Would You Do It?

[Cosmoline]

n the end, it doesn't matter where you go, how much you lie to yourself, whereever you go there is one person you can't get away from: you.

Fine, but we're talking about going up against someone with an SKS or AR-15 when you have a CCW short gun. It's an appallingly difficult scenario to prevail in, unless you are blessed with a good aim and the perfect opportunity. And of course brave men with short guns--cops and citizens alike--have died badly going up against shooters with long guns. One spree killer here a few years back shot a trooper who was hovering in a helicopter overhead with a Ruger No. 1. A single shot rifle, and he pegged an armed trooper flying around in a helicopter! Terrifying.

Rifles scare the bejesus out of me. Thankfully in this latest case the nutcase didn't know how to use the thing. But that's not something you can count on. Someone who does know how to use a rifle and has some basic awareness of concealment and cover can totally control a 150 yard radius and give accurate fire at twice that distance. Your short gun is good for maybe 10-15 yards in that kind of high stress situation, and that's assuming you're a good shot with luck on your side. Every step in that scenario is an eternity.

Obviously, if the opportunity presents itself and you're five feet from the back of an active shooter who is clearly gunning people down, blow his head off without warning. But otherwise, you're not going to do much good and you may end up hitting other people in the background.

While these shootings are always high-profile, they remain extremely rare. You are much more common to be dealing with a home invasion, a mugging or some domestic squabble involving self defense with deadly force than anything like a mass shooting. Idiots and drunks menace people with firearms all the time, and you may end up having to shoot one. Or you may have to shoot some punk threatening you for your money. This happens all the time, and it's really where the focus of training needs to be.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Rail Driver: Tell you what - how about we simply agree to disagree - The deeper into this discussion we get, the further we are from being on the same page - you don't seem to understand or care about anything but the risks you might face, or at least that's how you're portraying yourself by your statements, and the same goes for the rest of the "run and hide, be a good witness" crowd, so don't take this as a personal attack.

You have missed the point--completely.

Let me continue.

Personally, I'd rather take some of those potential risks and even suffer the consequences so I don't have to wake up every night with nightmares seeing the bloody faces of innocent men, women and children I could have done something to help.

My point is, you have to be certain that you do not mistakenly shoot someone other than what you thought you were shooting, and you have to also be highly confident that you will not inadvertently shoot persons whom you did not intend to shoot.

Otherwise you will be seeing the innocent bloody faces of those innocent persons whom you have shot.

You're coming off like you're saying "Don't intervene whether you're in a position to or not" and that's simply wrong. It's worse than reckless. It's downright immoral, and borderline evil.

I stated very clearly in Post 28 when I would not intervene with deadly force. Would you do so under any of those circumstances?

I have not stated when I would intervene. More on that later.

If you have the ability and opportunity to act decisively to defuse a situation and save a life, and you choose not to, you're partly to blame for what happens after that point.

Yes, and you are to blame for taking any innocent lives in the process of acting on the basis of incorrect perceptions and/or with pass through and missed shots.

It's not about being the hero, it's not about consequences or risks - it's about humanity.

Risks and humanity go hand in hand.

You have to consider the risks to which your actions may expose innocent persons.

Allowing another human being to die when your intervention could save their life is plain wrong.

And so is shooting an innocent person.

That's what you and everyone else spouting "Law this, Law that" doesn't seem to understand -

In post #52, I said that the legal risks follow the risks of shooting an innocent person, in most cases, and do not (usually) pertain to the punishment of the citizen who actually did the right thing.

Some things are more important than what some rich, greedy, power drunk government suit sitting safe in an office surrounded by secret service agents with fully automatic weapons thinks I should be able to do in a life or death situation.

I'm not sure what that might have to do with things here.

I have not said when I would intervene. I really don't want to set up a hypothetical scenario that someone else visualizes differently, and appear to be advocating opening fire in the case of the latter.

