Do Rampage response training videos teach rampagers how to do it?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have quite a few trained folks here. From another venue, it has been postulated that the current training videos for how to respond to a rampage, in fact, give hints and ideas to the a shooter on how to do it and awareness of countermeasures.

We've seen planning from Cho, the Aurora shooter and Columbine shooters that showed some sophistication.

So if you show this kind of video to a mass audience, do you set up the shooter to defeat it?

Reasonable thoughts please.

 

[sigcurious]

I would think no more than the other sources of tactical information. While they may provide some insight, I do not think on the John Q. Public side of things that the information given out is something that cannot be reasoned by someone planning something. I cannot speak for LEA response training.

From what I've seen the information given to the public seems to boil down to 3 concepts; Run, hide, and to a lesser extent fight. Now applying that to two real life examples, the theater shooting and a school shooting, we can see how some of the ideas remain valid while others become moot.

In the theater shooting running and hiding become very difficult as there are limited exits and natural funnels for people, making it easy for a potential shooter to dominate the space. I do not think that it takes a training video for someone to reason that a theater is a confined space with a lot of people and limited exits.

A school shooting, given the lesser concentrations of people and higher segregation of space, the area would be harder to control without preparation that would likely get noticed. Running and hiding seem to be valid even if the potential shooter knows that people are going to run or lock themselves in separate spaces. To over come this a potential shooter would need to prepare in ways to control a much larger space such as disabling locks or planting crowd control type devices to direct where people run. Both of which would be difficult to do without having their efforts negated(locks fixed) or noticed(devices found or seen planting devices).

From what I've seen, fighting does seem to be relatively effective in the cases where people do choose to engage an active shooter. However it also seems that instances where people's reflex is fight rather than flight are few.

In the end unfortunately no matter what protocols people are taught, the potential shooter will always have an advantage by virtue of picking the time and place of the event. There will always be certain spaces that are just not easily secured or defensible as the world in general is not designed with being able to defend from attack in mind.

 

[MLeake]

Talking with Mas Ayoob about this, he says this is one reason why he wants students to have a carry permit, LEO credentials, or military ID. He wants to be sure he is training "certified good guys."

 

[zombietactics]

I suppose "sophistication" means different things to different people. I don't see anything sophisticated about the techniques used at Columbine or Aurora. What I do see is an unsophisticated focus on equipment (either type or sheer numbers) and little attention to anything else. Their choices seem to be based upon TV and movie references, and little else.

I have yet to hear of a single such attacker who was especially skilled or who even attended a single training class or shooting match. If there were training videos found in someone's apartment, it would be common knowledge by now. The concern seems unwarranted as such.

It doesn't take much of an advantage to dominate those unarmed and untrained.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you had heard a presentation about the Columbine shooters, you would see that they had a well thought out plan. I'll pass on sharing it here. We went over it at Tom Given's Tactical Conference.

Cho and Aurora were not without planning. Let's not posture that we are tactical giants compared to them.

I would like opinions focused on the question. Would a Cho, Holmes, Columbine duo - having seen the training videos - be ready to take some advantage due to the plans?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Any sort of widely available information serves to inform and educate those who might use the knowledge for bad purposes as well as those who will use the knowledge for good purpose. That is the "two-edged-sword" of readily and widely available information.

The major instructors and schools try to vet in some ways those who will have access to the training. As MLeake points out, Massad Ayoob requires certain credentials. Gunsite requires a letter of reference and evidence of a clean background.

By its nature, information that can help you defend yourself necessarily contains information that would help one defeat those defenses. But there's really nothing that can be done about that sort of censorship. And as a policy matter that's a non-starter.

Perhaps what this means is the those interested in protecting themselves need to assume that at least some of those who would do harm have access to the same generally available defensive information, and they will need to find ways to deal with that fact. For example, training beyond what's widely available on YouTube, can be a useful edge.

 

[pax]

Years ago, I remember reading a book with a plotline that included a small group of people putting together a nuclear bomb. Don't remember the book or the author, but I do remember the author's note at the end. It said: "I have changed some details about how to put together a nuclear bomb. I did this solely as a salve for my conscience, not in any reasonable expectation that it matters a damn."

That's pretty much my take on any of this stuff. The world is full of people who can't or won't make sure they are teaching only bona fide good guys. Worry about it, or don't, based on your own conscience.

pax

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree that as trainers we might want to watch for strange rangers as I once heard Mas say. I have been asked about a couple from trainers at times.

However, the main question from the group that asked me - was whether the rampage training videos for the average folks, like the Houston one, would aid the rampager.

 

[kraigwy]

Reminds me of the early '70s.

We didn't have the Internet back then but somebody came up with the "Anarchist Cookbook"

All kinds of stuff, how to do in cops, how to make bombs, how to make pot cookies. All kinds of silly crap.

The LE community threw a Tessy fit. Everyone called for censorship.

I studied that book looking with a bomb tech's point of view.

That book was more of a danger to the would be anarchist, then the LE community.

If one wants the information, its out there, with or without the Internet.

You have tons of Military Field Manuel's available do to the freedom of information act. Don't need you tube.

I'm against censorship of any kind (short of kiddy ****).

Having said that, I do reserve the right to bar people from my classes, that is my right.

 

[zombietactics]

If you had heard a presentation about the Columbine shooters, you would see that they had a well thought out plan. I'll pass on sharing it here. We went over it at Tom Given's Tactical Conference.

Cho and Aurora were not without planning. Let's not posture that we are tactical giants compared to them.

I was mistaken in my meaning. I make no claim of being a tactical expert. It just seemed that your OP was implying that level ("tactical expert") of sophistication on the part of those mentioned. Clearly I mistook your meaning as well.

I think my second point still hold true: I have yet to hear of a single such attacker who was especially skilled or who even attended a single training class or shooting match. If there were training videos found in someone's apartment, it would be common knowledge by now. The concern seems unwarranted as such.

By way of extending my remarks, it doesn't seem that kind of person goes very far in the training department, at least not in a focused, rational way. I am sure that some of them have a passing interest, but are just as likely to view an action movie as a "training film" as they would be something from a reputable source. There seems to be a kind of personality focused more on form than substance. The "rampager" seems to fit this mold.

 

[Smit]

My opinion is no. If there's tactical information they want, they will most likely be able to find it somewhere. Additional concepts and strategies can be obtained through extended resources such as specialized classes, books, etc. There is also so many variables in different rampage/shooting situations that there is not "one" infinitely valuable piece of information that keeps the perp from getting caught or getting equalized by the police.

 

[kraigwy]

Odd this post comes out this afternoon and this evening someone sends me a copy of:

"Catalog of Unique, Concealed & Disguised Weapons, Concealments, Escape Techniques, Tactics & Tradecraft"

Shades of the "Anarchist Cookbook", 21st Century version.

 

[BGutzman]

I agree the information is all out there... The only in general thing I can say to counter a sophisticated attack is to be situationally aware and use lawful force in a manner to aggressively defend yourself.. I stumble for better words but the key is lawful use of force... no Rambo... think reasonable man...

Hesitation, timidness have no place in these situations but neither can you afford errors or mis-identification... I have no Idea of what to think of these videos overall..

 

[Slopemeno]

have any of you taken the FEMA course? Free. Online.

 

[DaleA]

Sigh.

I guess I’d say there’s a ‘balance’ to be considered. Balance the fact that most people are ‘good’ and will use the information to their advantage verses the very, very few that are ‘bad’ and will use the information to make their bad acts more effective.

Since I believe the ‘good’ folks vastly outnumber the ‘bad’ folks I guess I would say the potential for something good out weighs the potential for something bad.

Looked at it this way it’s pretty much my view on why easier access to concealed carry permits is a good thing.

 

[MLeake]

DaleA, true, but carry permits require at least a cursory criminal background check.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I didn't want to comment directly for a bit.

One problem that someone might postulate is that the training videos if exposed to a mass audience might prime someone to try it.

The criminologists and psychologists who look at this stuff know that rampagers study past rampagers for inspiration and ideas. Seeing the panic and pain in the news coverage is vicariously rewarding them for their fantasies of their own action. Many plan on suicide. They have made their point and before the act reward themselves with the imagined suffering.

Would watching the videos with the initial killings reward them and push them? Interesting question.

Second, would the suggestions - hide, flee, fight - tell them how to negate these. Without details, fleeing can be analyzed as part of a trap. It's been done - that's why I said there has been sophistication with some of these folks.

Fight - sounds good but the scenarios are really close quarters and not realistic for many possible venues. So does that turn the killer towards a venue that negates the charge of the staplers and Iphones?

The videos avoid, IMHO, trained folks with firearms - that is deliberate as adding firearms for SD is anathema to the powers that be.

 

[sigcurious]

I did not consider the inciting/pushing factor of such videos or news coverage. In regards to that I think that yes they would provide a push for some people either strengthening their fantasy or even a step closer to reality. This seems apparent from other contexts of deviant behavior, where fantasies are re-enforced and engrained by repetition which may lead to eventual lack of satisfaction from the fantasy alone.

However, I would suspect that unless someone is actively being treated for something and actively excluding stimuli that aggravate negative tendencies and thought patterns, that the presence of of those specific types of videos is inconsequential. Even if that specific type of media were highly controlled, there would always be an outlet for the fantasy. There has been too much violence recorded in history and those specific types of media are a mere drop in the bucket, and someone predisposed to a violent fantasy, unchecked, will seek out similar available materials.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Reasonable point, we have folks who read violent Biblical passages and went off.

I wonder if the concern is the great old institutional fear of liability. They show the video and a watcher from their institutions seems to use it for planning.

I know places that won't teach first aid as they fear if they do and there is a rampage and the first aid is misused (tourniquet around neck - ), they will get sued. Letting the victim bleed out has less liability.

 

[armoredman]

Pax, "Clear and Present Danger". by Tom Clancy, IIRC.

Police manuals have been out there for years, and I rarely hear of criminals availing themselves of them.