Active Shooter Response - Thought Experiment

[qsy]

I think (and this is an opinion from a non-first responder) that engaging an active shooter is a "lesser of two evils" act. The chance of being engaged by LEO or another CCW is quite high in an active situation. It would be similar to CQB with everyone dressed the same. To do nothing would be unforgivable, but if there are other "good guys" around they are going to engage based on a "snapshot" analysis in a very fluid, chaotic scene. Bottom line, you gotta do what you gotta do.

[twadsw01]

***I composed this post before gsy and 26Inf posted their responses above. If I'd read y'all's responses before hitting 'post', I'd have responded differently. But I'll leave this here for posterity.

Look, guys, this topic is almost canonical at this point in terms of what you hear law enforcement personnel talk about when non-LEO involvement in an active shooter scenario comes up in conversation. So, likely or not, it's a topic that at least some professionals find germane when it comes to being involved in active shooter events. I've seen it probably a dozen times on different forums, including more LEO-oriented forums than this one. It seems like that alone would indicate that it's something worthy of thought/discussion.

Point is, how can this be made a less risky (from the standpoint of being killed by 'good guys') activity from the perspective of the non-LEO, and from the perspective of the LEO who may very well be responsible for shooting a non-LEO 'good guy'.

[twadsw01]

There is no way to positively answer your questions regarding litigation, either criminal, or civil, because each cause is different. Some people will say that law enforcement officers get a pass because the courts have long recognized that the incidents in which officers are called to get involved in often involve split second decisions. The case that most directly points that out is the case of Graham v. Connor. In that case the Supreme Court specifically states that because of these split second decisions, officers are not to be held to the standard of 20/20 hindsight, but must be judged from the aspect of a reasonable officer at the scene and their actions must be objectively reasonable when viewed in that context.

Thanks a lot for taking time to respond, 26. Question: would a non-LEO's actions/decisions post-shooting be dealt with in the same manner as that of the LEO, as you described above? That is, would the actions of a non-LEO be evaluated to the same standard as that of an LEO?

[G22inSC]

"Do you, as a civilian, have a very good chance of being engaged by taking action with a firearm in an active shooter situation?" YES

You are talking a highly stressed, chaotic, loud, dangerous situation. Chances are it will probably be over by the time the first responding officer is on scene, unless they have officers on scene at the onset for that location. It is sad to say, but in that situation you are not guaranteed to have the most seasoned, accurate officer on scene. You will have every available officer responding and may encounter a non gun guy, who rides a desk and in holsters his pistol on qual days. Every year I see someone in active shooter training who "shoots" another known responding officer before they realize it was a good guy.

Bottom line, you are taking a great risk that only you can make.

[twadsw01]

Alright, from this point forward, no one is asking this question - I thought it was assumed in my initial post. Yes, it's risky. Yes, by straight implication that means a non-LEO responder is likely to be shot. Got it. Please re-read post #12 and subsequent posts for clarification as to what questions are being asked and the nature of this discussion.

Thank you for your response.

"Do you, as a civilian, have a very good chance of being engaged by taking action with a firearm in an active shooter situation?" YES

You are talking a highly stressed, chaotic, loud, dangerous situation. Chances are it will probably be over by the time the first responding officer is on scene, unless they have officers on scene at the onset for that location. It is sad to say, but in that situation you are not guaranteed to have the most seasoned, accurate officer on scene. You will have every available officer responding and may encounter a non gun guy, who rides a desk and in holsters his pistol on qual days. Every year I see someone in active shooter training who "shoots" another known responding officer before they realize it was a good guy.

Bottom line, you are taking a great risk that only you can make.

[G22inSC]

Point is, how can this be made a less risky (from the standpoint of being killed by 'good guys') activity from the perspective of the non-LEO, and from the perspective of the LEO who may very well be responsible for shooting a non-LEO 'good guy'.

You can't. Let's look at two scenarios...

1. You find yourself in an active shooter situation. You draw and engage the lone shooter thus saving numerous lives who are all running and screaming out of the area. LE arrives on scene and approaches you (with a holstered weapon) afterward. You make it home at some point in the distant future.

or...

2. You find yourself in the same active shooter situation. You draw and engage or begin to engage the lone shooter as LE arrives and is pushing through the running and screaming crowd. LE turns the corner and sees you with weapon drawn. LE is screaming "loud, verbal commands" to you; however, you don't notice them arriving in the chaos and you definitely don't hear them yelling over the running, screaming crowd. Add to the fact that you see the shooter around the corner, but LE is unable to see him and only sees YOU with a drawn or firing weapon. You are not responding to their "loud, verbal commands." I hate it for you, your family, the officer and the officer's family because you will probably not make it home ever again and everyone involved with have to live with that.

