New Topical Paper -
Flight, Fight or Lockdown - Teaching Students and Staff to Attack Active
Shooters could Result in Decreased Casualties or Needless Deaths
There has been considerable interest in teaching students
and staff to attack active shooters as a last resort in recent years. In December of 2011, Steve Satterly and I
began research on a white paper designed to explore that benefits and the
potential dangers of training school employees and students to attack an active
shooter as a last resort option. This
approach has been highly controversial with many veteran law enforcement
officers and educators having opposing views on the practicality of this
approach.
There are now a number of training videos depicting various
tactics to attack a gunman with several of them being available for public
viewing on the Internet. Large numbers
of people are now viewing these videos and these concepts have now been taught
to children as young as kindergarten (in rare instances).
Proponents of the concept assert correctly that there have
been some instances where victims have been killed and wounded when they
remained relatively passive when they were confronted by an active
shooter. They propose that by teaching
people these concepts, a group of individuals can overpower a gunman as has
already occurred as far back as the late 1990’s. They feel that by training groups of staff
and students on this approach, another option will be available to students and
staff who find themselves confronted by an active shooter in a classroom,
cafeteria, auditorium or other setting.
Those who have expressed concern about this approach point
out that some of the concepts being taught might be appropriate for one
situation but could result in needless mass casualty losses in another type of
situation. For example, one recent
training video instructs viewers that they should always flee the building if
they hear gunfire and have the opportunity to do so. As victims have already been killed when
attempting to do this in past events, this concern may have some validity. In addition, blanket recommendations of this
type could prove deadly if numerous people attempt to flee the building at the
same time. For example, if there are
several hundred people on each floor of a building and a shooting occurs on the
sixth floor, several hundred people could jam stairwells fleeing floors five,
six and seven creating a mass of densely packed victims. Another concern is that people who leave
relatively secure lockdown areas may be shot as they attempt to flee instead of
simply locking down which may be a better option for their particular situation. It is important to remember that lockdowns
have been successfully preventing serious injury and death in schools for more
than forty years.
Steve and I worked tirelessly for more than a year to review
numerous campus shooting situations as well as the findings of more than 1,700
school crisis simulations with 500 different school employees from 15 different
school districts. The paper also draws conclusions
from seven different multiple victim school shootings as well as many more
campus weapons assaults that did not involve active shooters in the United
States and Canada.
The paper is designed to stimulate further dialogue on the
topic rather than to condemn the idea that there are situations where victims
should fight back when they are trapped by an active shooter. In addition to providing examples of cases
where people have successfully stopped an active shooter incident, the paper
raises a number of considerations that the authors feel have been overlooked as
attempts to offer new options to help counter the dangers of active shooters.
Mike Dorn 
Our Forum On
No comments:
Post a Comment