. Despite all of those measures, fratricide still happens. A couple weeks ago the IDF admitted that 20% of the casualties they had experienced in Gaza up to that point were from "friendly fire". Many police departments use things like a "color of the day" for plainclothes officers. None of these measures are 100% solutions.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me the solution...................................

 

[Old Dog]

Many police departments use things like a "color of the day" for plainclothes officers. None of these measures are 100% solutions.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me the solution...................................

So many variables in a dynamic situation. I remember a few years back when, after a report came out on blue-on-blue shootings, a lot of departments issued training bulletins requiring plainclothes (and off duty) officers to have their shields on a neck-chain as it was documented as far more visible to responding uniformed officers than a shield clipped on a belt. Apparently a lot of our people thought it was more cool to have the shield clipped on the belt, like the TV cops wear them; we had someone complain to the union that the department should pay for new badge holders and neck-chains. Then, after an East Coast officer was shot by a later arriving officer, we had round-and-round discussions about the advisability of holding up one's badge in one hand when back-up arrived incident to an off-duty/plainclothes shooting as something shiny in the hand might be perceived as a weapon, so policies kept going back and forth. I believe it was Mas Ayoob who accounted a story about an NYPD plainclothes cop back in the day who was shot by another cop, as he was holding a stainless (or nickel) revolver, and the cop mantra then was cops only carried black handguns. But the point is, as has been noted, the armed citizen has nothing to identify himself/herself as the good guy, and a responding cop is gonna be doing some instantaneous profiling as soon as he comes on-scene.

If you've ever listened to 911 calls coming in about gunshots and "people are shooting/being shot at," you know that in the first five calls that are picked up, each one has widely differing information, so anyone observed with a firearm might be reported as the active shooter. If you're gonna involve yourself as an armed citizen, pray that the 911 dispatcher has received accurate information.

Speaking of Wal-Mart shootings, one locally here a few years back turned out well -- and multiple armed citizens were present and drew their handguns -- one armed pastor took out the suspect. The 911 recordings of the RPs calling in were pretty frantic.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/po...hooter-at-washington-state-walmart/771791480/


.

 

[Jeff White]

The only time I ever wore my badge on my belt was working plainclothes or attending required training. Off duty it was in a case with my ID and not in my wallet where my cash and cards were. There simply aren't any good options to identify yourself as a "good guy". The last active shooter class I attended suggested keeping a raid jacket in your personal vehicle. This is good if you are responding to an active shooter while off duty but does you no good if you are inside the venue when the shooting starts. The best solution is not to look like a threat.

 

[DeepSouth]

I'm waiting for someone to tell me the solution...................

Officer Alex Murphy!

To be fair, I bet that’s the only answer you get. lol

 

[JohnKSa]

The presence of GFZs (in the absence of armed guards and effective control of ingress and egress) does not significantly affect the consequences of a mass murder event for those who choose not to arm themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean. WalMarts are not gun-free zones and TX is a pretty gun-friendly state.

The point of the analysis was that here we had a mass shooting in a situation that was near perfect from the standpoint of proving that concealed carry could have a big impact on mass shootings. Not a gun free zone. A gun friendly state. Demonstrably lots of permit holders present. Almost certainly a number of them armed. And yet, the shooter was able to basically shoot people for as long as he wanted and even exit the store after he was done. A lot of people had thought that the reason we weren't seeing CCW holders intervening was because of GFZs but this clearly proved that wasn't the only reason. This was the point that I stopped arguing that one of the benefits of CCW and on lifting carry restrictions was that it would be a deterrent to mass shooters and that it would be a factor in stopping them when they did occur. It can happen--it has happened, as Old Dog's example (and a few others demonstrate), but for whatever reason, people who are non-LE and are carrying just seem to intervene only very rarely. And mass shooters seem to be more than willing to do their business even in areas where CCW holders are likely to be present.

 

[toivo]

Demonstrably lots of permit holders present. Almost certainly a number of them armed.

Has that ever been proven re the El Paso shooting? If it has, I've never seen the data.

And just for a random, non-controversial observation, I'm pretty sure that the "Garrison" pistol that the youth center shooter had was actually a Girsan.

 

[JohnKSa]

I explained, in detail, how to arrive at that conclusion using the data published about the number and nationality of persons in the store and DPS permit statistics for the county in question. I also posted it on THR some years ago. 23 +/- 2 permit holders in the store with a 99% confidence level. Possibly as many as 4 dozen. No one tried to stop the guy.

