Tag active assailant

Run, Hide, and Fight – It’s a Matter of Survival

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager 2 Comments

I’ve recently read yet another article espousing that the common Run-Hide-Fight training for active shooter/hostile event attacks isn’t appropriate because the persons involved in the incident are not trained fighters.  These articles and the so-called experts quoted in them are beyond frustrating.  The problem is very simple – someone is trying to kill people.  Potential victims must be able to do whatever they can and need to do to survive.  They may not be track stars or professional hide and seek competitors, either.  That doesn’t mean that their efforts won’t contribute to evading harm and, ultimately, surviving.

The Run-Hide-Fight training also emphasizes these actions as options.  Ideally, this is something to execute in order.  Run, but if you can’t get away from harm, then hide.  If you are found, then you fight for your life.  That said, there may be occasions when someone is immediately confronted by an attacker, with no ability to run or hide.  At that point, the victim has two options… fight for your life or succumb to the attacker.  Fight doesn’t even mean you need to subdue the attacker, but perhaps create an opportunity to run.  Fundamentally, you do what you need to in order to survive.  The rules of polite society are not valid in this situation.

There are other popular programs in use, but these can be too complex.  The steps they follow are great, but in the panic of an incident, simplicity will prove essential to survival rather than trying to figure out what a lengthy acronym stands for.  There are also systems that use terms other than ‘fight’, instead using terms like disrupt or counter.  Those should always be options considered prior to an actual physical confrontation, if possible, but it’s short sighted, and in fact dangerous to eliminate or talk around the potential need to fight for survival.

© 2019 Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC℠®

Thinking Beyond the Active Shooter

Tim Riecker, The Contrarian Emergency Manager Leave a comment

While there is obviously a great deal of attention placed on preparing for, preventing, and responding to active shooter events, is that where the focus really needs to be?  Yes, active shooter incidents are devastating, but they aren’t taking into consideration the full potential of we might be facing.  The DHS definition of ‘active shooter’ actually allows room for additional potential, but the term is still misleading and indicates the presence of only one perpetrator.  (DHS definition: “Active shooter is an individual actively engaging in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.”)

First, let’s consider that more than one person could be perpetrating the incident.  Second, let’s consider that the perpetrator/perpetrators might be using something other than or in addition to firearms.  This could include edged weapons, blunt weapons, improvised explosives, or other threats.  Third, let’s consider an increased complexity, including synchronized attacks conducted by one or more independent teams occurring at multiple locations sequentially or in close succession.

To address these potentials, we’ve heard the terms ‘Active Assailant’, which certainly addresses individual(s) using any form of weapon(s) in their attack methodology.  This can also address the more highly complex incident type, which is commonly referred to as a ‘Complex Coordinated Attack’ or ‘Complex Coordinated Terrorist Attack’.  In essence, we are talking about the same conceptual incident, with varying complexity.  But what’s the difference?

The difference is that we should be preparing for a credible worst-case scenario.  While a single shooter is more likely to occur in most places, we’ve seen incidents of knife attacks such as those in recent months in London and Japan.  We’ve also seen motor vehicle attacks in Berlin and Nice.  The Columbine High School attack involved firearms, knives, and improvised explosive devices, although the latter weren’t successfully detonated.  For their own reasons, none of these seem to match up with the impression most have with the term ‘Active Shooter’.  ‘Active Assailant’ might be better a better term generally for these kinds of incidents.   More specifically, by current standards, Columbine would likely meet the definition of ‘Complex Coordinated Attack’.  A complex coordinated attack doesn’t necessarily require a high value target or an international terrorist group to perpetrate.

When a jurisdiction plans for a flood, they generally don’t prepare for a couple of road washouts that might occur with a hard rain storm.  They should be preparing for the sudden destructive power of flash floods and the slower but equally devastating potential of areal flooding.   If the jurisdiction is prepared for the credible worst-case scenario, their preparations should be able to address flooding of a lower magnitude.  I’d argue the same for the range of active assailant incidents.  Active shooter incidents are one specific type of active assailant incident, but are not what our preparedness activities should be focused on, as these kinds of incidents can be much more complex and devastating.  Preparedness efforts should, instead, focus on the complex coordinated attack, which is arguably the most multifaceted and impactful type of this incident.  Preparing for the credible worst-case scenario will help ensure our preparedness across the entire spectrum of this kind of incident.

As always, feedback is appreciated.

© 2017 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC