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

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℠®

Expanding Hazard Mitigation Plans to Truly Address All Hazards

Planning efforts and documents are incredibly central to everything we do in preparedness.  When we look at the spectrum preparedness elements of Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercises (POETE), ‘planning’ being first should be a reminder that everything goes back to planning.  Our organizations, equipment, training, and exercises should all reflect back on plans.  These aren’t just emergency operations plans, either, but should include all plans.

A fundamental plan for many jurisdictions is the hazard mitigation plan.  Most responders tend to ignore this plan as it’s not about response, but it has a great deal of valuable information.  Hazard mitigation plans are built on a lot of research and data analysis, trends, and science behind a variety of hazards that could impact the area.  For as much as hazard mitigation plans can get neck-deep into science, they are not only good references but can be built into good, actionable plans.  The leadership of practically every agency in a jurisdiction should be involved in the development and update of hazard mitigation plans and be knowledgeable of what they contain.  That said, there are a couple of issues I have with how hazard mitigation plans are done.

First of all, they should be developed to be more than a catalog of information, which is how many are built.  We should be able to do something with them.  FEMA’s standards for hazard mitigation planning have gotten better and better through the years, thankfully.  While their standards include the identification of potential projects for a jurisdiction to address hazards, I’ve seen many plans (and the firms that develop them) cut this section particularly short.  I’ve seen plans developed for major jurisdictions having only a handful of projects, yet I’ve had experience developing plans for much smaller jurisdictions and identifying a significant list of prioritized projects.  While the onus is ultimately on the stakeholders of the jurisdiction to identify projects, consulting firms should still be actually consulting… not just regurgitating and formatting what stakeholders provide them.  A good consultant will advise, suggest, and recommend.  If your consultant isn’t doing so, it’s probably time to find someone else.

The second issue I have with hazard mitigation plans is that so many truly aren’t ‘all-hazard’.  Many hazard mitigation plans address natural hazards and some human-caused hazards, such as damn failures and hazardous materials incidents.  Rarely do we see hazard mitigation plans addressing hazards such as cyber attacks or active shooter/hostile event response (ASHER) incidents.  There are some obvious issues with this.  First, the hazard mitigation plan is generally looked upon to have the best collection of data on hazards for the jurisdiction.  If it excludes hazards, then there is no one good place to obtain that information.  This is particularly dangerous when other plans, such as EOPs, may be based upon the hazards identified in the hazard mitigation plan.  As I mentioned at the beginning, if something isn’t referenced in our planning efforts, it’s likely not to be included in the rest of our preparedness efforts.  Second, if these other hazards aren’t in our hazard mitigation plans, where are we documenting a deliberate effort to mitigate against them?  While hazards like cyber attacks or ASHER incidents are generally seen to be mitigated through actions labeled ‘prevention’ or ‘protection’, they should still be consolidated into our collective mitigation efforts.  Those efforts may transcend traditional hazard mitigation activities, but why would we let tradition impede progress and common sense?  A fire wall should be listed as a hazard mitigation project just as flood control barrier is.  And bollards or large planters are valid hazard mitigation devices just as much as a box culvert.

Let’s be smart about hazard mitigation planning.  It’s a foundational element of our comprehensive preparedness activities.  We can do better.

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

No Standards for Armed Teachers in Colorado

No matter what side you fall on in the debate on arming teachers, I think most people can agree that if teachers are to be armed, there should be some standards.  Apparently, Colorado law makers don’t think so.

Whenever giving someone the ability to handle a deadly weapon, especially as part of or sanctioned by their employer, there should absolutely be some standards in place.  To name a few:

  • What kind of weapon is allowed?
  • Are there any conditions in which that weapon cannot be carried?
  • Can the weapon be secured on the premises?
  • What are the rules for use of the weapon?
  • Does the person have to register their possession of the weapon?
  • What initial and refresher training requirements are in place?
  • Who is responsible for maintaining training and other records?
  • Who carries the legal liability?
  • Are mental health checks required?
  • What procedures are in place for reporting an incident involving the weapon?
  • What procedures are in place if the person is accused of a violent offense outside of work?

As the article cites, and as most of my readers are likely familiar, law enforcement officers and military personnel participate in many hours of fire arms training.  Before a weapon is even put into their hands, they are schooled on the components of their weapon, rules for use of force, and firearms safety.  On the range, safety discipline is paramount.

It’s not to say there aren’t any standards being put in place by these school districts in Colorado.  Many of them may be addressing all of these questions and more.  Unfortunately, there is a lack of consistency, since, as special districts, they are empowered to self-govern in many aspects (this is similar in most, if not all states).  The lack of statewide standards leaves a lot of room for gaps and liability, and, regardless of altruistic intent, can potentially endanger not only students, but first responders as well.

From a public safety perspective, I encourage local law enforcement, fire service, EMS, and emergency management to coordinate with their school districts (they should be anyway) if they are allowing their teachers to be armed.  Don’t only encourage policy, procedure, and standards to be in place, but press hard for it and offer to be involved.

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC™

Changing The Lexicon on Terrorism Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

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.

NFPA3000

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

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC ™

A New NFPA Standard for Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has recently published a new standard for Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response (ASHER) programs.  NFPA 3000 is consistent with other standards we’ve seen published by the organization.  They don’t dictate means or methods, leaving those as local decisions and open for changes as we learn and evolve from incidents and exercises.  What they do provide, however, is a valuable roadmap to help ensure that communities address specific considerations within their programs.  It’s important to recognize that, similar to NFPA 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity/Continuity of Operations Programs, you aren’t getting a pre-made plan, rather you are getting guidance on developing a comprehensive program.  With that, NFPA 3000 provides information on conducting a community risk assessment, developing a plan, coordinating with the whole community, managing resources and the incident, preparing facilities, training, and competencies for first responders.

NFPA standards are developed by outstanding technical committees with representation from a variety of disciplines and agencies across the nation.  In the development of their standards, they try to consider all perspectives as they create a foundation of best practices.  While the NFPA’s original focus was fire protection, they have evolved into a great resource for all of public safety.

I urge everyone to take a look at this new standard and examine how you can integrate this guidance into your program.  The standard is available to view for free from the NFPA website, but is otherwise only available by purchase.  Also available on their website is a fact sheet and information on training for the new standard.

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC