Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) prevention / response

[RangerRay]

Interesting term, which you used twice.    :rofl:

"I'm afraid he's not just normal, but extremely  normal....."    rly:

I guess I was looking for a term to describe people who aren't your usual rent-a-mob activist, but are "radicalised" by events.  Kind of like what I see in the wake of the latest massacre.  I see people fed up with the inaction provided by their political "leaders".

An opinion on the solution being proposed by these so-called "leaders":

https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/

I’ve been shot in combat. And as a veteran, I’m telling you: allowing teachers to be armed is an asinine idea
By Matt Martin -
February 20, 2018

Regardless of training, you don’t know how people will respond in life and death situations until the moment comes. You don’t know how people will react when they hear gunshots. You don’t know how people will react when the person next to them is shot. You don’t know how a person will respond when their task is shooting someone they know or taught. You just don’t know.

And now we are expecting teachers, even with training, to perfectly handle this situation. I say perfectly because anything less could mean even more tragedy and death. This isn’t a movie where bullets always miss the hero. These teachers aren’t action stars. These are average people, who more likely than not, have never come close to experiencing anything like this.

Few people actually run towards gunfire. Most search for cover. Some can’t function. Fight or flight. Adrenaline floods your body. Time doesn’t exist. Your heart beats outside of your chest. Fine motor skills stop working. People urinate and defecate themselves. Good luck holding steady aim at a moving target. Even the simplest of tasks, such as reloading can become difficult. Your hands shake for hours afterward. It’s chaotic on a level that is beyond comprehension until you experience it.

This what I want you to consider when the discussion moves toward Rep. Pittman’s assumption that allowing teachers to arm themselves is the proper action to take.

“There is barely enough time in the school year to train teachers on basic lesson planning and data use,” a friend who currently works for CMS told me. “So adding weaponry is just so absurd.”

 

[Jarnhamar]

I’ve been shot in combat. And as a veteran, I’m telling you: allowing teachers to be armed is an asinine idea
By Matt Martin -
February 20, 2018

The average school shooting is over in 3 to 4 minutes.
Average police response time is something like 7 or 8 minutes, which doesn't mean much if their SOPs aren't to enter the building as soon as they arrive.
Florida school shooting was over in 7 minutes with 17 dead.
Matt Martin's "Hey everyone, I've been shot too" opinion misses the point. His article is a fluff job about himself.

 

[mariomike]

This is the sad part of it all, they accepted the pay given to them to risk their lives to save others, but when it came down to doing the deed they hid.

It's even being reported in the U.K.,

"FOUR county sheriff deputies 'cowered behind their cars during Parkland school shooting and refused to enter the building' according to Florida police officers who ran in to try and stop the attack."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5428851/FOUR-deputies-failed-enter-school-building-shooting.html

I give First Responders the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete. Hopefully, the investigation will be conducted by an independent agency.

Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) protocol for Active Shooters,
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=spCRWpjDMoHYsQWYsYqICw&q=%22rescue+task+force%22+%22active+shooter%22&oq=%22rescue+task+force%22+%22active+shooter%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.109697.116779.0.117734.17.17.0.0.0.0.170.2158.0j17.17.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.17.2131...0j0i67k1.0.NOEMKjhGnpY

In other news,

"More companies cutting ties with the NRA",
https://www.google.ca/search?q=cutting+ties+nra&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F14%2F2018%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=

 

[garb811]

This is a split from the Great Gun Control Debate where the conversation became intermingled between gun control and preventing and responding to an active shooter in the wake of the school shooting in Florida on 14 Feb 18. 

I have moved or left posts in the most appropriate thread but there may be quotes or comments that pertain directly to the other thread and I would ask that you make your replies (if any) in the appropriate thread

 

[brihard]

I won't touch the gun control post with a ten foot pole, so I had not seen this up til now.

I'm an IARD instructor with my police service.  I can give some context to this.

IARD is a set of tactics to deal specifically with an active threat- someone who is basically trying to rack up a body count, actively killing. An IARD response, like any other police use of force, is intended to change the subject's behaviour towards controlling the situation and ending the threat to life. Whether it's the simple arrival of police precipitating suicide, or the first effective engagement of the threat either neutralizing them through incapacitation or surrender or causing suicide, or whether contacting the threat leads to them barricading (e.g., Orlando Pulse nightclub) and the tactical response then shifting towards something more deliberate. The point is to preserve as much life as possible by changing the behaviour away from active killing.