 

[Old Dog]

And mass shooters seem to be more than willing to do their business even in areas where CCW holders are likely to be present.

This cannot be overstated. Somehow, and it may just be an unconscious understanding of how most civilians respond when they hear gunshots, the "mass shooter" (or "active shooter") goes about his (or her, in the TN case) business not expecting nor anticipating any citizen intervention.

The reality is that even law enforcement and military personnel, who may have significant training under their belt, often don't react quickly their first time in a gunfight. We've unfortunately seen on at least three occasions in the past few years where cops have been on the scene quickly where a mass shooter is moving about inside a building (two schools, one nightclub) -- and they remain outside, not attempting to get inside to divert, detain, corner or otherwise interdict the active shooter.

 

[fallout mike]

I do not get a lot of this speculation about lack of information. The public has a lack of information based off the video. There was obviously lots of communication between the officers and personnel before they arrived on scene. The officer did not magically show up and shoot the right person.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Contrary to what many believe good guys and bad guys don't have a particular "look". People who look like dirt bags or "crazies" are often the salt of the earth and the one who looks like the clean cut upstanding citizen may be suffering from severe mental health issues. There's no way to know. When gunfire goes off in a public place the person holding the gun is going to be seen as the bad guy.

A few years ago in Arizona an armed citizen shot and killed a BG who had shot a police officer in the shoulder and had him on the ground and was banging his head into the pavement. (The officer asked for help when he saw the citizen had stopped to see what was going on.) Later he received an award and I was astonished to see that he had neck tattoos and giant holes in his earlobes.

Here's a screenshot of him:

He did say at the beginning of his remarks that he has "a past, like many people", but did not elaborate.

Here is the link to a news story with partial video of the event:

Driver passing by shoots suspect to save ambushed Ariz. trooper

A driver in Arizona is being praised as a hero for saving the life of an ambushed state trooper on Thursday. Police say a suspect shot the state trooper who ...

www.youtube.com

And here is a link to the press conference:

DPS presser with civlian who saved trooper's life

The Department of Public Safety held a press conference Tuesday with the bystander civilian who saved a trooper's life during an ambush.

www.youtube.com

 

[shafter]

A few years ago in Arizona an armed citizen shot and killed a BG who had shot a police officer in the shoulder and had him on the ground and was banging his head into the pavement. (The officer asked for help when he saw the citizen had stopped to see what was going on.) Later he received an award and I was astonished to see that he had neck tattoos and giant holes in his earlobes.

Here's a screenshot of him:
View attachment 1188504
He did say at the beginning of his remarks that he has "a past, like many people", but did not elaborate.

Here is the link to a news story with partial video of the event:

Driver passing by shoots suspect to save ambushed Ariz. trooper

A driver in Arizona is being praised as a hero for saving the life of an ambushed state trooper on Thursday. Police say a suspect shot the state trooper who ...

www.youtube.com

And here is a link to the press conference:

DPS presser with civlian who saved trooper's life

The Department of Public Safety held a press conference Tuesday with the bystander civilian who saved a trooper's life during an ambush.

www.youtube.com

I've known many criminals that I've taken to jail that I know would absolutely stop and help me if I was getting beaten on the side of the road. Tattoos don't make someone a bad person and not all criminals are evil people, some just have bad problems in some areas of life. Some tatted up people are great guys, some are bad, some clean shaven people in suits are great guys, some are snakes. Looks can be deceiving.

 

[luzyfuerza]

This

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.

leads to this:

I did a pretty careful analysis of the El Paso WalMart shooting some time ago and the statistics show that there were more than 20 permit holders in the store (99% confidence level) and that it's reasonably likely that there were more like 40-50. If you assume that about 10% of people who have permits carry, then there were 2-5 people carrying in the store and yet nobody confronted the guy. He basically shot people for as long as he wanted and left the scene.

Both are direct consequences of the current standard post-Columbine model response to a mass murder event. If we're going to tolerate the first, then we have to accept the resulting inaction of armed defenders.

 

[Jeff White]

Both are direct consequences of the current standard post-Columbine model response to a mass murder event.

What would you change in the response?

 

[Bcwitt]

The reason we carry is to defend ourselves from this same situation. The officer(s) have no right to ASSUME anybody w a gun is the perp. Very unprofessional to say the least. This a front door attack on our self defense rights. Just send the police & kill everyone protecting themselves. What side are you on??