Gunman dead after opening fire at Florida school meeting

[tfrazier]

They were civilians...not trained or expected to respond to this threat. Just seems awfully unfair to call them cowards when it was fairly obvious the BG had all the advantage and they couldn't count on the other victims to respond in concert.

[Beiruty]

They were civilians...not trained or expected to respond to this threat. Just seems awfully unfair to call them cowards when it was fairly obvious the BG had all the advantage and they couldn't count on the other victims to respond in concert.

At least they had to scatter in a flash!

[Excaliber]

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.

[mgood]

I agree with Excaliber, as usual.

"A vicious and committed counterattack" even against very long odds, is better than sitting there waiting for him to start executing us.

Excaliber menionted OODA.
When the woman attacked the big guy, that gave a small window of opportunity. But I think that by the time anyone on the board went through the OODA cycle and thought "Here's our chance!" That window had already closed.
It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback from the safety of my computer chair, but I like to think that from the moment the gun was pulled, I'd be sitting there looking for an opportunity. "If he'll just turn away, if he can be distracted for a moment . . . " is what would be going through my head. (I play "what if" games with myself constantly. If I'd been to a couple of meetings, I'd have already considered "What would I do if someone came in here and pulled a gun on us?" My plan might not be the best, but I'd HAVE A PLAN other than sitting there hoping to not get shot.) I'm 5'7" and 200, younger than the board members but not quite what I was 20-some years ago, and not near large enough to just tackle the big dude. But if I'm sitting there waiting for an opportunity, and the woman hitting him from behind gives me one, I'd try to explode out of the chair and attack the gun hand/arm. Try to knock the gun away, and failing that, hang on like I've got a tiger by the tail, trying to pin the gun long enough for some of the others to pile on (wishful thinking maybe, but when that's all you got . . . )
Now, whether I'd have really done that or just sat there and made a mess in my pants, I don't know, having never been in a situation like that.

[Excaliber]

I agree with Excaliber, as usual.

"A vicious and committed counterattack" even against very long odds, is better than sitting there waiting for him to start executing us.

Excaliber menionted OODA.
When the woman attacked the big guy, that gave a small window of opportunity. But I think that by the time anyone on the board went through the OODA cycle and thought "Here's our chance!" That window had already closed.
It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback from the safety of my computer chair, but I like to think that from the moment the gun was pulled, I'd be sitting there looking for an opportunity. "If he'll just turn away, if he can be distracted for a moment . . . " is what would be going through my head. (I play "what if" games with myself constantly. If I'd been to a couple of meetings, I'd have already considered "What would I do if someone came in here and pulled a gun on us?" My plan might not be the best, but I'd HAVE A PLAN other than sitting there hoping to not get shot.) I'm 5'7" and 200, younger than the board members but not quite what I was 20-some years ago, and not near large enough to just tackle the big dude. But if I'm sitting there waiting for an opportunity, and the woman hitting him from behind gives me one, I'd try to explode out of the chair and attack the gun hand/arm. Try to knock the gun away, and failing that, hang on like I've got a tiger by the tail, trying to pin the gun long enough for some of the others to pile on (wishful thinking maybe, but when that's all you got . . . )
Now, whether I'd have really done that or just sat there and made a mess in my pants, I don't know, having never been in a situation like that.

This is the type of thinking that allows one to recognize a deadly situation for what it is right away, and to effectively exploit any opportunity to end it. There are no guarantees of success, but allowing an attack to proceed unimpeded is as close to a guarantee of failure as you can get.

An often overlooked piece of our plans is the need to take command and enlist the help of others. About 80% of people in such a situation will do nothing without leadership direction. Airline cabin crews are trained to shout clear, short orders at people to shake them up and get them moving instead of just sitting in their seats during an emergency.

If no one else is acting, you become the designated leader. Sharp commands like "Grab his legs!" "Push him over!" "Sit on his shoulders!" can galvanize them out of their locked OODA loops and enable them to do what's needed to help. We may need to initiate action alone, but we don't have to do everything without help. This consideration should be part of every sheepdog's repertoire of plans.

[OldSchool]

Regarding the lady who tried to disrupt the shooter with her purse. I've read a lot of comments on other gun boards (and a few here) that it would have been better had she had a gun and used it. While I don't disagree with that sentiment, I'm curious from a legal perspective (assuming this had happened in TX) if she would have been justified in shooting the man at that point? He was waving a gun around and I can't recall if he had threatened to shoot anyone yet. Even if he had verbally threatened, is that enough? Would her justification have been preventing attempted murder?

Obviously, once he fired a shot, it's game time and you do what the security guard did. But at any point earlier, would a preemptive use of deadly force by a CHL holder put him/her in legal jeopardy for this situation?

Maybe jumping in too early (I haven't read through the entire thread yet, so apologies if it has already been mentioned).
In Texas law, "Threat of force is force," including non- and deadly force, with an appropriate response. Roughly speaking, once someone threateningly (my term; the context of the incident always makes me concerned) exhibits a firearm or other threat, then "it's game time."

[mgood]

Pulling a gun in that meeting isn't like showing your friends "Hey, check out my new pistol." When the gun came out, it was a threat of deadly force. I believe a person would have been justified in sniping him in the back from the hallway off to the side. I don't know whether or not that would be the best course of action before at least attempting some sort of de-escalation. But I doubt a jury in Texas would convict. . . . I doubt a grand jury would indict. . . . I might be a little surprised if the person was even arrested.

[LAYGO]

It is not my job to be police, or arbiter of arguments ... my job is to defend my life (and the lives of my loved ones) only. Anyway ... my 2 cents worth.

This raises a concern for me.

Yes, I know a CHL does not equal a batman license, but I would HOPE, & would hope OTHERS would hope, that if someone saw me in harms way that they'd react & try to help. It must be something about how I raised. Nothing specific in how I was raised, but my Dad was a medic in Vietnam for 5 years and my Mom was a paramedic for over 20. Some where it got instilled to me to walk towards the fire rather than away from it.

That same mentality is what tore me up emotionally about 9/11. If I was in NYC, I would be going up those stairs rather than down them.

I can't explain it, but some people have "it" & some people don't (in terms of wanting to help others).