There is a reason LE is wearing very obvious uniforms for identification. Off-duty officers on scene will have badges that will not do much, but it's better than only civilian clothing. Off-duty officers are also aware of this and most that would be armed and take action off-duty are the more "aware" ones who will really be looking for responding officers.

I'm in no way saying you should or should not take action in this kind of situation. I am a firm believer in concealed carry for permit holders. I'm just saying know what you're getting into.

[jpmuscle]

Going along with what g22 said it's another possibility that in the chaos any fleeing civilians may wrongly ID you to LE as the actual threat if their scared sh*tless, which they will be. So if I were making entry and moving to your location and random people are saying bad guy is wearing xyz or dispatch is relaying the same based in incoming 911 calls and that description matches you because they never saw the bad guy. The potential for a bad outcome is significant.

Honestly, best thing I think you could do is work cover/concealment to your advantage and get comms somehow to LE to advise them your a friendly. If your actively taking incoming then you just gotta make the best of it.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[twadsw01]

Okay. So, do you think - knowing that, when arriving on the scene of an in-progress active shooting in the United States of America, that one or more concealed carriers could possibly be present and engaging the active shooter - that the standards by which LEO evaluate the scene they arrive at for shoot/no-shoot decisions should be modified to reflect the reality that there are likely to be other good guys with guns in civilian clothing, and to possibly afford additional protection for non-LEO?

I know this idea has been floated before in various places, but perhaps it has some merit to it (or more than I've seen it given the past): CHP "badges", or maybe CHP "sash" of some kind. You mention that badges carried by off-duty police officers have the potential to buy them some sort of good-guy identification in the moment, and possibly save them from being shot by another good guy.

My initial thought in composing my original post up there is that, if there are shoot/no-shoot criteria for LEO that would potentially allow them to kill non-LEO good guys in an active shooter scenario, then maybe their shoot/no-shoot criteria should be updated to reflect the fact that we do in fact live in a society where we can lawfully bear (and use) arms, and are likely to be doing so in an active shooter scenario. Does this make sense?

You bring an interesting additional angle into it by adding to your scenario that the (presumably) non-LEO is ignoring verbal commands issued by the LEO. My knee jerk reaction to this is that I don't feel that ignoring verbal commands in this case justifies deadly force being applied by the LEO. It seems more reasonable to me that if the unknown person (to the LEO) were to present their weapon to him in a threatening way, then that would certainly justify deadly force.

Do we believe that a non-LEO facing a plain-clothes LEO (both yielding firearms) would be treated similarly in court to the LEO were the non-LEO to shoot the LEO?

You can't. Let's look at two scenarios...
2. You find yourself in the same active shooter situation. You draw and engage or begin to engage the lone shooter as LE arrives and is pushing through the running and screaming crowd. LE turns the corner and sees you with weapon drawn. LE is screaming "loud, verbal commands" to you; however, you don't notice them arriving in the chaos and you definitely don't hear them yelling over the running, screaming crowd. Add to the fact that you see the shooter around the corner, but LE is unable to see him and only sees YOU with a drawn or firing weapon. You are not responding to their "loud, verbal commands." I hate it for you, your family, the officer and the officer's family because you will probably not make it home ever again and everyone involved with have to live with that.

There is a reason LE is wearing very obvious uniforms for identification. Off-duty officers on scene will have badges that will not do much, but it's better than only civilian clothing. Off-duty officers are also aware of this and most that would be armed and take action off-duty are the more "aware" ones who will really be looking for responding officers.

[twadsw01]

Okay - it's not the first time I've heard of the idea, but I'd sense forgotten about it - I really like the idea of calling in an attempt to notify arriving officers that you're a good guy, wearing XYZ, and have a firearm. This seems like the best practical advice I've heard so far about this. I'd hope that this information would be disseminated quickly and go a long way towards helping LEO positively identify you as a good guy instead of shooting you.

[G22inSC]

This is from an iPhone so it won't be long and detailed. I'm not going to get into LE tactics on an open forum on the internet. I'm not trying to be rude but bad guys do research as well. You are asking a lot of what ifs and ideas and scenarios that would just have to be dealt with in court.

In reference to your one remark about a CWP holder not answering LE verbal commands in an active shooter situation and LE needing to change criteria in a shoot or no shoot decision, all I will say is that is why I'm saying to know what you're getting yourself into. I would hope that LE notices the shooter or realizes you are not the shooter but there is no guarantee. You are in an active shooter situation and LE is going straight to the threat so make sure you don't look like the threat.