The OP mentioned a "public shooting spree." The fact is, the sound and appearance someone rapidly firing a handgun in a public setting could come from a criminal a mall shooting--or it could be one or more trained persons firing lawfully due to immediate necessity. One may assume that he or she could immediately tell the difference, but real world experience indicates that that may not be the case.

Over the years, we have discussed the "would you intervene" question ad nauseam, and the discussions are replete with examples in which armed citizens and uniformed officers have misinterpreted situations and misidentified participants and either shot an innocent, involved themselves in domestic violence situations, or mucked up something such as an arrest or capture that would probably gone well but for their ill advised actions.

Once one knows he is not going to do that, and when one sees that he has a clear shot, he can decide whether to take action and to take risks, which would entail the risk being shot at by either the perp or by an arriving officer or armed citizen with the same idea.

 

[Sam1911]

So imagine you're at the mall by yourself. You're not married, no kids, etc. No family issues. The shooter is 50 feet in front of you and the exit is 50 feet behind you. You watch the shooter starting killing strangers.

Leave or attack?

In such a fantastic and absolute, black and white, clearly defined, unequivocal, perfect-world scenario? Whoo boy! Light 'em up!

I mean, obviously I know that I'm not going to hit an innocent, I'm in the perfect place at the perfect moment. I understand clearly what is happening, who the bad guy is, I understand the law, and know that I have the right and ability to save lives. There are no unknowns except for my own courage and skill vs. the evil one. Wow, that's like every guy's fantasy. Testing his mettle. Being a hero.

And its unrealistic and fantastical -- the stuff dreams (and video games and blockbuster movies) are made of.

Every one of us, and every other Walter Mitty in the world, wishes someday he'll step up to the plate and be the hero of his own movie. But life doesn't really work like that and it isn't wise to encourage folks to preconceive "their gunfight" is going to unfold anything like this. It's going to be muddled, confusing, noisy, uncertain. There are going to be others you need to protect first. There will be innocents you can't risk harming. There will be other responders. There will be practical limits and impossibilities and real-world problems that you'd need to recognize and respond to correctly that will make "your" gunfight nothing like the clean-cut and exhilarating scene of victory envisioned in these "would you" threads.

So if there's value in these discussions it is in presenting a much more wholistic and realistic view of all the things that come into play when you consider standing in the gap, so to speak.

And, if the stars align and you are in the right place at the perfect moment, you've covered your first responsibilities (or have no one depending on you), you understand what is happening with perfect clarity, and you can act decisively with minimal risk to innocents or others responding -- if all of that is true and you get that one-in-a-billion clear shot that will end a killing spree? Well, god bless you, take the shot!

Just don't live life (or spend training time) expecting that you'll be presented such an opportunity.

 

[mljdeckard]

Some time ago I posed the question, whether or not it is a good idea to train to kneel when you draw, because in densely populated areas, such as a mall, it changes the trajectory of your shots and reduces the likelihood of hitting innocent bystanders. The response I got, and it makes sense, is that there are just too many variables to justify changing tactics. It is impossible to know what the circumstances will be and train for them. I still think it's a tool to keep handy, but in the real world it isn't worth it. That is what a lot of these situations boil down to. You have an idea in your head of how it will play out, when the reality is it's just different layers of chaos, with exponential unintended consequences. Getting yourself and your family out is a win.

I have a very short list of third parties for whom I would intervene with deadly force. All friends and family whom I have known my whole life, they also carry, and we have cross-trained with each others' weapons. Just because a defensive encounter escalates to a mass shooting doesn't change whether or not it's a good idea.

 

[45_auto]

So imagine you're at the mall by yourself. You're not married, no kids, etc. No family issues. The shooter is 50 feet in front of you and the exit is 50 feet behind you. You watch the shooter starting killing strangers.

Leave or attack?

Now imagine that I'm one of the unarmed people between you and the shooter. I'm running towards the door behind you with my family and ANOTHER shooter (you) pulls out a gun right in front of me.

I'll be on the evening news as a hero for breaking the second gunman's neck and preventing further killings.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 45_auto: Now imagine that I'm one of the unarmed people between you and the shooter. I'm running towards the door behind you with my family and ANOTHER shooter (you) pulls out a gun right in front of me.

I'll be on the evening news as a hero for breaking the second gunman's neck and preventing further killings.

That's another consideration, since that imagined white hat is invisible to others.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Apparently I'm wasting my time going to gun schools.

What I want to know is where I can go to develop the mind reading abilities that some who participate in this sort of thread seem to have - being in a crowd of strangers in a turbulent situation, and yet still being able to instantly and precisely determine who is a good guy, who is a bad guy, what everyone's intentions are in detail, etc.

 

[Catshooter]

Fred,

You nail a very scary point. In many, many situations it can be very difficult to tell who needs shot and who doesn't, especially reallly quick like.

I don't know though, seeing a guy in a mall shooting people seems like a bit of a no-brainer. Of course, the seeing part is critical.

When in doubt, I probably won't even draw as I'd really hate to shot for a bad guy. Hurts like the dickens.


Cat

 

[Skribs]

I don't know though, seeing a guy in a mall shooting people seems like a bit of a no-brainer. Of course, the seeing part is critical.

In most of the mass shooting articles I've read, it does seem like it would be a no-brainer. Person walks into a school and starts randomly shooting students (okay I wouldn't be carrying there). The Aurora shooting, again it would be pretty much a no-brainer that the guy dressed up and shooting everyone in the back...probably the bad guy.

While it wasn't a shooting, our nation is proud of the passengers on Flight 93, who DID step up to the plate and stop one of the four planes.

 

[scaatylobo]

Reminder

That during the infamous FBI = Miami shootout,there were responding marked units on scene before it ended.

They did not know who to shoot,so they stayed their hand.

That was very smart or they might have accounted for a few agents KIA.

I truly understand the LEO poster that said he would go 'hunting' the active shooter.

that would have been my EXACT thoughts and plan while I was active and on the job.

Now I am retired and still it would gall me to think that innocents died due to a lack of action on my behalf.

A man HAS to know his limitations,but that does not mean I have to like um.

If my wife was safe,it would be my call.AND if I truly believed I could save lives then I would go.

I laid my 1* on the line before and I am sure I would do it again.

the hardest part would be NOT taking action.

 

[JustinJ]

Some time ago I posed the question, whether or not it is a good idea to train to kneel when you draw, because in densely populated areas, such as a mall, it changes the trajectory of your shots and reduces the likelihood of hitting innocent bystanders.

If 5.56 rounds are flying everywhere and there is no better cover near one may be taking a shot from the prone position while trying to be flat as humanely possible.

 

[coloradokevin]

Where did you get that information? I've never read that he was worried about getting shot by LEOs. He did give a warning--a totally pointless one--and did get shot. The moral is, as Tuco said, if you're going to shoot shoot, don't talk. Words of warning are highly questionable in those circumstances.

I was just reading the debate you guys were having about this shooting (as it relates to the core of this thread), and started searching for articles regarding that situation. According to this article in the Seattle Times, it does sound like the CCW-holder reholstered his firearm out of fear that walking around the mall with it out could have made him a target for responding officers. It is definitely a real threat in that type of incident, so the fear of that kind of mistaken identity is a legitimate fear.

As far as verbal commands are concerned, I completely agree with you that they are not needed on an active shooter. Hollywood has trained many of us (even in LE) that you need to give a command before firing. While this may certainly be a good practice in many (most) situations, it surely isn't when you're going up against a well-armed attacker who is in the process of killing innocent people. It is better to be involved in a shooting than a gunfight. If an active shooter has his back turned to me while he tries to murder innocent people, then it just means that I won the encounter with less risk to myself. If someone has already demonstrated that they are killing (or about to kill more) innocent people, you are well within your rights to shoot them as a means of stopping the attack. Again, there's always that risk of mistaken identity, so it becomes very important for responding officers and CCW holders to be very sure of their target when such a situation unfolds in front of them. A guy carrying a gun isn't necessarily the shooter. A guy shooting unarmed people randomly clearly is.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002975859_mallshooting06m.html

What I want to know is where I can go to develop the mind reading abilities that some who participate in this sort of thread seem to have - being in a crowd of strangers in a turbulent situation, and yet still being able to instantly and precisely determine who is a good guy, who is a bad guy, what everyone's intentions are in detail, etc.