You go in immediately, and with what you've got. "Never go in alone" is old drills and not validated. Yes, it's a much higher risk to the officer, but backup is probably close behind, and you want the threat's goal orientation to change away from killing helpless victims to whatever else isn't that- whether they suck-start, or engage you as the police, or barricade. Generally they are looking for a body count, not a fight, and generally they fear capture. An active shooter is often a highly dramatic suicide. Every bit of delay is potentially a couple more dead victims.

Things like C8s, hard body armour, helmets, more members etc are value added. You use 'em if you've got 'em. I have a loaded C8, hard plates, and a helmet all within reach while I'm driving. Not everyone has those. Yes I would take the twenty or thirty seconds to equip, but then it's time to advance to contact. Th La Loche shooting was stopped by a single RCMP officer who confronted the shooter. In Orlando, a single police officer outside was able to make a few effective pistol shots at about 35yds when the shooter emerged onto the patio, that changed his behaviour from actively shooting to barricading. In many of the recent mass shootings it has been one or two officers entering ASAFP that have located the threat and stopped the mass killing.

As was pointed out below, these shootings are usually over very quick. I hear the 911 audio from Pulse- extremely rapid and continuous fire for a couple of minutes, after the shooter fired his way into the club. Within a minute or so a couple officers were on scene, he popped outside and was engaged, and then hunkered in a bathroom til he was killed in the final gunfight. In that couple of minutes of firing a catastrophic death toll was achieved. As responding police you just don't have time to wait. Go in, and others will catch up. The first couple officers may go in alone then meet up, but you will have contact and rescue teams assembling ad hoc and going in fast after that.

It's gonna be normal patrol cops doing this, nearly always (or nearby plainclothes members who hear the call and respond too). Some forces have part time SWAT who have their kit in their cars (e.g., Orlando), but unless your police service is fortunate to have tactical members on shift actively patrolling and ready to go in the right area, the shooter will liekly be confronted by whatever marked cars are in the vicinity. The training has to be pushed to all officers, as well as proper equipment.

A good video clip we often use at the start of our training- this is a 12 minute sequence from a TV show that was made based loosely on Montreal Police, showing a response to a school shooting. A lot of the uncertainty, panics, fears, and inanities are well captured in this. It's obviously still TV, the tactics don’t really reflect what we do, but it's not bad for the flavor of the situation and to put people into the headspace of what the training is for. Unfortunately the video cuts off at the end of the continuous shot, but the full episode can be found online and is quite good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhplhhnvPQs

 

[Pieman]

1) Bad training, and
2) Worse leadership

I'm not sure it's bad training, but simply expecting too much. Police officers are trained for dealing with the public, not urban combat (rightfully so). I mean this more in the psychological front than tactical, in that the Police are not the Army. They are not trained with the concept of unlimited liability. To expect someone who is unconditioned to suddenly waltz into a life/death situation alone is simply expecting too much IMHO. We all like to think that we would react to the situation properly and move in to kill the subject, but there are piles of human nature factors working against it.

 

[brihard]

I'm not sure it's bad training, but simply expecting too much. Police officers are trained for dealing with the public, not urban combat (rightfully so). I mean this more in the psychological front than tactical, in that the Police are not the Army. They are not trained with the concept of unlimited liability. To expect someone who is unconditioned to suddenly waltz into a life/death situation alone is simply expecting too much IMHO. We all like to think that we would react to the situation properly and move in to kill the subject, but there are piles of human nature factors working against it.

I respect your opinion on this... Unfortunately when these things happen, we're it. There isn't anyone else, not in the time that matters. It's gonna be the guys on the road who can be there fastest. You're right that there are a lot of human factors working against it, but nonetheless the expectation is there, as it must be. While police are not trained for 'urban combat', we aren't really talking about the same stuff there either - I'm a CAF Urban Ops Instructor too. Two quite different contexts. A military foe is going to behave and be handled very different from someone who is simply trying to rack up a high score of innocent lives.

We've been talking about active shooters generally in the case of the lone wingnut, or the guy who decides to kill a bunch of classmates. The ones who are looking for prey, not a fight. They are a relatively easy stop in the sense that they will probably be psychologically defeated with comparative ease and will likely not force the issue to be fought out to its conclusion.  On the flip side when we think of military or trained-militarized foes, they will trade lives, space, and time towards a larger military objective. We will unfortunately have to eventually content with the 'worst of both worlds'- active shooters who are motivated towards a final confrontation. The Dallas shooter is a sort of contemporary example of this in North America, though at least he was only gunning for cops. Europe and the Middle East have seen groups of armed militants who start as active threats, and then engage responding police in a deliberate fashion. I could imagine a worst case of a small group, a couple of whom continue actively killing in a fairly contained environment, while a couple others act as a 'rearguard' to engage responding police and buy more time for slaughter. The 2015 Paris attacks culminating in the shooting and siege at the Bataclan concert venue was perhaps the closest we've seen to this. In such a case, unfortunately the bad guys will potentially have abilities exceeding the ability of normal patrol officers to stop, and it may well be that a hasty attack by a rapidly assembled team of trained tactical officers ends up being the response. At least in this case it's most likely that such an attack will happen in a city that has established police tactical capabilities within the municipality, as opposed to say a city that is dependent upon an RCMP, OPP, or SQ tactical team that has to come in from out of town (e.g., the Moncton response).

Now, that said- most active threats are not terrorist in nature, or if they are are a so-called 'lone wolf' rather than an organized and trained cell. Police will be able to deal with this basically using what we have or are getting already. Attacks of a more complex nature have generally happened in European cities that are already quasi-militarized in the available resources to respond to a threat. We will probably see the American response to such events tested in the next few years, but Dallas, Orlando, and Vegas suggest that SWAT/tactical units capable of an effective response will probably be assembled pretty quickly.

Another 'flavour' of attack is Cop-hunting, like Dallas or Moncton. That's a still different beast entirely, but in the initial minutes will likely not be distinguishable from an active shooter. I won't dive further into this one at this time.

 

[mariomike]

To expect someone who is unconditioned to suddenly waltz into a life/death situation alone is simply expecting too much IMHO.

They ran up the stairs on 9/11. 343 City of New York firefighters and paramedics were killed in the Line of Duty that day.

As far as Active Shooter is concerned,

City sends unarmed firefighters and paramedics into ‘active shooter’ situations
https://nypost.com/2016/10/02/city-program-sends-unarmed-firefighters-and-emts-into-active-shooter-situations/

Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) Guide. July, 2016.
http://www.interagencyboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/IAB%20Active%20Shooter%20%26%20Hostile%20Event%20Guide.pdf
The optimal Rescue Task Force, with police protection, to active shooter incidents is one Paramedic Supervisor, 2 Paramedics and 4 Firefighters.

Although Toronto has had ETF aka SWAT Paramedics since 1996, any non-tactical Paramedic can be assigned to a Rescue Task Force at any time,
"Where Tactical Paramedics are not available, non-tactical Paramedics may be assigned to ETF ( aka SWAT ) police incidents."

Eaton Centre:
"On June 2, 2012, the Toronto Eaton Centre food court suddenly turned deadly when shots rang out and panicked diners went running for cover. Within a few minutes of the first 911 call, two superintendents and four paramedics were at the scene. These first responders immediately approached the basement-level food court, despite the risk to themselves. As they tended to the wounded - some of whom had life-threatening injuries - the paramedics had to duck for cover to avoid being caught in the continued gunfire."

Scarborough:
"On July 16, 2012, repeated gunfire erupted at a community celebration in east-end Toronto, resulting in multiple casualties. The four paramedics and two superintendents who arrived on the scene met a surge of panicked people running down the street. While police searched for the shooters - still at large - the paramedics set up triage and treatment areas, putting their personal safety at risk. When they later learned that a shooter was hiding in their midst, the paramedics discreetly alerted the police, who were able to make an arrest without further injury."

That was the worst mass shooting in the history of Toronto.

This was the SOP we operated under,

"Toronto Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

 

[Pieman]

All commendable acts. However, are they properly trained for it? Is it too much to expect with the training they are given?

What if they were alone, and had to go in by themselves? It's a lot harder to act in that situation.

 

[brihard]

All commendable acts. However, are they properly trained for it? Is it too much to expect with the training they are given?

What if they were alone, and had to go in by themselves? It's a lot harder to act in that situation.

In the case of police attending an active shooter and going in alone- yes, by and large we are trained for it. Again we aren't going up against a military enemy, we're probably going up against some messed up kid who will lock down, surrender, or suicide as soon as we make contact.

Even if we aren't as well trained or prepared as we would like to be, we generally have a better fighting chance than the other kids in the school, and that's what it boils down to.

 

[Pieman]

n the case of police attending an active shooter and going in alone- yes, by and large we are trained for it. Again we aren't going up against a military enemy, we're probably going up against some messed up kid who will lock down, surrender, or suicide as soon as we make contact.

Even if we aren't as well trained or prepared as we would like to be, we generally have a better fighting chance than the other kids in the school, and that's what it boils down to.

Got it, all good points on your end. I guess the question is what kind of training could be added to the police arsenal that would help them be more effective if they are expected to respond?

 

[FJAG]

A little out of context but apt:

Isaiah 6:8
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

:cheers:

 

[brihard]

A little out of context but apt:

:cheers:

Lesser known Isaiah 6:7,
And lo, the lord spoke and said "whom shall stand up and be counted willing for this poopy task?" And the numbers that hid in cubicles were eight, and the numbers that had a medical appointment were three, and the numbers that had more seniority and a vague prior engagement were six, and the numbers that were on course were two, and the numbers that were junior to me but more crafty and thus absent were also two, and I said "...crap" and I was sent

 

[brihard]

Got it, all good points on your end. I guess the question is what kind of training could be added to the police arsenal that would help them be more effective if they are expected to respond?

More practice of the training that we already receive. More simunition force on force. The hands and feet skills we learn are generally sufficient, but we cram it way too tightly and then don't use it enough. At least this is my organization. We have the benefit that everyone is mandated to be IARD and C8 trained, and both now form part of our recruit training, with most of the personnel in the field getting caught up now too.

 

[FJAG]

Lesser known Isaiah 6:7,
And lo, the lord spoke and said "whom shall stand up and be counted willing for this poopy task?" And the numbers that hid in cubicles were eight, and the numbers that had a medical appointment were three, and the numbers that had more seniority and a vague prior engagement were six, and the numbers that were on course were two, and the numbers that were junior to me but more crafty and thus absent were also two, and I said "...crap" and I was sent

:rofl:

 

[FJAG]

I posted this on Facebook in response to another comment.  Before I read Brihard's post here.

It was my best guess at the time.

I already sense that I need to correct at least one aspect of the post: specifically the value of a single pistol in changing the behaviour of the shooter.  I'd be appreciative of any other professional critiques.

My own overall sense is that once you have let a shooter within range of targets, after the first target falls there are going to be multiple others before any kind of response is possible.  Consequently the best prevention in this case is to keep weapons out of range of the targets and provide secure. armoured spaces for everybody else.

Not a critique but a consideration. In Canada, s 25(4) of the Criminal Code provides special protection to peace officers who use force in various circumstances. While protections do exist for others (self defence etc) the peace officer powers are wider. That said, an armed teacher (assuming they can even get the appropriate permits and permissions to carry a weapon into school) could find themselves in serious trouble if they use the weapon (and especially if an innocent bystander is injured or killed). One can off course change the laws but I think there would be no appetite within Canada to even give consideration to this.

Laws in the US vary widely (especially under Stand your Ground) and there is probably a greater appetite for changing laws to provide protection for teachers and other staff of a school to protect their children but that said, current Stand your Ground do not equate to peace officer status and more importantly, teacher training does not equate to peace officer training and experience. While on the surface the idea of a rapid armed response by staff to this type of situation seems attractive, the implementation of a reasonably safe system could be very difficult and inconsistent at best.

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

Reposting due to a technical error eliminating my previous effort. (Sunspots).  ;D

There is already provision in many jurisdictions for "part-time", "special duties" or "deputised" civilians to act as Law Enforcement Officers. Is there much to prevent willing teachers offering themselves as deputies?

