That's THE big question IMHO.
You don't expect a group of Amish school children to fight back against a lone gunman.
But these victims were mostly well-trained military. They should ALL have rushed him -- if not immediately upon the first shot, then while he was reloading.
As far as we can tell, however, the victims just assumed a "deer in the headlights" stance and were more-or-less helpless, except for that one heroic (and armed) policewoman.
“As far as we can tell, however, the victims just assumed a “deer in the headlights” stance and were more-or-less helpless,”
We have seen enough of these incidents to suggest that the passive, “get down and hope the threat goes away” behavior is probably instinctual in unarmed individuals. It takes training and the right mindset to fight back in those circumstances. There is no time to coordinate an attack so realize you will probably be working alone. The best you can hope for is that 1 or 2 others will get the idea and try to help.
We don't know that but we do know that unarmed soldiers are not effective soldiers. They are trained to cover, engage and return fire. With nothing to return fire with, their training doesn't do them much good.
But I'd withhold judgement until the we get all the facts. I think you'll find that the response was appropriate given the situation.
woulda, coulda, shoulda