Thanks, oddball and whoever else read some critical elements of the original scenario. By stating that there were several simultaneous active shooter events in progress elsewhere, that the officer was the only one responding, and that there were at least two shooters in the school (a rare event), I was trying to get across the threat that’s been mentioned in other threads recently of a Mumbai-type mass terrorist attack. That incident involved numerous terrorists carrying out coordinated separate attacks and lasted four days. If you’re not familiar with the incident, it’s what several members here have referenced in other discussions.


Before going further, I’ll state my own position: Despite having someone to provide daily in home care for, I would back up the officer in the scenario. I have no death wish, and far from it, but to reject what I felt was necessary for me to do would be rejecting principles I’ve tried to live by my entire adult life.

But many people have mentioned certain considerations that would affect their decision that I’ll discuss briefly just for general information.

School lockdowns are no guarantee that dedicated, properly-equipped attackers could not find victims. Our local high school that was built a few years ago has door-sized glass panels next to all classroom and admin office doors. Locking the door and hiding is better than nothing, but it wouldn’t be difficult for a determined attacker to get through. Having given the matter literally years of thought, I have come up with more than a few ideas that haven’t been employed by any murderers yet, but I’ll leave it at that.

“It will be over in minutes.” That’s true of most active killer events because most of the time the police will be there in minutes. In my small rural county, there is sometimes one patrol LEO on duty, and could be 20 minutes or more away. In the scenario I described, where are most of the officers in the area going to be? At the first reported active shooter event.

If you’re worried about being killed by the other police when they do arrive, and you should be, you should be worried about being killed by a concealed carrying bystander or off-duty LEO if you get involved in any deadly force incident. If the situation described lasted long enough and depending on the part of the country, there’s a high chance that armed parents would show up to try to rescue their children as happened at Beslan. And I too must really wonder why the threat of being killed by the police is believed greater for so many people in the described scenario than the dangers posed by the murderers.

Notify dispatch. Perhaps some jurisdictions have battalions of 911 operators on duty and the lines for them to service, but in other places even things like train wrecks have resulted in massive overload of the emergency services lines. Even if you get through to an operator, the chance that your description with your location and what you’re doing will be passed on to the officers who finally respond to your location is miniscule, not to mention if they will even pay attention to it. A radio call from the officer you’re with might do better, but again it’s very unlikely that all officers will get the word. Although I don’t believe there were any friendly fire incidents at Sandy Hook, one of the after action complaints was about all the unidentified officers running around carrying guns in plain clothes.

The Mumbai incident involved 10 terrorists. The chance that something like that would be carried out at all in this country is very unlikely. The chance that if it were it would happen anywhere close to any one of us is far more unlikely. The question wasn’t predicated on how likely we would ever find ourselves in the scenario described, but rather to try to get some feel for fundamental attitudes. I unfortunately don’t have the figures from the 2009 poll, but I seem to recall that the “yes” percentage then was somewhat greater than the yes responses now. Again, though, thanks for all responses. The discussion has been enlightening.

I voted yes for the situation you poised. To me that sounds like a no brainer. Multiple active situations at the same time, only one uniformed officer available at your location? Hell yeah I am going in.

Now, for something more realistic for me. Small town with one school right out my back door. I checked after seeing the poll this AM and the main building is 107 yards from my backdoor according to range finder. There are usually 4ish cops on duty during day shift, including one at the school. All cops would be here in less than 3 minutes from the first 911 call.

So, if there was an active shooting situation at school while I was at home eating lunch or something then my first response is to call 911 and get help on the way. Then I am grabbing my rifle and ammo, opening my back gate so people have another route to safety and setting up in a defensive position to help protect the kids and staff who are fleeing.

YMMV.

“Do I follow her in”
Based on the original scenario, absolutely.

If you look at many of these active shooting events, the shooters enter the building and begin moving through the interior, shooting as they go. Which gives time for LE to respond, contain them and engage them. Often they kill themselves just as LE makes contact.
A far deadlier scenario is when the shooters sneak weapons inside a building, then open fire and shoot as they move out of the building. Which makes an effective LE intervention that much more difficult. And takes the shooter suicide out of the equation.
Be glad that more of these nuts have not figured out they have a far great chance of survival if their shoot way out, as opposed to shooting their way in. In a shoot as they move out scenario, a rapid response is the only hope of getting the upper hand.

Would like to say yes to taking a inital part at the begining but in reality would probably hold back and provide cover for someone trying to escape or cover for more responding officers if I could be assured that the responding officers had been informed as to my presence. ...................................... drill sgt.

I mentioned lockdowns with respect to "As students and staff are fleeing the building and screaming..." because the reality in my county is that all schools in my county would go on lock down in your scenario. The majority of schools in my county are designated hurricane shelters, so laminated glass on all entrances.

All of the schools are surrounded be 6' chain link fences. Getting into the parking lot on a normal day, requires showing an ID to get the staff to open the gate. You then have to walk up to the front door and show an ID again to get them to unlock the door. There's security cameras as well. The high schools have deputies during school hours. I met one within a minute after pulling in the wrong entrance a month and a half ago.

quote:

School lockdowns are no guarantee that dedicated, properly-equipped attackers could not find victims.

You could say that about any layered security methods. Every layer of security is there to slow attackers down until an appropriate response arrives. I'd make the case that students have a better chance of survival staying inside a locked classroom than trying to flee the building even if the attackers were in the building. The classroom hallways are concrete block and the doors are commercial security type doors. The other option, having all the students flee the building down long hallways leading to three possible exits just puts them right in the line of fire. It also makes them great targets from the outside as they leave the building which is why I mentioned no one leaves immediately when the fire alarm goes off, but rather waits until they receive a message that it's a real fire alarm.

I answered #3.

I'm not a full-of-bravado kind of guy. I can't imagine me saying no. Unthinkable. Of course I would go help to save children. I understand every argument against, but I'd possibly have run in before I saw the cop.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I answered #3.

I am not surprised.

Based on the scenario, I'd go.

My original response was below, I hadn't read the full post.

Yes, given the circumstances, I would lend whatever assistance I could.


Rationally, no, I wouldn't want to complicate matters for the respondents on site.


———————
I do not know Law Enforcement tactics and procedures and would be just another concern/distraction ripe for blue on blue.

Would a civilian involved slow the progress and give more time for the killer to kill?

quote:

“Do I follow her in”

Of course!

Bob

A much-quoted attitude, even if fiction, appeals to my approach to life:

"When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home."- Chief Tecumseh

I responded yes, and maybe I have an odd view on why. I’ve attended a respected training course where we went through a shoot house, with the stated goal to clear it without shooting any innocents. Out of the whole class, not one of the civilians made it through without “dying”.
We also had two active LEOs, one retired LEO with decades of experience, and a federal agent in the class. None of them made it through either. I learned that clearing a building by yourself when there are shooters inside is a really bad idea. So yeah, I’m going to help the solo cop try and save children.

I don't like the circumstance described, I think I would be more useful in directing arriving leos and assisting in the evac of innocents. But I would have no issue coming to the aid of any cop, especially in a physical struggle.

There are some replies that assume fear of death in those saying no. There’s a difference between being afraid of death and not wanting a purposeless death. Stepping in front of a bus isn’t bravery. Also, I know many people that aren’t afraid of dying but will not ever cause a death under any circumstance. They would probably assist but not with a firearm.

We aren't "supporting" the police while they do the dirty work, we ARE the police and they may not even show up. We've developed a complete 180 in considering our roles in self defense of our society - before 1840 there were no police, and even at their start they were armed with whistles to gather The Armed Public to do their duty.

We've got it all backward now, but the tactics don't change - we just have to help our employees not shoot us. And we are not immune from making the exact same mistakes - a man with a gun turns the corner and comes down the hall just may be another Dad there responding, too.

It’s a valid observation that the police are the employees of the rest of us, but it’s also true that the rest of us have given them the express legal authority and power to do things the rest of us may not legally do. That sort of express authority isn’t limited to the police (licensed physicians can prescribe narcotics, for example), but it’s very obvious with them.

As for my comment about “willing suspension of disbelief,” that’s not in reference to our suddenly becoming more capable of dealing with the situation, but things like whether the officer would accept our help. When surveys reveal that many LEOs are more afraid of being sued than being shot, it wouldn’t be surprising if an officer in my scenario responded with, “What? Are you crazy? My sergeant would have my ass if I let a civilian assist in a situation like this. You need to leave the area now, and I’d better not see any guns.” Sometimes, though, it’s useful to stretch our imaginations and think about the improbable.

Well its kind of cheating for me but I'm in. I'll tell her I stayed at a holiday inn express last night and we go in together. Everyone has to make their own decision but here are my reasonably educated thoughts on it.

Actual active threat is typically over by the time the cavalry comes. The odds of us closing with and stopping bad guy before other cavalry arrives are reasonable and I'm with said uniformed officer. Every second of us not entering is someone else's dead loved one. Or mine. I have the training and relative experience. Lastly but perhaps most universal, I'll be damned if I could have stopped it and I did not. On or off the clock I'm making entry if its active.

As a side note for this folks, get some good medical training. Everyone wants to think just about stopping bad guy and no ones going to know what to do when your staring at a little kid with a hole in his chest next to a dead bad guy. After BG is down and stopped or if there's already a contact team that has entered and stopped the threat it sure would be nice if someone could run around and give the victims a better chance at the golden hour.

In a rural setting, yes. In a large metropolitan area, no. I'm a retired LEO and you're probably going to get into a fratricide situation with large/multiple agency responses.