The Shortcomings of Run, Hide, Fight®

In light of current national (United States) and world events, particularly given my position as an instructor on a community college campus, I've made it a personal mission of mine to learn as much as possible about active shooter incursions. Early in my career, I was unnerved by the possibility that I could face a possible active shooter in our hallways. The stories of Michael Carneal (Paducah, KY), Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (Jonesboro, AR), and Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (Columbine, CO) were fresh in the news. Teachers in general were looking around their classrooms and trying to determine which students had the highest likelihood of becoming the next mass school shooter.

In recent years, shooters have branched out from public schools, taking their particular brand of violence into areas less affected by violence - office buildings, warehouses, malls, colleges, and dance clubs. In response to this growing trend, government entities have devised response plans that are being disseminated to schools, colleges, and employers of various sorts in an attempt to prepare citizens for the unlikely event that they will fall victim to a rampage shooter. The most popular of these plans is Homeland Security's Run, Hide, Fight® protocol.

If you've not viewed the video for the RHF protocol, use the next 6 minutes to do so:

Seems rather basic, which is just what most people need in the face of mind-numbingly nerve-bending circumstances. The Run-Hide elements of the protocol are basically human nature codified in video. Who needs to be told to run or hide from loud noises and dangerous circumstances? Normalcy bias and 'the freeze' notwithstanding, most people are going to default to running and hiding.

It's worth noting, however, that hiding can be problematic in an active shooter event. History is replete with stories of people who took shelter under tables and desks while active shooters roamed their schools. The small amount of shelter provided by a table or desk makes it inconsequential as a place of refuge. The vast majority of victims in school shootings are students who tried to hide instead of taking to their feet and running.

Where the trouble with this training comes into play, however, is in the 'Fight' element. The simplistic instructions deny every truth about human physiology and indoctrination (usually at the hands of the very establishment that made this video) against engaging in violence. 

The 4 pieces of instruction in the video (at the 4:13 mark) are as follows:

Attempt to incapacitate the shooter. Great advice. How do you do that? Hit him in the head with a chair or fire extinguisher (as the video shows)? What if you have no weapon? How do we go about incapacitating the shooter empty-handed? When is the best time to move in on the shooter? What about the shooter's weapon?

Act with physical aggression. Again, great advice, but what does that mean? Should we become angry? How do we make the shift from sheer terror to brutal aggression? What actions do we take with that aggression? 

Improvise weapons. Good call. However, at what point do we cross the line from defender to aggressor with an improvised weapon, thus putting ourselves at risk of going to jail?

Commit to your actions. What actions? There are no actions specified in the video, so what exactly should defenders commit to? Active aggression, whatever that is? Using our improvised weapons (but to what extent)?

In order to truly affect positive change in the outcomes of active shooter situations, there needs to be more instruction/direction. People will, in the face of stress or confusion, default to the level of their training. For most people, the level of training is pretty much nil.

Certainly it is true that covering every defensive contingency is impossible in a short training video. However, just a little additional instruction would clarify for a self defender what actions (s)he could take to maximize the potential for success.  For example:

Attempt to incapacitate the shooter. Distract the shooter with any material that can be thrown at him. Close the gap between yourself and the shooter while he is distracted. Push the muzzle of the weapon toward the floor or ceiling. Bear hug and tackle the aggressor and strip the weapon from him. Slam elbows into his head to disorient him or relieve him of consciousness.

Act with physical aggression. Hit hard, hit often, and don't stop until the shooter is down for the count. Even if you are shot, as long as you are conscious and mobile, continue to fight. It's your life or the shooter's. Do not give in until you are no longer able to fight.

Improvise weapons. Pencils, pens, chairs, scissors, books, fire extinguishers, coffee pots, eating utensils, and any other object you can hold in your hand is a potential weapon. That hot cup of coffee is quite a weapon when thrown in the face of a threat. Poke, slash, stab, bludgeon, and scald the shooter until he is incapacitated and no longer a threat. When the threat is subdued, cease the attack and wait for authorities to arrive. Vengeance against a shooter after he is down for the count will likely result in charges against the would-be defender.

