A couple months ago I posted about NFPA 3000: Standard for Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response Program. Soon after posting, I ended up purchasing a copy of the standard and, combined with other readings and discussions, am fully bought into not only this standard but a change in our lexicon for this type of incident.
First off, in regard to NFPA 3000, it’s not rocket science. There is nothing in this standard that is earth shattering or itself wholly changing to what we do or how we do it. But that’s not the intent of NFPA standards. NFPA technical committees compile standards based upon best practices in the field. The standards they create are just that – standards. They are a benchmark for reference as we apply the principles contained therein. NFPA 3000 provides solid guidance that everyone in EM/HS should be paying attention to.
What NFPA 3000 has helped me realize is that our focus has been wrong for a while. Terrorism isn’t necessarily the thing we need to be preparing for. Why?
First, let’s look at what is generally referenced definition of terrorism in the United States. This comes from Title 22 Chapter 38 US Code § 2656f. It states that terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents’. Note that the definition focuses on motive more than action or consequence. While motive is very important in prevention/intelligence and prosecution, it is far less important to most preparedness, response, and recovery activities.
The term ‘active shooter’ has been used quite a bit, yet it’s not a good description of what communities and responders can face when we consider that perpetrators could use means and methods instead of or in addition to firearms. We’ve seen a wide variety of these instances that involve knives, vehicles, improvised explosives, and more.
This is why I prefer the term ‘active shooter/hostile event response’ or ASHER. While the term has been around for a bit (a quick internet search shows references going back to at least 2013), NFPA 3000 has essentially canonized it in our lexicon. The definition provided in NFPA 3000 is focused on the incident, rather than the motivation, and is comprehensive of any means or methods which could be used. That definition is – Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response (ASHER): An incident where one or more individuals are or have been active engaged in harming, killing, or attempting to kill people in a populated area by means such as firearms, explosives, toxic substances, vehicles, edged weapons, fire, or a combination thereof.
When it comes to preparedness, response, and recovery ASHER is the focus we need to have. Motivations generally make little difference in how we should respond. We should always be looking for secondary devices or other attackers – these are not features unique to terrorist attacks. As we do with any crime scene, we should always be mindful of evidence that can lead us to the motives and potential co-conspirators of an attacker. That’s important for investigation, prosecution, and the prevention of further attacks. Does the term ‘terrorism’ still have a place? Of course it does. In our legal system, that’s an important definition. Philosophically, we can argue that all attacks are acts of terror, but because of the legal definition that exists of terrorism, we can’t – at least in the US.
I encourage everyone to start making the move to changing the lexicon to ASHER where appropriate. It makes sense and gives us the proper perspective.
© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP