Closing the Submarine Door

Safe Havens International

In the ongoing school safety discussion on the best way to respond to Active Shooter Incidents, Mike Dorn has developed an analogy that he has used to show the importance of the critical first thirty seconds.

When a submarine submerges, a delay in securing a compartment door can prove disastrous for a submarine.

When an Active Shooter Incident begins, quick responses can save lives, slower responses can prove disastrous.

A New Topical Paper Being Released

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

The paper can be downloaded HERE.

Facebook

Our Forum On

Run! Hide! Fight! A Response to City of Houston's Thoughts on Active Shooters

Michael Dorn emailed me a link to a video made by the City of Houston, with funding from the Department of Homeland Security.  The purpose of the video is to instruct people in the workplace on what to do in an Active Shooter Incident.  They boil it down to three main responses: Run, hide, or fight.

As I watched the video, I was impressed by it's quality, and by the desire of those who made it to protect others.  I therefore applaud their effort, and thank them for the time and energy spent in its making.

That being said, I have a tactical issue with the 'run' part of their instructions.  Eight of my twelve years in the US Army were spent in the Infantry.  One of the things we were taught was that, when ambushed, you charge the ambush.  Thus, if a person barges into my school and begins shooting, my personal choice would be to go to the shooting.  That's not my problem with the video.

My problem is with running when you don't know what the situation is.  Even with my training, it is difficult to determine where a shot came from, and blindly running at the sound of a shot may send you right into the sights of the shooter.  This happened more than once at Columbine.

We need to teach people how not to give into panic, and how to properly react to a shooter.  Assess the situation, make the right call, and know where you're running too.  The seconds spent doing this could mean the difference between life and death.

The same is true with hiding.  It is rare for an Active Shooter to force a locked door.  They are often moving quickly, seeking targets of opportunity.  At Red Lake, MN, the shooter did force his way in, but in many cases, classes were able to get out of a back door.  Hiding places need to have a means of escape.

Another thing I learned in the Infantry was the difference between 'cover' and 'concealment'.  One can hide using concealment, but it won't protect you from gunfire.  If your hiding place offers you cover, concealment, AND an escape route, then you have a good hiding place.

The key is that people should use this video as a starting point for their thoughts on preparing for violence in the workplace.  Spend some time NOW, thinking of what you would do, and those memories will be ready for you IF it ever happens.

Thanks to the City of Houston for making this video.  It's a scary topic, and an important one to discuss.

It's a Sheepdog thing to do.

Facebook

Our Forum On

If You See Something; Say Something

Law Enforcement Today
In Maryland, swift action by the police circumvented the intentions of a man planning an Active Shooter Incident (ASI).   Neil Prescott, a subcontractor for the Pitney Bowes Corporation, was arrested without incident wearing a t-shirt which read, “Guns don’t kill people. I do.”  Prescott, of Crofton, Maryland, who was fired from the Pitney Bowes mailroom, had made threatening phone calls to the business referring to himself as “the Joker.”

Media reports suggest that the incident in Maryland is a possible copycat incident of the Aurora tragedy which occurred just over one week ago. An educated look at available information suggests otherwise.

Read more at the link above.