Commit to your actions. Whatever you do, do it until you cannot do it any longer. If you are going to tackle the threat, do it without hesitation and to the fullest extent of your might. Any reluctance on your part could be deadly. If your only weapon is a pen, attack with that pen until the shooter is down or you haven't another breath to draw. He is there to kill you; turn the tables on him.

People who are told to run and hide but instead find themselves faced with having to fight to survive usually become statistics that anti-gun advocates and news anchors talk about for weeks after a mass shooting. Take the events in Orlando, Florida, for instance. More than 300 people in a club ran or hid when Omar Mateen opened fire on them. More than a third of them became statistics because they were never taught how to fight for their own survival.

Run, Hide, Fight® has its place as basic information, but it is woefully incomplete as a means of reducing the casualty count in a mass shooting event. Does additional 'Fight' training guarantee success? Not at all, but it does give the defender an edge that just might be sufficient to allow more people to walk away from the event unharmed.

Breaking the Rules

I was having dinner with my family this past week at a local burger joint. Since we are a larger-than-average family, there are only a few tables that will accommodate our number, so we were unfortunately (from a tactical/defensive standpoint) seated in the rear of the restaurant near the restrooms and kitchen area.

The public entry doors were both toward the front of the restaurant. One was about 20 feet away leading to the side of the building; the second was at the front of the restaurant about 100 feet away. It is a given that I am going to be looking for the exits and easiest path to safety whenever I enter a public space, and I am going to make sure my family is on board with my plan.

Thus it was that after the drinks were served and our order placed, I asked them about escape routes in the event the place was under threat. They all agreed that we should retreat to the kitchen area and escape through the rear door that we know is there. In a pinch, we could seek refuge in the bathroom, but that preference ranks pretty low since there is only one door and no windows.

"Which bathroom," I asked. That is when our natural penchant to follow rules kicked in. The rules say go to the bathroom that you know is socially expected (especially here in the deeply traditional rural south). However, when our lives are at stake, the rules go out the window.

Are you prepared to break the rules when a life-or-death situation is at hand? At that point, doors that read 'Employees Only' are no longer barriers. Running the stoplight or stop sign to escape the road-raging aggressor is necessary behavior. 'No Exit' signs suddenly don't matter.

We are told from the time we are old enough to speak that there are rules and laws that must be followed for our own well being and the well being of others. By the time we reach adulthood, we have spent the better part of 18 years shaping our behavior to conform to the expectations that others set in the way of rules and barriers. All of that training doesn't just go away in a moment.

The truth of the matter is that we have to directly tell ourselves that it is perfectly OK - indeed, it is necessary - to break the rules in order to save ourselves from harm. It is why when we enter a public space that we must identify not only the public access areas of the building but also the 'hidden' non-public spaces that might be utilized  as escape routes or hiding places.

If you feel like you need someone else's permission to break the rules, then here you are: you have my permission to break the rules of whatever establishment you happen to be occupying should you find yourself in a potentially lethal situation.

In the meantime, train your mind in order to prepare yourself to break out of your socially prescribed role as rule follower. Plot escape routes, determine hiding places, and make sure your loved ones are on board with your plan.

Sometimes breaking the rules can save your life.

What Gets Trained Gets Done

I got into a bit of a polite discussion with a very popular tactical training group on Facebook this past weekend. I will refrain from actually mentioning the name of that group for a couple of reasons. First, the discussion ended amicably, and I have no desire to create hostilities where none currently exist. Second, I have even less of a desire to create enemies in the self-defense & tactical training world. I'm a small fish in this pond, and I admit that I have plenty to learn about the topics of violence and personal defense.

In this case, however, I believe I was completely in the right.


The discussion centered on this training video:

I like the technique. I have no disagreement with the actual defensive instruction being offered here. The part of the video I felt compelled to criticize was the way Amber handed the training weapon back to her partner. I posited that training in this way - by actually handing the weapon to the person from whom you just took it - will be replicated in a real-life situation.

Enter the owner of the page, who had posted the video:

"Except that you have to do something with it, and that something will never be what you would do in reality. I've heard this "rule" for years, and I've never seen or experienced it in reality.  

"Training is full of things that you wouldn't want to replicate in an actual violent encounter. The brain is capable of recognizing the difference, despite what many folks will tell you."

