What if...

[old lady new shooter]

Suppose you find yourself in an active shooter situation. You are armed and have a clear shot at the shooter, who is occupied with other defenders not near you, so you have not been noticed. But behind the shooter are innocent people and nowhere you can move eliminates this problem. What do you do?

 

[GRIZ22]

Depends. What gun am I carrying? Can I make that shot? Where are the people situated behind the shooter?

Lots of variables to consider.

 

[larryh1108]

You don't have a clear shot if an innocent can be hit by a miss. Hitting your target in a high stress situation is a lot less than 100%. Also, you didn't mention if there was another bad guy watching his back. Are you sure there isn't an accomplice behind you or off to the side watching for someone like you?
Lots of variables to consider before deciding to engage.

 

[jeepnik]

The answer is everything from take the shot to play dead. Remember, while there may be folks beyond the shooter, you can change the angle (get low shoot up for instance) and now have a clear field of fire. And, there are times, everyone has to decide for themselves, that you may take the shot even though you know you are endangering others to save lives. Quite the briar patch.

 

[denton]

You have to decide whether the people are in more danger from the bad guy or from a bullet that has traversed 16" of bad guy.

 

[entropy]

If he's that occupied with other defenders, walk up from behind and put one in the base of his skull.(Angled up, to pass through the occipital, limbic, and neocortex, and to avoid hitting anyone else.)

Well, Gecko 45 wasn't here, so someone had to say it.

I don't know exactly what I'd do until I was in the situation.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Suppose you find yourself in an active shooter situation. You are armed and have a clear shot at the shooter, who is occupied with other defenders not near you, so you have not been noticed. But behind the shooter are innocent people and nowhere you can move eliminates this problem. What do you do?

Chances are if there are other "multiple defenders" shooting already that I'm grabbing cover and looking for an exit. The saying "too many cooks in the kitchen" comes to mind. Getting caught in a crossfire or friendly fire is certainly a real thing.

And that's not even addressing the bystanders.


This really sounds more like a "hero" scenario rather than our standard SD talk. Generally SD situations have enough variables, this hypothetical not only has lots of those but is also short on details.

 

[boom boom]

I agree with entropy. It is easy to think of being the Lone Ranger but mass murder events are chaotic by nature and really pretty difficult to train for even for police. The simple rationale is I don't know.

For example,
Apparently the Alabama veteran guy shot during the Riverchase Galleria mall shootout was a licensed and permitted to carry.

However, Police could not tell the difference between a sheepdog and a wolf when they arrived so shot the good guy they saw with a gun apparently with fatal results. During the AZ shooting of the federal judge and the congresswoman, one guy saw it happen across the street but did not go to engage. He probably made the right choice for that event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...fca6fcf610c_story.html?utm_term=.6540c0736ebe

That is why a lot of folks have made their decision calculus easier by determining only to act if they themselves or loved ones are immediately at risk and not engage unless absolutely necessary.

 

[murf]

if this is a self defense situation, leave.

murf

 

[Wisco]

Run away.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Would you run away if it's in your church or other house of worship? That's actually what I was thinking of, not something like a concert.

 

[Old Dog]

Speaking only for myself, it comes down to the lighting. In daylight -- natural light -- with any of my handguns I'd be pretty confident of making a head-shot out to 50 yards. Indoors, or at night -- it's gotta be super-close (within 15 yards) for me to even think about taking the shot. In my church: I'm charging the shooter.

 

[MedWheeler]

This question cannot be answered here with any certainty. In a situation in which you are the only defender, it's certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that any person (other than the AS) whose life would be at risk by such a taken shot would be at even a greater risk if the shot were withheld. Only the actual elements of the event, and the defender's very-hurried analysis of those events, are going to play a factor in determining the response. The defender's skill in making that analysis, and in the shot itself, combined with other variables too numerous to predict here (such as sudden movements on the part of the AS, the person(s) whose life the defender might be risking, and others in the immediate proximity) will play a major part in the final outcome of the shot (or shots.)

With other defenders already engaging, it's likely the other "innocents" are not in much risk from the AS if he's focusing on who is shooting back at him, but they could be from you. I won't risk an innocent if the risk from me would be greater than that from the original threat.

 

[edwardware]

But behind the shooter are innocent people and nowhere you can move eliminates this problem. What do you do?

If your priority is to survive, beat feet.

If your priority is to protect those innocents, you close with the threat until you can put it down with minimal risk to those innocents.

