tfrazier wrote:For those who feel the men in the room were cowards when they didn't "take advantage" of the opportunity the gal with the purse gave them, consider how big the bad guy was and the way he simply brushed her off like a fly.
Having had to wrestle men that size to the ground before (with the help of a half-dozen or so fellow LEOs), I can tell you that even had all six of the men in the room piled on immediately there still was a good chance the nut-case would have retained his gun and likely injured or killed one or more of them. It would have been like six ticks on a water buffalo.
At the end the big guy didn't go down until several rounds had been pumped into him and even then he managed to spray the place with numerous shots.
I think those guys were wise to stay in their seats under the circumstances. Had they jumped him when the little lady attacked they may well have gotten her killed as well as themselves. The bad guy was obviously pumped on adrenaline if nothing else.
I have a respectful difference of opinion here.
The gunman had already announced that he was going to die today. The fact that he was pointing a gun at the Board members instead of shooting himself at home was a pretty good indication he didn't plan to go alone. At that point, counterattack is the best survival option, and the biggest decision is selecting the best opportunity. The lady with the purse created the opportunity, but the other board members, who were clearly talkers and not doers, let that window of opportunity pass. Even when they saw their colleague was clearly in danger of being shot, and the gunman's attention was fully concentrated on her, they stayed in their seats like kids at an action flick. I think ignorance of the dynamics of violence was more in play than lack of courage, although it can sometimes be difficult to separate the two. In any case, these folks are very lucky to still be alive.
As Tfrazier points out, bringing a big guy down is hard without training - and it's not much easier with training. Attacking the legs first, especially the knee joint, to disrupt balance is generally more effective than attacking the torso, but untrained folks wouldn't know that. Officers making an arrest would refrain from doing that because of the severe injury that often results and other options, like control through multiple officers, are available. As KD5NRH points out, a defender in a life threatening situation doesn't have the same options or restraints.
The priority in this situation was to immobilize and remove the gun, and the lady had effectively done the immobilization part for a couple of seconds. The opportunity for the others to step in and carry the counterattack momentum was wide open but fleeting - lasting only a few seconds. A little help applied to the gun hand could have removed the threat or turned it on the offender. When the gunman regained control and shifted his focus back to the board, that window of opportunity was past and he kept his distance much better with the podium between himself and the board members, making a similar attack much more difficult.
Studies of active shooter situations show that far more such events are ended by unarmed civilians at the scene than are stopped by responding police - largely because in the time frame of 8 minutes or less from first shot to last, it is almost impossible for officers not at the scene to be notified, travel to the site, locate the offender, and act effectively.
It is not an accident that major active shooter incidents almost always occur in suburban or rural environments, where people who are not routinely exposed to violence have drunk the kool aid that one should remain passive under threat of violence and the nice insane killer who came with the intent to murder them won't hurt them because they're such nice, gentle folks and aren't any threat to him. The school board members in the Panama City case typify how such people behave. When the superintendent sees the gun pointed directly at him and senses the gunman's decision to fire, instead of moving he sits stock still and says, "Please don't." Only the gunman's poor gun handling and marksmanship skills saved his life. These types of folks make highly cooperative victims who ensure the success of violence directed against them.
It is also not an accident that active shooter events are extremely rare in major cities with populations over 2 million (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.). Many of the folks in these places are no strangers to violence, and they understand instinctively that a vicious and committed counterattack is the only viable option when someone is actively trying to kill them. These folks respond to such situations with explosive violence, and many carry weapons that they know how to use, regardless of legal prohibitions against that practice. They also are quick to recognize and use improvised weapons effectively. These people can be counted on not only to not be cooperative victims, but to be major credible threats to the attacker himself. Not everyone in these places fits this profile by any means, but there are enough that they serve as an effective deterrent to this type of activity because success is far from assured, and assured success is what active shooters plan for.
A key element here is the defender's considered decision made long before an incident that if one is confronted with this situation, he or she will counterattack with ferocity and tenacity and prevail. This shortens the OODA cycle to the point where effective action in the tiny time windows such opportunities present can be acted upon before the window closes.
