A Single Entry

Based on his on-going research of active-shooter realities, he’s convinced that single-officer entries can potentially lessen the toll of casualties while exposing the responders involved to little additional risk.

This is a refreshing change in attitude , and he backs it up by making sense and assuming the attitude of what a man should be.

Still, here's the most telling part for me:

"They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant. The tracking history of these murderers has proved them to be unlikely to be aggressive with police. If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves."

Exactly. Which is why, even though this article is geared toward police training and responses, it is incomplete without acknowledgment of an armed citizen effect.

First I don't need a hero. I don't expect another man to assume such risks on my behalf. That's my job. And while I may someday be grateful to another for saving me, that's not what I plan and prepare for. What I want from the cops is to leave me the hell alone and to not treat me like the criminal.

Second, the scenario he teaches does not include what a cop should do when encountering an armed citizen defending himself and others around him. The short-sighted chief I addressed earlier had the primary worry that seeing an armed citizen might prompt his men to shoot the wrong person. Now that we have 48 states with some form of "legal" carry provisions, to not be anticipating this, and preparing and training for it, amounts to nothing less than criminal negligence.

Comments are mixed, with one I read even calling for arming teachers, but I find the naysaying from the hide-behind-trees-and-cars-crowd to be the most enlightening. Some are so slick at it, you almost don't realize what they're doing is excusing themselves for not upholding principles.

[Via Carl S]