Did a websearch and found an interesting article on “single officer response” training programs:
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593
The only downside to this approach is that a CCW holder responding to the gunfire might also be mistaken for the “active shooter/killer.” Not sure what TTP would unknot that rope.
The article you linked to is a must read for any patrol officer.
Prior to Columbine, the active shooter scenario was relatively unknown. Police training was oriented to a hostage situation, where waiting for SWAT is an appropriate response. Also, most officers trained to clear buildings were trained to clear buildings where somebody was hiding or lying in wait.
In the article, Sgt. Haggard points out that in an active shooter situation, a single officer may apply enough pressure on the shooter to disrupt his plans and end, or at least contain the situation until backup arrives.
For a CCW holder, the situation would be more dicey due to lack of equipment, etc. On the other hand, the CCW might be more likely to be right there and a surprise to the would be shooter.
For the paltry sum of $9.99 you can get one of these nifty little signs to put on the back of your jacket.
Optionally you could choose from an asortment shuh as, FBI ATF or whatever you want. If you work for the MSM you may want the special YELLOW stripe that runs vertically up the middle of your spine.
Great points.
...I am a strong advocate for the single officer response as being a valid tactical response in some active-shooter situations. The history of modern active-shooters in the U.S. shows us that the shooter(s) will be killed by the responders, will give up, or will kill themselves when the first hint of tactical pressure is placed upon them. Although not all “shooter” incidents have worked out this way, the vast majority have fallen into one of the three typical end results...
Since response to an active-shooter incident is a race, a race between the responder(s) stopping the shooter and the shooter racking up a greater and greater body count, I strongly advocate that officers should move to contact as quickly as possible, and by themselves if need be, to expedite stopping the shooter from killing more victims...
...Everyone who carries a gun for duty or protection should be aware of the physical and mental aspects of responding to critical incidents. It should suffice to say that such aspects of the human condition as fight or flight response, adrenalin stress, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, etc. should be well known to any serious student of preparation for combat or self defense.
This knowledge and training can be a very solid advantage to the first responder who is going after an active-shooter as the shooter will very likely not be educated and trained to deal with these aspects of armed conflict. In my opinion, the shooter will very likely never see the first responder coming...
...In less extreme examples, I have read concern that officer could be ambushed by the shooter. I have two problems with that train of thought; 1. It’s never happened (although I know that doesn’t mean it could some day) 2. Laying in wait for first responders is NOT active shooting.
If the first responder has no idea where the shooter is and will have to search to find them then a single officer response would not be appropriate. However I strongly feel that if a single officer can see the shooter, or can hear the shots close by, that they should immediately move to contact and engage the shooter. This has been successfully accomplished too many times for anyone to say that it is not a valid tactic.