The two priorities contradict. Chose one priority, then act accordingly.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Luckily I don't do hypotheticals. From the first time I picked up a weapon I have had it drilled into me that everything depends on situation and terrain. If everything else was optimal, I would probably take the shot. But then the only time I've been in a situation where I was hiding under a table with wet panties I was unarmed and ten years old. In that case, I did my best to hide. If I were to be in another situation… Quite frankly I don't know how I would react.

If it is what you are looking for though… Shooting the guy in the back would be the last consideration I would have on my mind. I'd like to think I would flashback to the chestnut my uncle told me when he was was teaching me the basics of unarmed fighting – "try not to err but if you must err, err on the side of violence" rather than "there are no winners in a fight, only survivors."

 

[Jack B.]

Just remember once you pull the trigger. You are legally responsible for any damage that bullet does. Don't expose your self and your family to this kind of trouble. If other people refuse to defend themselves or their family IMO it's not worth the risk to do it for them. Run away.

 

[Zerodefect]

Going HTH, if I've got the jump on him like that. No gun needed. Close range at least, before taking a shot.

In Broward County FL, just grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. And/or just leave. It's not my problem.

 

[edwardware]

. . . "try not to err but if you must err, err on the side of violence".

People raised in safe societies tend to wait too long to fully engage themselves in rarely-necessary acts of violence, and sacrifice advantage by delay. "Be brutal enough, soon enough, to win."

 

[IlikeSA]

If other people are already engaging the shooter, I'm leaving. Nothing good will come from me engaging the shooter (shot by responding LE, shot by another good guy, shooting a good guy? (do you know the whole story?), lawsuits, investigations, etc). Then the media will plaster your name and face all over the country and good luck working after that. Who knows how you'll be described.

If it's at my church, I'm going to manipulate the environment to my advantage to make the stop.

If I'm at work, I'm still manipulating the environment to make the stop.

There is no solid answer, and a whole lot of gray. You will only have a few seconds to make your decision as well.

 

[Jack B.]

Just remember no one knows who you are and the second you display a weapon in public you have given every body else the right to attack you.

 

[Kendahl]

I asked this question of Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense. His answer was that using deadly force to stop a mass murderer would be legal even if a missed shot killed a bystander. The justification is that more people would be killed or wounded had you done nothing. What you must be is reasonable. That excludes a mag dump that sprays badly aimed bullets all over.

Just remember no one knows who you are and the second you display a weapon in public you have given every body else the right to attack you.

No, they don't have the right to attack you unless they have a good explanation for how you posed an imminent threat. (In Florida, an anti-gun nut tackled a concealed carrier and took him to the floor while shouting, "He has a gun!" When police arrived, the carrier showed them his permit and the nut went to jail. His foolishness earned him a conviction for misdemeanor assault and battery.) That said, if you are willing to go after the mass murderer, it's wise to keep your gun out of sight until the last second and put it away again as soon as the murderer is incapacitated.

Although many will freak out rather than think, it's not hard to distinguish between a mass murderer and an armed individual out to stop him. The murderer will be shooting at multiple people who pose no threat to him. The rescuer may have his gun out but won't shoot at anyone other than the murderer.

 

[silicosys4]

I'm not a police officer. There is no clear shot without endangering other people. My duty is to get my loved ones and myself out of harms way. Anything other than that is to be attempted only if opportunity and circumstances present themselves, and it doesn't sound like your scenario presents any other options.
I'm leaving with my loved ones while covering our escape, no more, no less.

I'd only engage if I had the clear upper hand, and in that scenario its not apparent that I would.

 

[Jeff White]

No, they don't have the right to attack you unless they have a good explanation for how you posed an imminent threat.

Well, if they say, "I saw this guy shooting people and then this other person produced a gun and started shooting, I thought that there were multiple shooters and shot them both." you might be shot and the "good guy with a gun" who shot you both may be in the clear. The problem is that when an incident like that is happening, you can't count on everyone around to calmly assess the situation and make the determination that you are a fellow "good guy with a gun". How many times do we hear witnesses to these events claim there were multiple shooters when in fact there was only one? It's a proven fact that in the absence of information the brain will fill in what it expects to see.


In a controlled environment like your church, the other members of the congregation may have knowledge of who is who and who might be armed. You can't count on that at all in a public venue.

 

[FL-NC]

Easy answer- first, always shoot within your own capabilities, but always train to increase your capabilities. Second, do what you think you can get away with tactically as well as in court. Third, understand that whatever you do or don't do, you will own it the rest of your life.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Luckily I don't do hypotheticals.

And yet here you are