Would You Do It?

[Fred Fuller]

Last time I shot an innocent bystander, all it cost me was 200 penalty points. But that innocent bystander was only a reactive target in a live fire scenario, not a human being...

 

[Teachu2]

It's usually pretty easy to identify the shooter in these mass shootings, folks - they are the ones shooting unarmed people. How many will die if you flee instead of fight?

As far as hitting an innocent, that would be a tragic mistake. Training and mindset, coupled with situational awareness, minimize that risk. Recognition of what's behind your target is essential. Even then, bad things can happen, ie you wound the shooter and he empties a full-auto weapon into a crowd on his way down - but how many more will he kill if you don't act?

Again, proximity and position are key. Training and experience help you recognize where you need to be to take a shot within your capabilities. Know your limitations as well as you can - Lady Luck is an undependable, perverted mistress.

 

[Rexster]

I have hesitated to reply to this, trying to think of what to say.

My answer: Yes, probably, if I have enough information, I will intervene.

I wear a badge, which I received when I swore an oath in 1984. Of course, THR is concerned primarily with private citizens, so would my answer be the same if I were already retired? Yes.

Obviously, if family members are with me, that may change things, but my son is grown, and already carries, himself, under the provisions of LEOSA.

How can I know if I have enough information? Well, one extreme example is that if everyone involved looks like a thug, I am probably not going to intervene. The other extreme is someone shooting young children.

As for my weapon being capable for the task, well, that is going to be a factor, whether I am carrying a snubby or a battle rifle. There are situations where any weapon will fall short. That being said, the smallest weapon I normally carry is a 2.25" SP101, and the norm is something larger, with the snubby normally being a secondary weapon. Today, I attended a photography class in Downtown Houston, a relatively safe area these days, and packed a 5" 1911 and two spare
mags.

I do own a pocketable .32, but that one is understood to be nasal spray. It is only used for very special occasions and circumstances; it has only been my "primary" weapon a handful of times over the years I have owned it.

 

[easyg]

Yes, I would.

 

[TheAzn]

It's usually pretty easy to identify the shooter in these mass shootings, folks - they are the ones shooting unarmed people. How many will die if you flee instead of fight?

As far as hitting an innocent, that would be a tragic mistake. Training and mindset, coupled with situational awareness, minimize that risk. Recognition of what's behind your target is essential. Even then, bad things can happen, ie you wound the shooter and he empties a full-auto weapon into a crowd on his way down - but how many more will he kill if you don't act?

Again, proximity and position are key. Training and experience help you recognize where you need to be to take a shot within your capabilities. Know your limitations as well as you can - Lady Luck is an undependable, perverted mistress.

But Teachu, what happens if the regular people - who are already panicking - thought that you are the shooter? As have been mentioned on this thread before, they might attack you and won't believe in your words.

How would you identify yourself as the "good guy"?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

But Teachu, what happens if the regular people - who are already panicking - thought that you are the shooter? As have been mentioned on this thread before, they might attack you and won't believe in your words.

Some of us think that's worth the risk.

 

[Teachu2]

But Teachu, what happens if the regular people - who are already panicking - thought that you are the shooter? As have been mentioned on this thread before, they might attack you and won't believe in your words.

How would you identify yourself as the "good guy"?

No reason for them to think I'm the shooter until a heartbeat before I fire - I won't be working my way toward a shooter with my gun in hand. If my gun is out, the shooter is much more likely to notice me and elevate me to the top of the threat list. My goal is to appear harmless (or invisible, if possible) to him until I'm close enough to neutralize him. Having my gun out adds to the panic and alerts the shooter, and offers me no advantage if I don't have a shot to take.
Rapid motion is also a major mistake - it attracts attention and communicates threat. I need to work my way in close in a manner that keeps me a low priority target. Time is of the essence, but if I can't get in close I can't stop him. Getting myself killed isn't helpful.
So why even try? After all, when seconds count I'll be burning them up making a controlled approach while people are still getting shot or at least shot at. The police will be responding, and will soon have a perimeter set up. Policy will probably dictate that they await a tactical unit and attempt to recon the situation. They will attempt to determine (based on interviewing shaken civilians who will give conflicting accounts) just what they are up against. I will be slower than I want to be, as fast as I think I can be successful, and minutes ahead of the police (probably).
We have been fortunate in this country so far - we haven't had a mass shooting that I can recall where the shooter was formally trained. The DC sniper was an exception, if you lump his actions in with school/mall shooters.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The police will be responding, and will soon have a perimeter set up. Policy will probably dictate that they await a tactical unit and attempt to recon the situation. They will attempt to determine (based on interviewing shaken civilians who will give conflicting accounts) just what they are up against. I will be slower than I want to be, as fast as I think I can be successful, and minutes ahead of the police (probably).