The disagreement I have with this post derives from the anecdotal nature of the reply. "I haven't seen it, therefore it isn't a common occurrence." The problem is, of course, is that such behavior happens all the time. And anyone who understands the role of hormones in high-stress situations could quickly tell you that the brain doesn't operate normally during actual violent encounters. Gross motor skills and repetitive response to stimuli will be the order of the day.

I responded to the post by pointing out a couple of popularized examples of the very thing I mentioned happening in live-fire situations (Loren Christensen talks about them in his book On Combat). Here was his response:

"Yes, I've heard of the single incident that Christensen cites. I also highly doubt the accuracy of officers pulling finger guns on suspects. We trained the exact way you describe, for years. Ultimately, I determined no matter what, you are doing something that shouldn't materialize in reality, and I'd simply rather get more reps on the technique.

"As to "what gets trained gets done", I've trained to hit focus mitts for countless hours and reps, punching to the side of my partner's head, always missing them. In violent encounters, I've never had to fight the urge to punch to the side of an assailant's face."

At this point, I figured I would bow out rather than pursue the matter and risk creating bad feelings in a public forum. Again, it is worth noting that this individual is making sweeping generalizations based on individual perceptions of what, "shouldn't materialize in reality."

What we think is real and what is actually real, however, are two entirely different things. This is especially true in violent encounters and human interaction. Most of us are under-prepared for violence. It is not a common, day-to-day experience for us to confront life-or-death situations. As such, what we think happens in violent encounters differs markedly from what actually happens. We can't base our reality on what we expect will occur in a violent exchange.

My son has recently enlisted in the United States Army. This past Memorial Day weekend, we had the opportunity to visit the base and spend a day with our son. We spent a lot of time sitting at tables eating and talking, so I took the opportunity to address this question of 'What Gets Trained Gets Done' with him.

As one might expect, he likened the type of training in the video to what he does in basic training. "We don't do anything we don't want to do in a firefight," he said. "What we do in training is what we do in combat." This is true whether he is in a hand-to-hand or weapons-free situation. They train it the way they want to do it.

When the bullets are flying, the luxury of thinking about what to do does not exist. We are left to the level of our training, and if that training included a disarm followed by handing the seized weapon back to the simulated assailant, that is very likely what will happen under live circumstances.

So what do we do instead of handing the weapon back to our attacker (simulated or otherwise)? I recommend a few things:

• drop the weapon somewhere that will be difficult for anyone but official parties to retrieve - a mailbox, a drainage sewer, a bank drop slot. You just want to know that your assailant will not be able to reacquire the weapon and use it against you again.
• if you choose to hold your attacker in place with the weapon (and be careful with this on a legal level; check your local laws), keep the weapon in hand until officials are close. Then place the weapon on the ground and either cover it with something or step on it. Whatever you do, do NOT have it in your hand when police arrive on the scene. Being mistaken for the actual aggressor will likely not end well.
• carry the weapon with you as you flee to a safe area. There you can call police to help manage the weapon. As before, do NOT have the weapon in your hand when the police arrive to help.
• hand the weapon to someone who is not the aggressor. This could be a friend, your spouse, or anyone you are with who is not responsible for attacking you. As above, when the police arrive, be sure that the person who received the weapon from you is not holding it when authorities arrive.

So how do you train this kind of approach to disarms? Here are a few tips:

• alternate between disarming your 'attacker' and being disarmed. At no point do you actually hand the gun back to your partner; it is his/her responsibility to take it from you.
• practice actually ridding yourself of the weapon. Drop it and cover it with a foot or a trashcan or any object that will secure the weapon in place until 'authorities' arrive. Before the next rep, your partner can collect the weapon from its hiding place.
• practice disarming your partner and then strategically retreating followed by running away. Once you arrive in your practice safe area, hand the weapon to a third party. He/she can hand off the weapon to your partner or place it on a surface (a table, the floor, a chair) to be retrieved for the next repetition of the exercise.

What you do in training will very likely manifest in an actual encounter. It is way too easy to just thoughtlessly hand your practice weapon back to your uke. This could have dire consequences when things are real and tense and adrenaline-enhanced. Practice it the way you want it done in actual application.

Anything else has the potential to end very very poorly.