Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matt Larsen's avatar

Excellent article. Thank you.

Chris Leblanc's avatar

Claiming evidence-based and being evidence-based are two different things.

I would be really curious to dial this out a little: not just to what are generally considered "active shooter events" but incidents where subjects initiate the shooting - in other words, warrant service, traffic stops, hostage incidents, etc. and the suspect starts shooting.

My sense is the numbers may be quite similar - not only from knowing the kinds of human dynamics that occur in these events, but personal experience being shot myself during a crisis entry on a hostage rescue situation that turned out to be an ambush. The suspect had already been "actively" shooting at officers who surrounded the location attempting to take him in on warrants, including starting shooting at them outside from within the residence (though no one was hit).

I also have a sense that the reason officers are so effectively engaged on the outside is related to ambush-like circumstances: arriving responders are unaware of the suspect's location, so the suspect is not being psychologically pressured by having officers with guns oriented specifically towards him (usually him). So he gets some "free shots" when they stop, get out of the car, or pause and wait outside the location, or when they start approaching (especially if they do so in the old "ducks in a row" tactical" manner). That speaks to "invisible deployment" being a consideration during active shooting response, not simply on cold calls. I was taught this in FTO, but I don't know its still being instructed much.

100% agreement on the medical. That is in fact direct proof that changing, adapting, and developing training programs that actually are evidence-based has powerful downstream effects.

No posts

Ready for more?