Fred, I've certainly been one to drone on about the importance of proper target identification in this thread, both from the standpoint of a responding good-guy, and from the standpoint of making sure you don't look like a bad-guy to other responding good-guys. But, identifying the evildoer in a mass shooting may prove to be much easier than you think. Picture the scenes that have been described at the Aurora theater, or Columbine H.S., or Virginia Tech, Oregon mall, etc. Identifying the bad guy in those situations would not have been very difficult. The guy who is shooting at anything that moves is pretty clearly identifiable as a suspect, and that is even more evident when the guy is covered in weapons and dressed like a wanna-be ninja. In Oregon, the guy carrying a rifle and wearing a hockey mask was pretty clearly identifiable as a suspect. It would be much harder to identify a threat in a public shooting where only one or two victims were the target, and the shooter was just attempting to flee (I've dealt with this during gang shootings at public venues). But, that's a different scenario from the active mass-shooter situations that I think this thread was attempting to address.

 

[Fred Fuller]

It seems to me that if such discrimination were easy, plain clothes cops in large departments wouldn't be getting shot by uniformed cops from their own departments nearly so often, and in less confused situations than a mass shooting to boot.

I'm willing to grant that certain situations will clarify themselves pretty readily, at least to observers who are in a position to see what develops and who are sufficiently situationally aware to recognize what they are seeing. How often will that situation arise? Not very often, I'd say, given that mass shootings themselves are statistical rarities.

So, if the situation is not immediately clear - then what?

 

[Skribs]

I think the nature of this thread, though, is if it is abundantly clear that it is a mass shooting. Would you shoot or scoot?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Apparently I'm wasting my time going to gun schools.

What I want to know is where I can go to develop the mind reading abilities that some who participate in this sort of thread seem to have - being in a crowd of strangers in a turbulent situation, and yet still being able to instantly and precisely determine who is a good guy, who is a bad guy, what everyone's intentions are in detail, etc.

Omniscience is a common component of hero fantasy.

Joe Zamudio got a lot of air time after the Phoenix shooting, talking about how he had a gun, rushed to the scene, and almost shot the wrong person. In reality, the person he almost shot he could not have shot because Zamudio didn't even have his own gun drawn, LOL. So despite the post event grandstanding (as opposed to pre-event fantasy), there was a definte lesson in Zamudio's story and it was a lesson of ignorance.

 

[GEM]

I have the figure somewhere that one out of 6 undercover officers have been drawn upon by fellow officers.

As far as ability - this is sad but the more unskilled you are, the more you overestimate your abilities - comes from the human factors research.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I've been drawn on, while in full uniform, by other officers.

It has to do with expectations and how you mind allows you to see what you expect to see...that is why eye witness testimony isn't usually the best evidence... a even funnier example of this is a co-worker who took a store manikin at gunpoint and continued to shout orders to it after other officers arrived

 

[Skribs]

a even funnier example of this is a co-worker who took a store manikin at gunpoint and continued to shout orders to it after other officers arrived

Wow...that is hillarious. What context was he holding the manikin for?

 

[grubbylabs]

I agree with the don't do any thing you are not sure of crowed. If you mess up that's a heavy burden to carry with you for life. My ccw is for my family and my self. Not every one else in the community who does not see the need in protecting themselves or family.

Its kinda like stopping on the side of the freeway for an accident, almost every one thinks they are helping out, when in reality they are making things worse. And if they happen to die there, who takes care of their family? good Samaritans die quit often trying to help.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Wow...that is hillarious. What context was he holding the manikin for?

Audible burglar alarm at a business. It was a paint store and the suspect was the Dutch Boy

 

[Teachu2]

This is, indeed, an interesting thread. I'd bet it's thought-provoking for many CCW holders in ways they have never really considered before, and that's a very good thing. Mindsetis crucial to effectively using a weapon, and it develops from thoughtful consideration of scenarios before they happen. Each of us brings a different set of experiences, skills, values, convictions, and more to every encounter, every day.

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to this scenario - but considering it ahead of time helps us to prepare to deal with it effectively. It reduces reaction time, and that extra few steps may save lives.

 

[Skribs]

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to this scenario - but considering it ahead of time helps us to prepare to deal with it effectively.

Incorrect. My answer is obviously right. (kidding of course).

You are correct, thinking about things and discussing them ahead of time can not only lower reaction times, but also change your reaction. Other threads have gotten me thinking about other scenarios, and I've had a couple realizations that I've posted here.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

There sure are a lot of mental gymnastics going on to convince yourselves that letting people die is the best option. I hope no one here is ever put in that situation in real life, because all of the hand-wringing and justifications for watching someone die probably won't stop the nightmares in real life. it's fine to tell yourself "oh I'm not a mind reader" or "Oh I might make it worse". But when you're laying there in bed watching some kid get shot while your turn your tail and run over and over...all this hand-wringing is not going to help one bit.

 

[Warp]

There sure are a lot of mental gymnastics going on to convince yourselves that letting people die is the best option. I hope no one here is ever put in that situation in real life, because all of the hand-wringing and justifications for watching someone die probably won't stop the nightmares in real life. it's fine to tell yourself "oh I'm not a mind reader" or "Oh I might make it worse". But when you're laying there in bed watching some kid get shot while your turn your tail and run over and over...all this hand-wringing is not going to help one bit.

"watching someone die"

What did I miss?

 

[coloradokevin]

So, if the situation is not immediately clear - then what?

Well, then all of the complicated issues arise that we've all been talking about. Target identification is extremely important whenever a shot is being taken at something living (whether that's an enemy, a killer in a mall, a deer in a field, or anything else). I think the fortunate thing is that the killer will be easily identifiable in many of the situations we've discussed in this thread. Obviously that may not ALWAYS be the case. In the other cases, where a clear target may not be immediately obvious, training, intellect, experience, and quick choices are going to become far more important.

The last thing I want to do is try to help a situation and accidentally end up shooting a fellow officer, or armed citizen who was trying to help. But, when I stated that I would go hunting for the bad guy in one of these situations, I also say that with the knowledge that I've trained (professionally) to do exactly that for the better part of 10 years. I'm not an immortal, and I'd much rather approach that situation while fully geared up with a team of other equally experienced officers. But, you play the hand you're dealt, and for me the right course of action would be to try to do SOMETHING to help the situation if I was involved in it because of my mere presence at a location.

No one with any sense wants to be involved in one of these incidents, though many of us would want to help if we had the misfortune to be placed in that situation. Sometimes aggressive, swift, and violent action is the best response. Other times a more thought-based process should be involved. There's no text book answer to any of these scenarios, since there are an infinite number of ways that the situation could develop, with more variables than we could ever possibly account for in a written document.

I've been drawn on, while in full uniform, by other officers.

It has to do with expectations and how you mind allows you to see what you expect to see...that is why eye witness testimony isn't usually the best evidence... a even funnier example of this is a co-worker who took a store manikin at gunpoint and continued to shout orders to it after other officers arrived

Indeed, the mindset of the responding individual is probably one of the biggest factors determining whether or not a "friendly fire" incident occurs (in most cases). We just recently had an officer at a nearby agency killed in a friendly fire incident. Two officers from the same shift were responding to the same incident, both in full uniform. One mistook the other for a bad guy, and killed his shift partner accidentally. That must be a terrible emotional burden to carry for the rest of your life.

In my own agency we've had a young and nervous officer shoot a cat by accident, which was definitely a hard incident to explain to everyone who had an interest in it.