New School Tactics: Active shooter

[BillCA]

A news article from WCPO Channel 9 in Kentucky points to the changing tactics for dealing with an active shooter situation.

For those who don't like links, here's the executive summary.

First - the important points were made about mass murders in the U.S.

• Most mass murders perform their killings in "gun free" zones.
• A fast, armed response is the best way to deal with mass murderers.
• The first officer on the scene should use speed, surprise and violence of action to end the incident quickly.
• Most mass killers, when confronted with armed resistance turn their guns on themselves.
• The majority of active shooters are actually poor shots, averaging less than a 50% hit rate.

WCPO cites studies by experts are Ron Borsch from SEALE Academy in Bedford, Ohio and John Benner from Tactical Defense Institute in Adams County, Ohio.

In the last 40 years, researchers have compiled the profile of the typical mass murderer, the type that walk into schools, post offices or their employer's offices to kill multiple people.

Called "active shooters" or "active killers" because they are actively killing their victims when police are called and/or arrive on the scene, they are the source of major headlines nationwide.

According to the profile, these mass murderers seek to inflict as many casualties as quickly as possible and don't necessarily seek evade or escape capture. The profile also indicates most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They select "soft targets" like shopping malls and schools precisely because they contain large numbers of defenseless victims with the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

And typically, as soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters turn the gun on themselves.

History of Response:
Until 1999, tactics dictated first responders contain the incident and perpetrator until a tactical SWAT team arrived to take over.

With the Columbine High School shootings, police realized that they did not have time to wait for tactical support. Instead, the doctrine changed to employ the first four or five arriving officers as an ad-hoc tactical team. They would enter the site in a diamond formation, guns pointed in different directions and seek and engage the shooter.

Then, in April 2007, a lone gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes. That more than three people were killed and a total of four were shot every minute. As predicted, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself.

Since Virginia Tech, experts have determined the first officer on the scene should make entry immediately, with an aggressive attack on the shooter. In these incidents, time is of the essence. For every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.

“Time is our worst adversary in dealing with active killers,” says Borsch. “We’re racing what I call ‘the Stopwatch of Death.’ Victims are often added to the toll every several seconds.”

In other words, while it was once considered suicide for a lone officer to take on an active killer, it is now considered statistical homicide for him not to do so.

The other statistic that emerged is that "active shooters" almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks. Most states prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms in schools and college campuses, even with a CCW permit. Many malls and workplaces also prohibit firearms by placing signs at their entrances.

Now some tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

WCPO received many questions about the killings taking place in gun-free zones, so they did their own analysis of mass murders in the U.S. What were their findings about these mass killings?

1. The vast majority occurred in schools or on college campuses where firearms are banned as a matter of state statutes.
2. Others took place in post offices where firearms are banned as a matter of federal law.
3. Most of the rest took place in shopping malls or other businesses where the owners posted signs prohibiting firearm possession by anyone including those with CCW permits.

Based on data from the SEALE study, an analysis by TDI, and WCPO's own research, WCPO said "we are able to say definitively that most 'active killer' shootings have occurred in so-called 'gun free' zones."

“Officers need to understand valid military principles that apply to these calls, such as speed, surprise and violence of action,” SEALE Academy's Borsch insists. “They need to learn how to close in and finish the fight with aggression, having and keeping the ‘momentum of battle’ on their side. The idea is to keep the adversary off-balance by forcing him always to react to your actions, rather than, after contact, reacting to him.”

For example, once an active killer is spotted, Borsch favors the swift application of deadly force over seeking defensive cover in most instances. “An unintentional consequence of going to cover may be to lose sight of the offender, allowing him to gain the momentum of battle and shoot more defenseless innocents until he says it’s over.”

Borsch, is a 17 year police veteran and a part-time SWAT team member before retiring from street work, analyzed more than 90 active-shooter incidents on the basis of data largely ferreted out from Internet reports. Most involved schools and colleges, but workplaces, shopping malls, churches and other public places are also represented.

Among his findings that have helped shape his tactical thinking:

• 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.”

“They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant. The tracking history of these murderers has proved them to be unlikely to be aggressive with police. If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.” Borsh says.

[BillCA]

My comments:

• Because most shooters self-destruct doesn't mean that the gene-tampered turkey you're dealing with will do so.
• New training does not emphasize waiting for the shooter to surrender or respond to commands.
• Most shooters are lousy shots, but that should not make you over-confident.
• The study indicates that shooters are likely to self-destruct if they encounter any armed resistance, such as a CCW.
• As many of us have implied, a "gun free zone" is more likely to be a shooting parlor than a safety zone.
• Any CCW who engages should also be very alert for single PD officers to avoid a tragic mistaken identity incident.

Comment as needed.

[Threefeathers]

This is a great study. As a teacher I wonder how many education administrators will even read it.

[Brit]

This study should be sent every where! It can not be disputed, take those signs down, change the carry to Schools to ... If picking up a child, and having a CCW Permit, you can CCW.

The firearm will never be seen unless an active shooter scenario starts up.

Silly me, that makes sense.

[Captain38]

All school authorities and law enforcement personnel need to read the book "TERROR AT BESLAN" by John Giduck. It is the complete story of the Beslan School siege that occurred in Russia in 1994.

[MrCleanOK]

Everything in the original post makes sense to me. I just wanted to add some feedback from a conversation I had with an officer from my Alma Mater's campus police about a year ago.

Their response to an active shooter situation is to wait until two or more officers have assembled, then enter the building/area looking for the shooter. As campus is a "gun free zone", anybody seen with a gun is assumed to be the shooter and is a shoot-on-sight target.

[Keltyke]

It's tragic that it took them so long to figure it out.

[4V50 Gary]

I don't think any administrators will read it. I've complained to a local community college board that their police officers are not armed and that the campus is not safe. Despite one instructor being killed in the classroom after he told the campus police of the threat (being unarmed, they watched from a safe distance as the student returned from the parking lot with a gun), they're still not armed.

[BillCA]

A very important facet of this article is that officers are being encouraged to be more aggressive when confronting the shooter.

This should automatically warn all of us who CCW that we must not only be alert for where the shooter is located, but to watch for arriving LE. It is likely that LE may mistake a CCW holder for the active shooter with tragic results.

If the police do arrive, the prudent CCW will holster his weapon and let LE handle it. It may also now be prudent to resist unholstering until you have visual on the shooter and have decided to engage (after first checking your 3, 6 and 9 o'clock to ensure LE is not arriving). Once the threat is over, reholster a.s.a.p. If LE arrives, be compliant at once.

MrCleanOK - your Alma Mater's campus is using the current procedure of the "ad hoc" tactical team. The author of this new study says waiting for extra officers may cost multiple lives.

[Double Naught Spy]

The majority of active shooters are actually poor shots, averaging less than a 50% hit rate.

So that means they are 70-100% better shooters than the average cop?

Most mass killers, when confronted with armed resistance turn their guns on themselves.

I would have to see the stats on this as I can think of a lot who most definitely did not do this, or didn't do it at any point relevant to being confronted (like Harris and Klebold). Many fought back or barricaded. Some just surrendered. Some did commit suicide and in many cases they did so well before armed response arrived.

They claimed that 90% commit suicide when having met armed response. Of course, how often do the shooters meet armed response before giving up or otherwise being subdued?

[RNB65]

Then, in April 2007, a lone gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes. That more than three people were killed and a total of four were shot every minute. As predicted, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself.

Since Virginia Tech, experts have determined the first officer on the scene should make entry immediately, with an aggressive attack on the shooter. In these incidents, time is of the essence. For every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.

Just to set the record straight, the first officers to arrive a Norris Hall did indeed try to make immediate entrance to confront the shooter. However, they were unable to gain entry into the building due to the massive wooden doors and heavy chains that Cho used to chain them closed. It took several minutes for them to locate a side door that lead into a machine shop which they were able to breach with a shotgun.

[BillCA]

I would have to see the stats on this as I can think of a lot who most definitely did not do this, or didn't do it at any point relevant to being confronted (like Harris and Klebold). Many fought back or barricaded. Some just surrendered. Some did commit suicide and in many cases they did so well before armed response arrived.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of these killers will suicide when one of two things happens -- a) they run out of targets or b) when confronted by armed resistance (police).

Between the mid 80's and recently, as soon as I've heard reports of a "gunman shooting people inside xxxx" I have mentally thought he's either done himself in or will do so when the cops show up. And I've seldom been mistaken in the long run. At Columbine they essentially ran out of easily found targets before they suicided. Very few incidents result in the capture of the shooter.

Note... the recent mall shooting in Washington does NOT appear to be one of these cases. It appears more likely to be a gang related dispute gone wrong.

[Double Naught Spy]

Bill that is interest, but the report here seems to be somewhat in conflict with this report on school shootings http://www.treas.gov/usss/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf

Granted, it is 6 years old, but no doubt covers some of the same ground.

In the report on school shootings, it is noted that only 13% killed themselves. Interestingly, most of the school shootings covered lasted over 15 minutes (53%). Most (73%) were not resolved by the police, however.

There isn't any indication that the school attacks were made because they were gun-free zones as is suggested in the recent report you cited in the OP. Instead, the locations of the attacks appear to be because that is where the intended targets of the shooter gathered, often being targets that had done wrong to the shooter (real or perceived) in some way. It is where the wrong was perpetrated.

[Bob42]

Is there any data on if these people ever wear body armour?

[BillCA]

Double-Naught,

Interesting assessment. I'd suggest the motivations of school shooters is different than those of adult shooters. They're social contexts are at school or school-related versus a broader experience for adults. Most youths have a narrow view of the world and think less about consequences of their acts, thus may be less likely to suicide. It's a good subject to debate.

As to the gun-free zone thing, it may play a part in their mental processes. They realize that the adults will be unable to stop them with force. If it were otherwise, there might be some deterrent effect that forces them to change the method or location of their rampages. For instance, it may change the time/location to the school parking lot at the end of the day. Or it could end up with shooters more aggressively targeting adults.

I do remember hearing that psyche evaluations of two teenage shooters indicated that they had not thought about what they would do after the shooting. No thoughts of how they would escape, where to go, etc. This implies they were either entirely focused on their "revenge" or did not expect to survive the event.

Regardless, I think the updated principles are worth considering. Waiting for several units to arrive may only increase the death toll.

As the Mumbai massacre shows, where there are active shooters killing multiple people, they seldom stop while there are available targets. The Indian police held their fire and I presume over the concern of hitting innocents. Their policy of containment and then gathering intel before moving resulted in huge body counts.

In such situations, given the track records of previous shootings, you might as well consider anyone at the site already dead. Engaging early and aggessively is more likely to reduce the body count. If the shooter has to defend against resistance he is not shooting at defenseless citizens.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Bob42

Is there any data on if these people ever wear body armour?

Low number of occurances.
- Hollywood shootout (robbery, not mass murder)
- Texas, man shoots wife/daughter over divorce

Those are the only two I can think of at the moment.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...s_man_who.html

Here's a recent one - note - handguns won the day for the law officers.

[Double Naught Spy]

Originally Posted by Bob42

Is there any data on if these people ever wear body armour?

Tyler, Texas courthouse shootout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

This shooting was NOT in a gun free zone (occurring out on the street). The shooter did not surrender or commit suicide when faced with armed police resistance.

In such situations, given the track records of previous shootings, you might as well consider anyone at the site already dead. Engaging early and aggessively is more likely to reduce the body count. If the shooter has to defend against resistance he is not shooting at defenseless citizens.

Right, and the Tyler shooting clearly showed this as well. I fully agree that active shooters, regardless of the reasoning for them to be in a shooting situation (revenge murders, nuts, robbery gone bad, etc), need to be dealt with swiftly. My complaints with the OP article was in how the active shooters were characterized. The characterization seems misleading and unrealistic.

For example, why aren't there a lot more calls on active shooters in the home where police response can make a difference? Simple. There aren't enough targets. The incidents end up being called murders, or murder suicides, but may in fact not be all that different than workplace shootings where 10s of people are injured or killed. In both sets of circumstances, the shooter is attempting to deal with the problem as perceived. If the shooter is employed by a business with a lot of employees, then the incident offers a lot of targets, more chances to be reported to the cops, and takes longer. In the home situation, the same stimulus may be present, but the incident is just over way too quick, although there are numerous incidents of 911 calls where shooting occurs and the whole incident is over before 911 can get a squad car on scene...not enough targets to prolong the event sufficiently for help to arrive.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This is a fascinating thread! Thanks to all. I participated as a role player with our local police force who were training for dealing with an active shooter. As reported here on this thread their new tactics are to move very quickly "to the sound of the guns" and eliminate the threat. Our job was to try and distract the officers. I avoided avoided touching them however as others who did not got pushed around. Some of these LEOs are pretty big strong guys!

[BillCA]

Glenn, that applies to the body armor challenge. Fortunately the officer was either skilled or got lucky. I hope for skilled.

This might make good conversation another thread but the most disturbing comment in the cited article was this;

“The fact that he was wearing a protective vest meant that he was preparing for criminal activity, a man bent on creating chaos,” said Police Chief Art Acevedo.

I guess one shouldn't wear a ballistic vest in Austin, as the Chief considers it evidence of "preparing for criminal activity".

[Bauer]

I don't really know how you can't believe that criminals like to seek out gun free zones. It is common sense to go after someone who can't retaliate equally. This is why "gun free zone" needs to not exist, at least not at Universities such as mine.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

My complaints with the OP article was in how the active shooters were characterized. The characterization seems misleading and unrealistic.

For example, why aren't there a lot more calls on active shooters in the home where police response can make a difference? Simple. There aren't enough targets. The incidents end up being called murders, or murder suicides, but may in fact not be all that different than workplace shootings where 10s of people are injured or killed. In both sets of circumstances, the shooter is attempting to deal with the problem as perceived. If the shooter is employed by a business with a lot of employees, then the incident offers a lot of targets, more chances to be reported to the cops, and takes longer. In the home situation, the same stimulus may be present, but the incident is just over way too quick, although there are numerous incidents of 911 calls where shooting occurs and the whole incident is over before 911 can get a squad car on scene...not enough targets to prolong the event sufficiently for help to arrive.

Perhaps it is OUR perceptions that need adjustment. Not all mass-murders; not all shootings in public places are the kinds of incidents of which the original article speaks.

The original article speaks to incidents that happen in certain types of places coupled with a certain type of behavior. That is, it addresses shootings in places that are supposed to be safe (gun free zones) by people who are shooting at any target as opposed to a specific target, robbery, hostage-taking, etc.

One presumes a fast evaluation by the arriving officers is needed while he/they prepare to engage. The risks are unavoidably high for police and civilians alike.

If the officer misjudges the event, he can be killed by a well prepared adversary. If the officer misjudges another way and decides to wait for additional resources then more innocents will die.

[Erik]

Without giving up anything, "New School Tactics" can be summed up succinctly:

Race to the scene and engage.

The engaging indeed involves a fast evaluation; here it is:

Evaluate who the armed people are, and put a gun on them unless they are obviously LEOs.

Something to be mindful of if you are not obviously a LEO and find yourself in such a situation.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by BillCA

This should automatically warn all of us who CCW that we must not only be alert for where the shooter is located, but to watch for arriving LE. It is likely that LE may mistake a CCW holder for the active shooter with tragic results.

I've thought about this problem myself. Not to mention the possibility of finding or being found by another CCW, with similar tragic results.

Good advice to not unholster until you have identified the shooter. Which obviously means more than "That guy has a gun."

[Kline605]

As a firearms instructor and someone that has fired in combat, I would not call 50% hit rates bad.

And regarding the comment about that being better than LEOs, I would bet that was made be someone that has not engaged someone with a firearm at ranges less than 10 feet in the dark, snow, rain, crowds, with victims shouting, screaming, and dying. I love simmunitions, but the real world isn't a paint cartridge.

I realize that this is a little off subject, but I am new to this site and love getting other people's opinions, but I would caution people about judging to quickly.