Stopping Active Shooters (mass murders that is)

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Here is an excellent article on why if's necessary for the first responding officer or civilian to immediately engage any active shooter.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...ctive-killers/

A few high points:

98% of active killers act alone.

80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.

Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

They strike stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.

They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped. They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.

They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.

90% commit suicide on-site. Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.

Deaf
 

grydth

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
150
Location
Upstate New York.
I think you are right, but it is asking an incredible amount of courage from the LEOs.

The officer who alone faced down the shooter at the Rest Home saved uncounted lives with his single shot to the maniac's chest..... the Binghamton area police - like the Columbine police - are under severe criticism for waiting around outside for quite some time.

But not every nutty killer fits the mold, as 3 dead police officers in PA sadly shows. That killer was waiting in ambush for them, and then shot the back up responders as well.
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
• Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

Meaning, they have an average kill rate of less than 50%. Trouble with that is, not being killed doesn't mean everything is OK. Could mean permanent injury, a lifetime of pain, years of rehab, and/or an inability to earn a living.

Tough call to make. I really feel for the men and women that get faced with such a choice.
 

Thesemindz

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
2,170
Reaction score
101
Location
Springfield, Missouri
Meaning, they have an average kill rate of less than 50%. Trouble with that is, not being killed doesn't mean everything is OK. Could mean permanent injury, a lifetime of pain, years of rehab, and/or an inability to earn a living.

From my reading of the article, it doesn't mean kill rate. It means hit rate. Meaning that around half of the rounds fired don't hit people at all.

This would be inconsistent with what I've read in regards to armed conflicts. According to the research I've done, police have a hit ratio of roughly 34 percent. This would mean that mass murderers are actually much better shots than the police dispatched to deal with them.

Of course, that's an unfair comparison. The police officer is probably firing at someone who is firing back, and who is engaged in evasive maneuvers. The mass murderer is probably firing into packed crowds or at prone victims at extremely close range. And even under those circumstances, he can only hit his victims about half the time.

You're right, it is a tough situation. But when one takes up arms on the behalf of the state one takes up responsibilities as well.


-Rob
 

grydth

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
150
Location
Upstate New York.
The police officer is restricted by various laws and by consideration for innocents, The nutty mass killer, like his cockroach terrorist cousins, has no such worries.

The low hit rate didn't seem to mean much in Binghamton... he seemed to keep shooting until he killed people. By contrast, the PA gunman was deadly at close range, as the Oakland killer also was.
 

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I haven't worked out any type of scenario where if someone at my job site (a public tourist attraction -- we netted over 2500 people just today and expect 3000 tomorrow :rolleyes: ) ... if someone just goes nuts and starts shooting... it largely depends where they're at, at the time and where I'm at at the time.
If they're in the cave (it's a tourist cave) they can wreak a lot of havoc because it's a narrow canyon type passages with only one way in and one way out... a person could conceivably walk through the entire cave and shoot people who would not have anywhere else to go.
And the probability of someone being a CWC would be very remote.

I just don't know...

Above ground well... basically throw things at them... anything, everything, chairs, books whatever... send a barrage of items fast enough that they're just too busy to fend off what's being tossed at them to shoot.
Fighting back until the police arrives might help reduce the casualty rate.
 
OP
Deaf Smith

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Here in Texas you can use deadly force to protect an innocent third party, PC 9.33 (and I'm real sure these mass murders would qualify.) But, you are still open to civil lawsuits (wrongful death PC 9.06.) Plus in PC 9.05 below if you kill an innocent third party.

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Now what this means is, if say at the local high school which you are visiting to pick up your kids, and you hear gunfire and screaming, and you go in with your weapon, you are taking a big chance as you don't have the immunity the police have.

Now I'm not saying to run away, but just make sure you are skilled and realize the dangers. I hope and pray I have the guts to go in, and according to the study I posted you actually have a good chance if you keep your cool. But you and I can still wind up in a world of hurt.

Even if you succeed, it isn't over yet!

Now let's say you terminate the monster(s). The cops will be coming real soon (if they are not there now.) I strongly suggest you put the gun up and act like a terrorized teacher until things are sorted out. It would be real easy for the police to think YOU are the gunman and open fire.

This goes double if it's a workplace massicer since everyone is probably an adult and they will look real carefully as to if anyone is the shooter.

Deaf
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
I think you are right, but it is asking an incredible amount of courage from the LEOs.

The officer who alone faced down the shooter at the Rest Home saved uncounted lives with his single shot to the maniac's chest..... the Binghamton area police - like the Columbine police - are under severe criticism for waiting around outside for quite some time.

But not every nutty killer fits the mold, as 3 dead police officers in PA sadly shows. That killer was waiting in ambush for them, and then shot the back up responders as well.

Well, the guy in PA wasn't actually a mass-murder, he was an ambush attacker of responding officers......so yes, he doesn't fit the mold......he's a different type of killer.

And where you are at a disadvantage with an ambusher is the fact that you don't know there's a real threat until you're in the kill zone.......undetected movement for total surprise on the enemy.

With an active shooter you know there's a threat, you have a good general idea where it is, you know it's armed, and you know that your response must include speed, surprise and violence of action.


And any officer who lacks the courage to enter a building to find and neutralize an active shooter trying to kill people should hang up their badge and do something else for a living......because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work. Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
Meaning, they have an average kill rate of less than 50%. Trouble with that is, not being killed doesn't mean everything is OK. Could mean permanent injury, a lifetime of pain, years of rehab, and/or an inability to earn a living.

Tough call to make. I really feel for the men and women that get faced with such a choice.

What it actually means is that they hit what they are shooting at less than 50% of the time........but these men are cowards when confronted by active resistance, especially armed resistance.

In numerous incidents of mass shooters and would be mass shooters, when confronted by a tangible threat, many mass shooters have surrendered without a fight, despite statements that they wanted to die.

There is a common mindset among mass-shooters.......they are doing this based on a sense of empowerment.......by shooting people, they are, in essence, finding power that they feel lacking in their normal life. Most of these folks had difficulty dealing with other people in their lives, and were mostly passive aggressive, and avoided confrontation.

That nature is still present in their personalities, and when confronted by AGGRESSIVE response, many of them fold under the pressure........they want prey, easy prey that runs, and hides and responds in a manner that they envision.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
The police officer is restricted by various laws and by consideration for innocents, The nutty mass killer, like his cockroach terrorist cousins, has no such worries.

The low hit rate didn't seem to mean much in Binghamton... he seemed to keep shooting until he killed people. By contrast, the PA gunman was deadly at close range, as the Oakland killer also was.

I hope it doesn't appear as though i'm splitting hairs here, but it's VERY important to point out, again, a fact that many folks don't understand. You have two entirely separate and distinct types of murderers here......the media is lumping them together, but they are quite distinct.

The Binghampton shooter represents the classic mass murderer.......he picks a location where he can shoot as many people as possible, body count is his objective. He's typically a loaner, with significant social problems, and the mass shooting is the carrying out of a fantasy of empowerment. He likely has been in no trouble or only minor trouble with the law, is described by his neighbors and 'quiet' and unassuming. He's probably not considered a violent person by those he knows. He's recently suffered a stressor or series of stressors that have acted as a trigger. This person will always pick easy targets, in large numbers.

The PA and Oakland gunmen represent an entirely different kind of killer. They didn't plan out the initial contact with the police, but they had prepared for it. People like this tend to have long standing problems with violence. They know weapons, and how to use them. They are often anti-social, may have a long criminal history, frequent run-in's with the police. They dislike authority. They may be paranoid or even mentally ill. The encounter that triggered their violent outburst wasn't likely planned, it occurred by shear happenstance.....but they had prepared for it, and ambushed the police at a moment of their choosing.

Of the two types, the first is most dangerous to the public, but least dangerous to the police. The second type is less dangerous to the public, and far more dangerous to the police.

The first type will generally avoid the police, and will either kill themselves or surrender. They generally won't try and force the police to shoot them. They actually tend to fold when confronted by violence themselves, and will often kill themselves to avoid a violent confrontation.

The second type almost ALWAYS will attempt to engage the police if they can, and will kill any officer they can. They will generally end up being shot to death by the police, and only occasionally will they surrender. They actually relish the violent confrontation with the police, and tend to have a 'Blaze of Glory' mentality.
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
What it actually means is that they hit what they are shooting at less than 50% of the time........but these men are cowards when confronted by active resistance, especially armed resistance.

In numerous incidents of mass shooters and would be mass shooters, when confronted by a tangible threat, many mass shooters have surrendered without a fight, despite statements that they wanted to die.

There is a common mindset among mass-shooters.......they are doing this based on a sense of empowerment.......by shooting people, they are, in essence, finding power that they feel lacking in their normal life. Most of these folks had difficulty dealing with other people in their lives, and were mostly passive aggressive, and avoided confrontation.

That nature is still present in their personalities, and when confronted by AGGRESSIVE response, many of them fold under the pressure........they want prey, easy prey that runs, and hides and responds in a manner that they envision.

That makes a lot more sense now.

There is a shooting that happened recently that was eventually stopped by a lone officer, the shooting that occurred in the Carthage, NC nursing home. Sadly 7 elderly residents and one nurse lost their lives before the shooter was apprehended by 25 y.o. Officer Justin Garner. The gunman's estranged wife worked at the nursing home.

Officer Garner had no backup because.....he was the only officer on duty that Sunday morning. Thanks to him, the horrible events weren't worse than they were. :asian:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYM_TRnSNsV2T4VhX8qTgdczOoQwD97D2IQ00
 

chinto

Senior Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
2,026
Reaction score
38
in my state you can use deadly force to protect another, but also you can still be sued.

however if caught in such a situation with a mass murderer hunting you, no way out.. what have you to loose. like with a Terrorist, go for broke, leave your scruples at home. use maximum force, go for the throat and finish it for keeps. it will be your life of the attackers. so decide who will live and act on it.
 

Drac

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
22,738
Reaction score
143
Location
Ohio
And any officer who lacks the courage to enter a building to find and neutralize an active shooter trying to kill people should hang up their badge and do something else for a living......because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work. Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!

AMEN brother..One of the police Chief up here is against a single officer entering a bldg alone...Me, I'm going in..
 

blindsage

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
110
Location
Seattle, WA
Here is an excellent article on why if's necessary for the first responding officer or civilian to immediately engage any active shooter.

No where in this article does the author codone civilians engaging the active shooter. Whether it's a good idea or not is a different question, but this article does not support or condone it, and it shouldn't be inferred that it does.
 

Guardian

Black Belt
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
635
Reaction score
23
Location
Wichita Falls, Texas
I hope it doesn't appear as though i'm splitting hairs here, but it's VERY important to point out, again, a fact that many folks don't understand. You have two entirely separate and distinct types of murderers here......the media is lumping them together, but they are quite distinct.

The Binghampton shooter represents the classic mass murderer.......he picks a location where he can shoot as many people as possible, body count is his objective. He's typically a loaner, with significant social problems, and the mass shooting is the carrying out of a fantasy of empowerment. He likely has been in no trouble or only minor trouble with the law, is described by his neighbors and 'quiet' and unassuming. He's probably not considered a violent person by those he knows. He's recently suffered a stressor or series of stressors that have acted as a trigger. This person will always pick easy targets, in large numbers.

The PA and Oakland gunmen represent an entirely different kind of killer. They didn't plan out the initial contact with the police, but they had prepared for it. People like this tend to have long standing problems with violence. They know weapons, and how to use them. They are often anti-social, may have a long criminal history, frequent run-in's with the police. They dislike authority. They may be paranoid or even mentally ill. The encounter that triggered their violent outburst wasn't likely planned, it occurred by shear happenstance.....but they had prepared for it, and ambushed the police at a moment of their choosing.

Of the two types, the first is most dangerous to the public, but least dangerous to the police. The second type is less dangerous to the public, and far more dangerous to the police.

The first type will generally avoid the police, and will either kill themselves or surrender. They generally won't try and force the police to shoot them. They actually tend to fold when confronted by violence themselves, and will often kill themselves to avoid a violent confrontation.

The second type almost ALWAYS will attempt to engage the police if they can, and will kill any officer they can. They will generally end up being shot to death by the police, and only occasionally will they surrender. They actually relish the violent confrontation with the police, and tend to have a 'Blaze of Glory' mentality.

Thanks SgtMac, been along time since this training, good to see it again.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
AMEN brother..One of the police Chief up here is against a single officer entering a bldg alone...Me, I'm going in..

Going in to harms way so that others may live is what we signed up for.
 

seasoned

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
11,191
Reaction score
1,172
Location
Lives in Texas
Well, the guy in PA wasn't actually a mass-murder, he was an ambush attacker of responding officers......so yes, he doesn't fit the mold......he's a different type of killer.

And where you are at a disadvantage with an ambusher is the fact that you don't know there's a real threat until you're in the kill zone.......undetected movement for total surprise on the enemy.

With an active shooter you know there's a threat, you have a good general idea where it is, you know it's armed, and you know that your response must include speed, surprise and violence of action.


And any officer who lacks the courage to enter a building to find and neutralize an active shooter trying to kill people should hang up their badge and do something else for a living......because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work. Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!

Aman to that SGT.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work. Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!

As much as I wish this were the case, the Supreme Court disagrees...
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
As much as I wish this were the case, the Supreme Court disagrees...
You're confusing the supreme court decision that said that an officer has no duty to any INDIVIDUAL with the fact that we don't have a sworn duty to the public at large.

Let me clarify....JUST because we can't be sued by a lawyer for not doing it, DOES NOT mean we don't have a moral and ethical commitment of HONOR to attempt to do so.

Hope that helps.
 
Top