And as to the willingness of officers to act....judgement calls will always be an issue.

The case of the Officer in Florida is instructive. Yes the FBI was notified - but communications failed. The local School Resource Officer was informed of concerns about the individual some 20 plus times and notified his superiors - but no action was take - because no action could be taken - because no crime had been committed and no mental health breaks had been identified. The Officer did not enter the school - but the SWAT team will not enter an active zone without a stack of 4 to 6 officers proceeding in an orderly fashion to separate shooters from victims and cover each others backs. One man with a pistol makes for a good movie but lousy tactics.

If the school needs a Quick Reaction Force on site then they need a dozen people (staff, teachers, security) living on the premises with access to weapons and protective gear and regularly exercised in moving through the school clearing the space. Equally the remainder of the school's population needs to be regularly exercised in drills so that they become as sick of them as they do fire, earthquake and tornado drills.

That might get the response time down to 4 minutes from 8 minutes and reduce the number of kills to the single digits from the double digits.

It won't prevent the problem.

I posted this on Facebook in response to another comment.  Before I read Brihard's post here.

It was my best guess at the time.

I already sense that I need to correct at least one aspect of the post: specifically the value of a single pistol in changing the behaviour of the shooter.  I'd be appreciative of any other professional critiques.

My own overall sense is that once you have let a shooter within range of targets, after the first target falls there are going to be multiple others before any kind of response is possible.  Consequently the best prevention in this case is to keep weapons out of range of the targets and provide secure. armoured spaces for everybody else.

 

[Kirkhill]

Response to FJAG.

I am not yet convinced of the value of an on-site QRF at every school.  To me it seems to make more sense that the school premises be secured and the zone around the school be actively patrolled.  I found it interesting when listening to Trump's discussion with the students and their parents that the mass-shooting problem seemed to be a suburban problem.  In DC the bigger problem is getting the kids to and from school and keeping them safe at home.  The school, in an active shooter zone, is actually a secure space because admission is controlled with guards, x-rays and scanners.  In suburbia everbody knows they live in a safe space so their kids don't need to be subjected to that kind of scary stuff.

Having said that, IF a QRF is required then I am wondering if, rather than arming civilians (teachers) then civilians that work at the school could be enrolled as special constables or even militiamen and be declared to be on duty while on the school grounds.

Another problem I have with armed presence in the halls is that the response is already too late if the weapon is in the school hallways.  Equally the response is already too late if the weapon is within 200 m of the parking lot when the buses are loading or 200 m of the playground during recess or phys-ed.

 

[Piece of Cake]

What happens to the teachers that refuse to be armed?

 

[FJAG]

To Chris Pook

I have to admit that I haven't really entered into any substantial part of this debate because, quite frankly, I have no solutions to offer.

While on the one hand, doing nothing seems inadequate, I don't want to see schools turned into Fort Apaches because every once in a while some nutcase wanders into one with a weapon and kills innocent children. I must admit that my most immediate response is that the shooter, if still alive, or his body, if dead, should immediately be taken to a public square and be flayed and drawn and quartered as a lesson to the others.

There used to be a time when you could get on an airplane without passing through any type of inspection. A few bombings later and we have an industry of over 57,000 people in the US alone doing just that. We have to have our bags inspected and go through body scanners to get into Disney World, court houses and numerous other institutions. Do we do schools next? The last statistics that I have for the number of schools in the US is that there were 98,200 public schools and 34,600 private schools. That's a lot of security staff needed.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

Quite frankly I think we have loaded enough fear onto our children. Obviously what's needed is a multi-faceted approach. If you can't reduce high powered small arms and large capacity magazines and the morons who are prepared to misuse them then all you can do is fortify the vulnerable points. The problem is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. There are so many semi automatic and full automatic rifles and high capacity magazines out there already that you will never get rid of them or even reduce them by a meaningful number--even if the various legislatures and courts could agree on that. Same for the morons (before anyone gets their dander up by morons I mean the idiots that do these shootings and not gun owners in general - I'm a gun owner myself) On the other hand, as you fortify one soft target, the idiots just move on to the next one.

I'm usually a "glass half full" kind of guy. Not on this issue.

:brickwall: