Would You Do It?

[Pussywillow]

And if law enforcement enters the facility while I'm shooting the maniac... or I shoot another "sheepdog" because he has his gun drawn?

Honestly, I am not going to go looking for said maniac. I may stay put and if I MUST deal with him\them then I will. But I'm not about to go hunting for the shooter in a mall or other large facility. There are simply too many variables and too many ways for things to go wrong.

This is a lot like the question "Would you enter the school with the lone responder? Probably not because I have no idea what's inside. I don't know what I'm going up against and it's possible I'd die as soon as I stepped through the door.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Bystanders do not run "willy nilly" around someone shooting. The direction is always away from the scary guy with gun.

Do you have a basis for that assertion?

I'm interested also.

My experience...granted in only a handful of actual cases; not more than 8...has been that willy nilly would be an accurate description of their pattern of dispersal. It gets even worst when they see someone else, even someone in uniform, with a gun. They often run back ward the original cause of the panic.

IME, people aren't like flock animals which run and change direction en mass...it has to do with the placement of their eyes on the heads

 

[9mmepiphany]

This is a lot like the question "Would you enter the school with the lone responder? Probably not because I have no idea what's inside. I don't know what I'm going up against and it's possible I'd die as soon as I stepped through the door.

Interestingly enough, I'd do this if requested to do so.

A lot would depend on the nature of the incident and the proximity of other responding officers

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It seems like there's two schools of thought.

1: Me and mine come first. All of my actions will be towards preserving myself and my loved ones. Everything else is secondary unless absolutely forced.

2: The preservation of innocent life comes first. I will do what it takes to keep the most amount of innocent people alive, even if there are negative consequences to me.

If you believe the first, people who believe the second seem like careless Rambos. If you believe the second, people who believe the first seem heartless and selfish.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If you believe the first, people who believe the second seem like careless Rambos. If you believe the second, people who believe the first seem heartless and selfish.

They aren't exclusive of each other.

I spent a career running toward the sound of gunfire, that is how I formed the opinion of it's folly when lacking the advantage of communication and identification resources when off-duty

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

But they are exclusive when you're talking about what your first priority is.
Let's say we're going out to dinner. I really like Mexican and I'm OK with Italian. You really like Italian and are OK with Mexican. We both like both. But we can only go to one, so one of us is going to get what we really like, the other is just going to have to settle with something they're just OK with.

What is your first priority? Not a close second. First. Preserving yourself and your loved ones, or the maximum amount of innocent people.

 

[Hypnogator]

Absolutely, I would respond.

I'm a retired Fed, and have the training and skills to respond effectively. While it's no longer my duty to do so, I owe it to the people who passed the LEO Safety act of 2004 that gives me the ability to do so.

 

[slim76]

My first priority would be protecting the lives of my loved ones.

 

[9mmepiphany]

But they are exclusive when you're talking about what your first priority is.

What is your first priority? Not a close second. First. Preserving yourself and your loved ones, or the maximum amount of innocent people.

I believe your first priority should rightly be situational...whichever you can accomplish the most efficiently without compromising the safety of others not already compromised.

If you are confronted by the shooter or they just happen to be in front of you when they start shooting, engaging them would be the way of accomplishing both priorities at the same time.

If you don't have sight/location of them and you have family with you, I'd move them to safety first. If you can quickly and safely get out of danger, that works. If you can move them to cover and await responders, that works too. If the situation changes and the shooter comes into your area of control...and you're sure that are the shooter...you can shift priorities at that time and engage them.

That's why when we can't decide between Italian and Mexican, we have Chinese

 

[Apachedriver]

I agree. It all has to be assessed situationally. Here's another situation:

You decide to move towards finding the active shooter.
As you move across the the mall, you're seen by some CCW heathen. He's poorly trained, scared to death, and hiding with others. Now he decides that you must be the bad guy moving past their storefront.
Maybe it's that one guard on shift that's the mall ninja or former PX Ranger. What about simply some mom that's scared to death for her kids. She has a CCW as well and possibly little training?
In his/her mind, what other lunatic would possibly be moving around during a shooting if not the bad guy?

I'm not saying don't act. I'm saying make sure you find a balance between the actions you're capable of and the variables you can't control. No matter how Billy Bad-a** you are, all it takes is one person that wasn't following your program, or wasn't on your wavelength, to stop your whole life right then and there.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And the active shooter is still out there.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

As you move across the the mall, you're seen by some CCW heathen. He's poorly trained, scared to death, and hiding with others. Now he decides that you must be the bad guy moving past their storefront.
Maybe it's that one guard on shift that's the mall ninja or former PX Ranger. What about simply some mom that's scared to death for her kids. She has a CCW as well and possibly little training?
In his/her mind, what other lunatic would possibly be moving around during a shooting if not the bad guy?

Oh well for me then.

If you value your own life above those of others, you probably wouldn't act in the first place. If you don't, then getting shot by the real bad guy vs. another CCW holder doesn't make much of a difference. It still comes down to the "Do I try to stop him or do I run?" question you must ask yourself. If you decide to stop him, any negative consequences that come from that choice are on you, as always.

 

[Apachedriver]

Ragnar, "oh well for me." That's not a sign of tactical maturity.

Again, I'm not talking about self above others.

I'm saying make sure you find a balance between the actions you're capable of and the variables you can't control.

Anytime a sacrifice is going to be made, it needs have a clear purpose and have a plan of action to succeed. Not just a mindset of "I'm running into the fight and hooray for me. If I die, oh well for me." That benefits no one at all.

In my 2nd tour of Iraq, we had a saying about Iraqi fighters. "All the dumb ones are dead." Why? They were the ones that chose to sacrifice themselves while accomplishing nothing that could actually benefit others of their cause.

The difference between here and there? I was glad to see them go.

Heck I have never even met any police with the oh well for me attitude. And I was raised around plenty of them.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Don't misrepresent me or my words.

 

[Apachedriver]

Don't misrepresent me or my words.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm representing the message I've received from your post and am interested in clarification for my benefit.

 

[9mmepiphany]

all it takes is one person that wasn't following your program, or wasn't on your wavelength, to stop your whole life right then and there.

...And the active shooter is still out there.

Oh well for me then.

...If you decide to stop him, any negative consequences that come from that choice are on you, as always.

So you have not only not improved the situation...and possibly made it worst by attracting the attention of the shooter...but you have now victimized the CCW that shot you and likely increased her danger.

It is like the squad member who endangers the whole squad by drawing the attention of a passing enemy patrol by moving too early

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

but you have now victimized the CCW that shot you

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[9mmepiphany]

You enticed her to shoot you to protect her kids, thinking you were the shooter (whom you were hunting)...RE: post #235; to which you responded "Oh well for me then."

 

[geronimotwo]

if i were able to retreat safely with my family, i would do so. if cornered and i felt that i had time to draw safely, i would do so. even by myself, considering that 2/3rds of my families support comes from my income, i would try to disengage and retreat.

 

[Koz]

If I were out in the open (alway from cover) in the firing range of an active shooter. I would think dropping to the floor and going prone, to reduce your profile and hopefully make the shooter think you are already dead. From there quickly draw your pistol and return fire. In my opinion any situation where the shooter has the drop on you means you must not draw attention to yourself before you can draw.

 

[Infidel4life11]

Yes, I'm trained, I carry. Not just because of my own defense but the defense of those who can't protect themselves.

 

[Kleanbore]

This is being discussed all over the web. Here are two valuable inputs from The firing Line;

From Kathy Jackson of The Cornered Cat (pax on TFL): http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5325870&postcount=11

Relevant excerpt:

When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you’ve ever made, every dollar you’ve ever earned or will earn, and your family’s future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being.

And all of that pales alongside the horrible, awful risk of killing an innocent person, and having to live with that for the rest of your life.

To take a gamble that big, it’s a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there’s no other way out.

Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size? Depending on your personal morals, maybe he is. But never ever ever in an ambiguous situation, especially when you didn’t see the prelude and don’t know the players.

To me, the only thing worse than "allowing" a stranger to be killed, would be for me to kill an innocent person. I will risk the former to avoid the latter.

And from our moderator and theirs, Frank Ettin: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5326147&postcount=20

Relevant excerpt:

You may be legally justified in using lethal force in defense of others, but in doing so, you step into the shoes of the person you are defending. If that person would have been justified to use lethal force to defend himself, you would be justified in using lethal force in his defense. But if not, your act of violence would be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail.

So if you are considering using force in defense of someone, are you sure you know what happened? Are you sure you know who the original aggressor was? Are you sure that the person you intend to help is the innocent good guy? If you think you know, but are wrong, you are risking jail and your family's future.

And if you think you know, but are wrong, you will be shooting the innocent good guy.

Both Frank and Kathy emphasize the need for training. Frank discusses his experience in simulator exercises at Gunsite. That's not the same thing as practicing doubletaps on steel plates and rapid fire on paper plates.

 

[Prophet]

Kleanbore hit it on the nose for me. It'd be nice to say I'd do everything in my power to stop a mass shooting from going down, but it depends entirely on the exact circumstances. No two shooting situations are the same and it's really impossible to say whether or not I'd be able to stop someone else from being killed without being killed myself or putting those who otherwise could have been saved at risk. If I were suddenly presented with a clean opportunity at a hit or was pretty sure I could present myself with a clean opportunity with minimal amount of risk to the innocents around me, sure I would take it. I would consider it my moral obligation to do so. But keep in mind I am a single male with no romantic or familial obligations, so I would consider my decision to be different from someone who has a spouse and kids. Your first and foremost responsibility as a spouse and parent is to keep yourself alive so that you can provide for your family. Not to sound callous, but you are not responsible for other citizens and their families, they are. You are responsible for your family first and foremost. If you must act or can act without putting yourself, your loved ones or other innocents at risk then by all means do it. Keep in mind that trying to clear a mall is much more difficult than trying to clear your own house, and ten to one most who are even slightly familiar with the topic of home defense will recommend against the latter unless absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, the firearms many of us carry are oftentimes medium- to large- bore "get off me" guns; lots of power in a barely manageable package to be used within realistic SD ranges, not for getting into extended firefights against one or more perps with long guns, depending on the extent of ones training and experience of course. I'd personally feel uncomfortable going against someone with a rifle even if I were armed with a full-size high cap pistol, let alone a short barreled 5-7 round revolver or auto. A friend of mine and I used to play paintball with only a large Co2 semi-auto pistol and one 7rd reload on our persons against multiple opponents carrying semi- and fully- automatic full-size markers with hundreds of reloads. After I got used to playing this way it started to get easier to make good hits without being hit myself, but it was total slaughter the first few times we did this. We found that stealth, speed and choosing good cover was key, but as soon as we drew fire, especially from multiple opponents, we were usually SOL with only a couple of exceptions which involved a huge amount of stealth, movement and teamwork on our parts. Even though this was in a paintball environment which is different in many ways from a real world shootout (cover becomes concealment), playing this way was a real eye opener for me. IMHO, anyone who thinks they could take on even slightly experienced shooters with long guns without having ever been in a situation where they've drawn fire, real or simulated, and subsequently trained and acclimated themselves to avoiding it, is probably kidding themselves. Unless of course they are capable of getting very close to the shooter(s) without revealing themselves to be armed, or revealing themselves at all for that matter, until immediately before the defensive shot(s) are taken.