I gather you aren't familiar with the current response to an Active Shooter situation

 

[1911 guy]

pmmepiphany is on the money on this one. Protocal changed after Columbine. First officer on the scene goes in, whether he/she is SWAT or a beat cop, alone or with his'her partner.

However, we've still got to keep something in mind. If engaged while police are not yet on scene, it will in all likelihood be over before they get there. No knock on the police, but they don't have instantaneous transportation yet as far as I know. Anyone in the immediate vicinity will know who opened up first and who is running toward the threat. The guy shooting everyone in sight is the bad guy, the guy looking for a good shot angle is without a whole lot of doubt the good guy.

I'm not advocating going all "Rambo" just because you've got a gun on you. I just know that I'd feel the possibility of saving lives, in my opinion and with my previous experiences, would outweight the risks, even the possibility of winding up with the short end of the stick. On the other hand, I don't feel the need to denigrate those who choose otherwise.

 

[Teachu2]

I gather you aren't familiar with the current response to an Active Shooter situation

Local departments here go straight in on schools, but treat malls as armed robberies in progress - last time I checked. It has been a couple of years since I've discussed it with either department.
We tend to do things CroMagnon style - still debating the Civil Rights Act, etc....

Our largest mall has a police department sub-station in it - the local PD was there so much, it was cheaper to station officers there.

 

[texastele]

Yes, I think that I would. I have fortunately never been in this situation, and you don't know what you will do until you are actually in the situation, but I think that I would take the shot, so to speak, if I could do some good by doing so. There is the danger of being killed in the process, but there is also a chance of getting killed as I run like Neville Chamberlain for the door. You can call it hubris, but I would rather have bullet holes in the front than in the back. Things happen in this life and the way that you respond to them determines who you are. I tell my children to confront a situation and be aggressive. I don't think I could maintain the moral high ground to teach my children anything if I split on a situation like this, and there was something that I could do. I know that while 'everybody runs, some people run into the fire and some run out' (+2 points if you know what book that came out of, +1 for the author)(haha) , I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I left all those people to die and ran out. I am not going to endanger my family to do this thing, but as moral people we have the responsiblity to act and help others. Even animals behave altruistically, and maybe too much self-centeredness and not enough helping others is what is leading our country into some of the problems we are having. Also, to bring the legal option into it as a reason to not act is silly. I am not the biggest fan of the goverment, but I can't think of a practical scenario that would lead to prosecution of you for stopping a mass shooting. And just to cut off any potential flankers, if you don't want to act I am not calling you immoral or self-centered. I would consider myself that if I didn't act. I am tired, but I hope that I have made my point in a clear manner.

 

[Deus Machina]

If it was apparent who the shooter was and I was given the appropriate opportunity, yes.

It's not even internet swagger, I just have a habit of acting without overthinking under stress. And it's just as likely to get me hurt.

 

[armsmaster270]

any time.

 

[Thekid90]

I would do my best to take them out. By stopping the threat you are making not only yourfamily but everyone else safe. Besides aggressive force of action will put them on the defense allowing other prople to get out. And as Col. Jeff Cooper said "you're only outgunned if you miss". Its all about the mindset.

 

[Walkalong]

We have Active Shooter drills here at the hospital. We also have had some training on what to expect and what to do. Some more than others. The newest protocol is that Security rushes to the shooter to take them out as fast as possible. They do not stop to help anyone. Stopping the shooter is paramount. When the shooter is stopped, then people come in to help the victims still alive. Everyone but security is supposed to run away, not stopping for anything. Naturally some people will try to help, but most will simply run as taught.

