Run, Hide, Fight

[PVC]

The city of Houston has released an instructional PSA video with instructions of how to react in an Active Shooter Event.

The producers actually considered including an instructional for armed citizens but decided that the percentage of legally armed Texans was to low. They paid for the PSA with a Department of Homeland Security Grant.

Do you think the 200,000 usd was money well spent?

http://youtu.be/5VcSwejU2D0

 

[Veneficus]

The city of Houston has released an instructional PSA video with instructions of how to react in an Active Shooter Event.

The producers actually considered including an instructional for armed citizens but decided that the percentage of legally armed Texans was to low. They paid for the PSA with a Department of Homeland Security Grant.

Do you think the 200,000 usd was money well spent?

http://youtu.be/5VcSwejU2D0

no.

it has been sown in the immediate disaster situation, some freeze and some react.

I believe it was established during the sept 11 attacks that it was people shouting instructions who had the most impact.

This is reactionary and ill conceived. Maybe it makes people feel better, like hiding under your desk with a burn kit in the event of a nuclear attack.

 

[PVC]

no.

it has been sown in the immediate disaster situation, some freeze and some react.

Wouldn't you think that planning would reduce the number of people that "freeze"? Particularly if they have been instructed on what their optional SOPs might be?

no.

it has been sown in the immediate disaster situation, some freeze and some react.

I believe it was established during the sept 11 attacks that it was people shouting instructions who had the most impact.

First, from a tactical standpoint the twin towers and an Active Shooter Event are two very distinct scenarios that are very different both in action and reaction.

I don't understand what you mean by "it was the people shouting instructions who had the most impact".

no.

This is reactionary and ill conceived. Maybe it makes people feel better, like hiding under your desk with a burn kit in the event of a nuclear attack.

I don't believe it is a reactionary video. It has been in the works for a long time but the release was expedited after the Aurora, CO shooting.

What do you think a better option for preparing civilians for an Active Shooting Event would be?

 

[TB 3541]

I agree with PVC. Something as simple as this video could significantly reduce the number of casualties in the next active shooter event because people will have an idea of what to do instead of panicking.

Alternatively, this might be a better solution: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

 

[rwik123]

Are they alluding to the fact that carry free zones prevent the stopping of active shooters by showing it on the front door as the shooter enters?

Oh and btw in most states a business cannot legally stop you from carry unless they state that legal blurb on the front door. If its just a no gun sign or a diagram you are still legally entitled to conceal carry (not including federal and state gun free zones).

 

[Veneficus]

Wouldn't you think that planning would reduce the number of people that "freeze"? Particularly if they have been instructed on what their optional SOPs might be?

No.

I think it takes training.

"I saw what to do on tv" isn't training.

At least no more than teaching people how to be soldiers, firefighters,martial artists, etc.

Have you ever heard the interview of a firefighter, soldier, etc who did something that saved lives?

Somehow "it was what I was trained to do" gets a lot of credit.

First, from a tactical standpoint the twin towers and an Active Shooter Event are two very distinct scenarios that are very different both in action and reaction.

From a tactical point of view?

I understood this to be addressing the reaction of "civilian" persons to a physiologic stress response. (overload of sensory perception in the CNS)

I don't understand what you mean by "it was the people shouting instructions who had the most impact".

there have been several studies over the years looking at how people react during disasters. Particularly among behavior or those that survived vs. those that didn't.

As I remember (I do a lot of reading, i don't always remember where or exactly) in one analysis of why some people survie and some don't is reaction over nonreaction and those who shout simple direct commands being able to not only "wake up" people from freezing, but also have an impact on what people's choices are.

I don't believe it is a reactionary video. It has been in the works for a long time but the release was expedited after the Aurora, CO shooting.

What do you think a better option for preparing civilians for an Active Shooting Event would be?

I think if a person needs to be told to run and hide or fight in desperation, with an active shooter, then Darwin is going to naturally select that person next.

"in the event of fire, walk don't run to the nearest exit." (played at most theatres)

"in the event of active shooter, run! everybody run!" (Is that what is next?)

 

[PVC]

Are they alluding to the fact that carry free zones prevent the stopping of active shooters by showing it on the front door as the shooter enters?

I think that may have been one possible intention, another might have been to explain away why the "armed citizen" scenario was not included in the film. Great observation.

Oh and btw in most states a business cannot legally stop you from carry unless they state that legal blurb on the front door. If its just a no gun sign or a diagram you are still legally entitled to conceal carry (not including federal and state gun free zones).

I believe the 30-06 sign is specific to Texas as it cites Section 30.06 of Texas Law. There is another legal sign in Texas, the 51% sign that indicates that 51% of the business revenue come from the sale of alcohol. Legal signs vary from state to state. In some states the "ghostbuster" sign is enough to make carrying on the premises unlawful.

 

[PVC]

No.

I think it takes training.
"I saw what to do on tv" isn't training.
At least no more than teaching people how to be soldiers, firefighters,martial artists, etc.
Have you ever heard the interview of a firefighter, soldier, etc who did something that saved lives?
Somehow "it was what I was trained to do" gets a lot of credit.

If you are referring to training as "the act, process, or method of one that trains or the skill, knowledge, or experience acquired by one that trains" Merriam-Webster online dictionary, then i don't understand your point and would appreciate clarification.

Are you saying that knowledge acquired through video instruction is invalid and useless?
Are you saying that the only way to establish a contingency plan is to have an instructor with a pulse present?
Are you saying that civilians cannot learn through a video?
Are you saying that people would not use these three recommendations and think, Hey, If I have to run, this is where I would go?
Is it possible that businesses may see a need to implement a Active Shooter Contingency plan that is more specific to their environment?

I agree that a video is not Marine level training but neither is EMT school.

 

[PVC]

No.
From a tactical point of view?

The tragedy of 9/11 and a Active Shooter event are different from whatever point of view you prefer.

 

[PVC]

No.
there have been several studies over the years looking at how people react during disasters. Particularly among behavior or those that survived vs. those that didn't.

Of course there are studies about the individual qualities of disaster survivors of which you have posted no reference.
Would you consider an Active Shooter Event a disaster or something else.

I would think that an Active Shooter Event is not a disaster but something else.

But, I get your point. Some people are just going to freeze when confronted with stress overload for the first time, no matter what their degree of training is. I happens to people that are trained in many professions, soldiers policemen, firemen EMTs, etc.

I would not consider the uncertainty of an individuals emotional reaction as a reason not to increase public awareness as to what to do when confronted with a specific stress producing situation. In fact I would sustain that it argues the opposite.

 

[PVC]

No.
I think if a person needs to be told to run and hide or fight in desperation, with an active shooter, then Darwin is going to naturally select that person next.

Darwin is dead.

 

[PVC]

No.
"in the event of fire, walk don't run to the nearest exit." (played at most theatres)

"in the event of active shooter, run! everybody run!" (Is that what is next?)

The next course of action recommended by the City of Houston is to Hide,Fight.

You would do something different?


PS. I could not figure out how t o get all off the quotes to show up in a single post. Sorry for the multiple post.

 

[bigbaldguy]

200k is a drop in the bucket. If this video helps 2 people out of the 4+ million in Houston then it will be worth it. Long odds on that happening but major cities are having to do something in order to show they take the issue seriously. I think this is probably much less reactionary than many of the things we will soon be seeing.

 

[FLdoc2011]

I think for the average civilian just watching a video isn't going to do a whole lot. If they are even in such an extreme situation like that again they are probably going to react the same as before and instincts are going to kick in.... whether its running, or freezing up.

I've read some reports of military personnel being in the theater and the difference there is the extensive ACTIVE training they've been through.... enough so that when the situation happens they get beyond the body's natural fight/flight reaction and can stay somewhat calm and react appropriately.

For us health professionals just watching a CPR/ACLS video wouldn't be enough. I bet it took a few codes before you really were able to stay calm during a code.

 

[PVC]

I think for the average civilian just watching a video isn't going to do a whole lot. If they are even in such an extreme situation like that again they are probably going to react the same as before and instincts are going to kick in.... whether its running, or freezing up.

I've read some reports of military personnel being in the theater and the difference there is the extensive ACTIVE training they've been through.... enough so that when the situation happens they get beyond the body's natural fight/flight reaction and can stay somewhat calm and react appropriately.

For us health professionals just watching a CPR/ACLS video wouldn't be enough. I bet it took a few codes before you really were able to stay calm during a code.

No kidding, my heart still races while working codes, not that I have run that many. But one could argue that we are comparing apples to oranges when comparing ACLS algorithms with running from a shooter.

 

[PVC]

200k is a drop in the bucket. If this video helps 2 people out of the 4+ million in Houston then it will be worth it. Long odds on that happening but major cities are having to do something in order to show they take the issue seriously. I think this is probably much less reactionary than many of the things we will soon be seeing.

,

This video might not save anyone, then again it might. The sad condition of our world is forcing all of us to "rethink possible". I am sure that cities that have survived such events are most definitely working on operational changes at all levels of EMS and LE services.

It is a sad world we live in when cities have to destine resources advising citizens on how to hide from mass murderers in public places.

 

[FLdoc2011]

Yeah, different scenarios but similar theory IMHO. The only ones that will have true experience will be some police officers and military folks. There's always stories of an active duty military person being at one of these tragedies and they are just able to "perform" and seemingly get past the initial gut reaction of freezing in fear. Ultimately they've trained in stressful situations and have gone through similar things before.

One of my hobbies is shooting and I do some IDPA/USPSA shooting events partly because I wanted to be more comfortable shooting in more "realistic" environments involving shooting from cover and on the move as opposed to standing in one place punching holes in paper. Ultimately I'm not going to anywhere near the experience of someone in military who regularly trains in stressful situations but if I take personal protection seriously the I need to train the best I can. It would be foolish of me to assume that just because I can stand on a firing range and shoot a piece of paper that I'm going to perform well in a scenario where I have to move to cover or shoot in suboptimal conditions.

 

[PVC]

Yeah, different scenarios but similar theory IMHO. The only ones that will have true experience will be some police officers and military folks. There's always stories of an active duty military person being at one of these tragedies and they are just able to "perform" and seemingly get past the initial gut reaction of freezing in fear. Ultimately they've trained in stressful situations and have gone through similar things before.

One of my hobbies is shooting and I do some IDPA/USPSA shooting events partly because I wanted to be more comfortable shooting in more "realistic" environments involving shooting from cover and on the move as opposed to standing in one place punching holes in paper. Ultimately I'm not going to anywhere near the experience of someone in military who regularly trains in stressful situations but if I take personal protection seriously the I need to train the best I can. It would be foolish of me to assume that just because I can stand on a firing range and shoot a piece of paper that I'm going to perform well in a scenario where I have to move to cover or shoot in suboptimal conditions.

That is very,very cool! I have no experience with IDPA/USPSA (I had to google them). If you ever need someone to go the movies with, I am your guy.

It would be interesting what Houston would recommend for armed citizens to do in a similar situation.

 

[FLdoc2011]

Honestly I don't think they're going to recommend anything different for armed citizens. The role of an armed citizen in situations such as this is a constant debate on concealed carry/personal protection forums. Really it's going to be an individual decision.

Personally, I carry for protection of myself and my family. I'm not carrying to play role of an officer and protect the "general public". Certainly I'm sure there would be exceptions and legally I would be justified in interceding to prevent a forcible felony but my threshold would be MUCH higher if my or my family's life wasn't in immediate danger.

In the theater situation there are too many variables to suggest a specific course of action. Certainly I wouldnt just start shooting as there were too many innocent people around and you are responsible for knowing you're target and what's potentially BEHIND your target....your bullets don't care. If I was very close to the shooter and felt I would have a safe/clear shot in an obvious situation where he is the bad guy threatening lives then yeah I would take it.

 

[PVC]

Honestly I don't think they're going to recommend anything different for armed citizens. The role of an armed citizen in situations such as this is a constant debate on concealed carry/personal protection forums. Really it's going to be an individual decision.

Personally, I carry for protection of myself and my family. I'm not carrying to play role of an officer and protect the "general public". Certainly I'm sure there would be exceptions and legally I would be justified in interceding to prevent a forcible felony but my threshold would be MUCH higher if my or my family's life wasn't in immediate danger.

In the theater situation there are too many variables to suggest a specific course of action. Certainly I wouldnt just start shooting as there were too many innocent people around and you are responsible for knowing you're target and what's potentially BEHIND your target....your bullets don't care. If I was very close to the shooter and felt I would have a safe/clear shot in an obvious situation where he is the bad guy threatening lives then yeah I would take it.

When I started carrying, one of the first realizations I had was in fact that having a firearm does not give me police powers nor obligations for others actions or well being. The next was that using my firearm, even in self defense, would cost me a lot of money, money that is destined to provide comfort to my family. So in essence if carrying a concealed firearm is purposed to protect me and my family, then I had better be absolutely sure of my actions, and their conscienceless, if I decide to discharge my weapon at a person. My actions should protect both financial and physical integrity.

The whole movie scene is a nightmare. You are spot on in what a nightmare it was. There is no way of telling if an armed citizen could have made things better. I do know that in Texas, AMC Theaters have posted signs discriminating against CCW patrons and will never sell a ticket to me.