Not long ago I was lucky enough to go along with Security to a class run by an Active Shooter Team from the area. It was very enlightening. These guys have studied a great deal of material, train hard, and are very serious about what they do. The only problem is they are always somewhere else when something like this happens. That is where local Security comes into play.

Yes, it should be very obvious who the shooter is, but yes, if you are a CCW trying to help, you will not only be in danger from the shooter, but there is always the possibility you could be mistaken for the shooter and shot. The pros are not likely to do so, but the average security person does not have nearly the training or mindset.

Me? I would hope I had the guts to run to the trouble and stop it, but who of us knows 100% how we will react, except for those who have actually been under fire before.

 

[David White]

I repeat in very clear words: It's not about being a hero, like you and others here seem to be repeatedly implying.

Some risks are worth taking. What those are, is for each individual to decide for himself.

The possibility of being confused about whether the guy standing on a table in the food court spraying bullets into a crowd of teenagers is certainly a real possibility Now while that smart remark I just made applies to your statement, I'm also well aware that it may not be immediately obvious in a shooting situation who is doing the shooting. Sure, I could be completely off base and shoot another CWL holder who also decided to respond instead of the actual threat - A situation like that is even less likely than you and I ending up in an active shooter situation together at the same time, or even both of us being involved in separate situations at separate times.

In any case, I'm well aware how the legal system works - One must first make some sort of mistake in order to end up on the defendant bench.

There are a great MANY different issues to consider that will be different in each situation - If you go back and slowly read my comments, you'll see that I stated more than once that the reaction should be dictated by the situation, not by a one size fits all response. Your entire response seems to be nothing more than the 5th or 6th time someone has brought up potential legal ramifications.

I'm sure that since I'm a regular average joe and not employed in a first responder profession, that if I choose to respond, that will be a mistake. Everything I attempt will be a mistake, I'll shoot the wrong people, I'll use too much force, I'll find myself actually defending the bad guy instead of shooting him, I might even shoot myself. I'll surely end up dead and in jail though.

Seriously though, to get back to your list at the beginning of your reply - #1, a reasonable alternative - that only LEGALLY applies in states that require citizens to retreat before using force - I don't live in such a state. #2, in an active shooter situation, with someone shooting at me or others, deadly force is justified according to statute in my jurisdiction - so excessive force is irrelevant UNLESS I were to continue shooting after the subject was no longer a threat - I've been in only a couple use of force situations, but I'm pretty secure in my ability to judge when a person is a threat or not, especially if I'm the one dealing with that threat. #3 is the only caveat that fully applies, and only if my actions are judged reckless - Being former military with significantly more extensive firearms and tactical training than just the average guy on the street will aid me in avoiding the "reckless" judgement, and not simply by virtue of name dropping or whatever, but because I adhere to my training. While it's possible that a CWL holder accidentally shoot a bystander in such a situation, the bottom line is that in a situation like that, the Florida Stand Your Ground law protects me from litigation UNLESS I was truly reckless in my response to the threat.

Your comment seems to imply that no matter what a person does, if they choose to act in defense of others in an active shooter situation, they are making a mistake. I respectfully submit that you are wrong. Your arguments against acting all depend on the relevant use of force laws in your particular jurisdiction, and if legalities are important enough to a person that they would stand by and watch someone shoot an obvious innocent because it wouldn't be legal to respond, then that is not the kind of person I want anything to do with.

So in respect to your picking apart that generality I made, allow me to rephrase: It is NEVER wrong to defend an obviously innocent person's life if they are in immediate/imminent danger of death or great harm.

"The Law" has no bearing on that statement, and if there are consequences to doing the right thing, then so be it. Some things are worth dying for, and some things are worth stepping outside what society dictates we should do. After all - doesn't society say those of us who carry guns are wrong?

Further, I seem to notice everyone assuming "Shoot, shoot shoot" - I don't know about the rest of you, but I carry at least one knife, and a non-lethal option or two as well as my pistol. Even in an active shooter situation, shooting might not be the right answer.

Bravo! Couldn't explain it better myself!

 

[Kleanbore]

So, if you should head out today and hear a series of rapid shots in a public place and turn to see someone firing a handgun at people, would you immediately assume that you were witnessing an "active shooter" doing evil, draw your firearm, and start firing?

If so, you need to rethink your training and your reactions.

Are you conditioned to believe that the scene involves an active shooter situation? Is it what you would expect the situation to be?

If so, you are likely to interpret what you see and hear accordingly. But it is essential that you not act until you are sure.

It is much more than remotely possible that you would be witnessing either the lawful use of deadly force or some kind of altercation in which the targets of the shooter you have seen are not those whom you could lawfully defend.

Lawful use of force incidents in public places occur very infrequently, but so do "active shooter" situations. I don't know it for a fact, but I think it likely that violence between rival gangs occurs more frequently than either of the other two, and you don't want to get into that kind of thing.

So, your first priority is to be sure that deadly force is justified and immediately necessary. Do not jump to conclusions.

Then you need to know what is behind your target (and who is moving toward your intended line of fire).

Did someone mention the four rules?

After that and only after that, you can assess your chances of doing good by intervention and decide accordingly.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The newest protocol is that Security rushes to the shooter to take them out as fast as possible. They do not stop to help anyone. Stopping the shooter is paramount. When the shooter is stopped, then people come in to help the victims still alive.

This was also touched on in my last training.

Someone asked about helping the wounded to cover or rescuing them if they were in the open.

The answer...not off the cuff, but well researched...was the best way to help them was to stop the threat and let those who were better trained enter a environment which was safe enough for them to do their work. To many this may seem counter to their natural reaction, but the goal is to not dilute the effectiveness of the response to the threat and to limit confusion to the primary goal

 

[David White]

What I keep hearing here is how we the people would not, for sure, be able to detect who the shooter would be.
Please, understand and take it from me... It is ALWAYS the guy whom people are RUNNING AWAY FROM!

In my situation, a packed bar slash pool hall, people made sure to run AWAY from the guy doing the shooting.
In a mall situation, it will be the same. People will run away, or seek cover, from the guy who has the scary gun.
Trust me... It will be VERY evident who the perpetrator is in an active shooter situation.
How you chose your actions are of course up to you but one thing is for sure... You'll know who the lunatic is once things go down.

 

[CZguy]

Another tip might be if the shooter war wearing camo and body armor, and firing a long gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David White: What I keep hearing here is how we the people would not, for sure, be able to detect who the shooter would be.

I haven't seen that in this discussion. Not once.

Please, understand and take it from me... It is ALWAYS the guy whom people are RUNNING AWAY FROM!

Probably. It is also the guy who is firing the weapon--by definition, that is at least one of the shooters.

It will be VERY evident who the perpetrator is in an active shooter situation.

But that's not the question.

The question is, what is the "situation"? "Active shooter"? Lawful self defense? Under cover law enforcement operation? Gunfight among thugs?

Which of those occurs more frequently?

And by the way, should an armed citizen or an off duty officer intervene and start firing, is it not likely that people would tend to run from him?

 

[David White]

It has been stated more than once "how would you know" who the active shooter is?
Is it the guy in the polo jacket and NY Yankees cap, the lady in the fur coat or the moron dressed in black wearing the LOAD BEARING VEST, carrying the guns that are being used to kill people?

I don't live in LA so I haven't watched two gangs of thugs shoot it out.

Another big clue to the bad guy is that he will be shooting people indiscriminately!
You know, the mom and pop families. If you can't tell with just a little bit of observation who is the bad guy and who is the good guy, then stay out of it by all means.
I can point out a cop, on the beach in nothing but his swim trunks. It's all about how people dress and carry themselves. There are dozens of phsyical "tells" that can be used in determining who is who. Just have to know the body language..

If that is the case, I don't care if its two gang banging thugs or an active shooter. If you see mothers, fathers and children being shot, the shooter needs to be dealt with.

In my AS, in the bar slash pool hall, the shooter was the one shooting at everybody. Not hard for me to figure out, even as a customer at that moment.

Just sayin... Ya know?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David White: It has been stated more than once "how would you know" who the active shooter is?

I've read all of the posts and I do not recall such a comment, and I'm not going to go back and review 220 posts to find one.

But your post about knowing who the "active shooter" is indicates an assumption that whoever is firing a gun and who fits your preconceived notions of dress ("moron dressed in black wearing the LOAD BEARING VEST") is "the active shooter" (someone shooting innocents unlawfully) and failing that, you will somehow be able to identify "the active shooter" (if he is there at all) by his "body language" or "physical 'tells' ".

What you need to know before acting rashly includes the following:

• Is that someone with gun in hand, even firing, really someone who is breaking the law? We have heard from numerous experts in this thread about real examples of experts coming to the wrong conclsion.
• Would the epeople being shot be lawfully justified in defending themselves, so that you as a third person could lawfully defend them?
• Is the shooter alone?
• Can you take a clean shot without hitting bystanders who are likely running in all directions?

Of course, the potential error inherent in your judging that someone shooting should not be doing so leads to the possibility that someone else would make precisely the same error concerning you.

 

[David White]

I've read all of the posts and I do not recall such a comment, and I'm not going to go back and review 220 posts to find one.

But your post about knowing who the "active shooter" is indicates an assumption that whoever is firing a gun and who fits your preconceived notions of dress ("moron dressed in black wearing the LOAD BEARING VEST") is "the active shooter" (someone shooting innocents unlawfully) and failing that, you will somehow be able to identify "the active shooter" (if he is there at all) by his "body language" or "physical 'tells' ".

What you need to know before acting rashly includes the following:

• Is that someone with gun in hand, even firing, really someone who is breaking the law? We have heard from numerous experts in this thread about real examples of experts coming to the wrong conclsion.
• Would the epeople being shot be lawfully justified in defending themselves, so that you as a third person could lawfully defend them?
• Is the shooter alone?
• Can you take a clean shot without hitting bystanders who are likely running in all directions?

Of course, the potential error inherent in your judging that someone shooting should not be doing so leads to the possibility that someone else would make precisely the same error concerning you.

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

In my state, I am allowed to defend a third party with lethal force as long as said third party would reasonably defend ones self as such in a similar situation. I think being shot and killed would meet that definition.

My "notion" of who an active shooter would be is more complicated than just physical observation. Haven't you ever noticed someone or some situation that got your hair standing on end? How do you put that feeling into words? It is the same for law enforcement. How many times has a cop been saved because he/she knew, deep down inside that "things just didn't add up" during a stop?
There are many tells that can give someone a "bad feeling" about a person or situation. I don't have the room, time or desire to get into a debate over all of them.
I can asses and address situations in very little time. There are others here who have the same ability as I do (no cape required!).

Time is of the essence in situations such as these. A variety of observation, assessment and action are what gets the job done.
I can and have done that job using my intuition and observation along with other "tells" that allow me to interpret what I see and hear to chose a course of action relatively quickly. Combine that with situational awareness and the picture becomes clearer.

I do train with my chosen weapon but I also can improvise with things in my environment to accomplish my goal. Many years of martial arts have taught me that anything is a weapon. Anything is a distraction and can be used as such. Mindset and skill set are used along with other observation skills to achieve an outcome that can be predicted with a fair amount of certainty.
Not everyone has that variety of skills at their disposal and some who do can't bring it all together under pressure. I can and have.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David White: 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?

Are you sure that people will be able to identify the direction of the shooter in a closed area? What if there is more than one shooter?

Might they not run for exits?

In my state, I am allowed to defend a third party with lethal force as long as said third party would reasonably defend ones self as such in a similar situation. I think being shot and killed would meet that definition.

Do you have a legal basis for believing that you would be allowed to defend someone someone who is being shot at in lawful self defense? Someone who had been engaged in mutual combat? Someone who had attacked a police officer?

Haven't you ever noticed someone or some situation that got your hair standing on end? ...There are many tells that can give someone a "bad feeling" about a person or situation. I don't have the room, time or desire to get into a debate over all of them....I can asses and address situations in very little time. ... A variety of observation, assessment and action are what gets the job done....Mindset and skill set are used along with other observation skills to achieve an outcome that can be predicted with a fair amount of certainty.

Those are valuable skills that can keep you safe, but when one intends to employ deadly force, a "fair amount of certainty" won't begin to cut it.