ASSOCIATE Magazine FBINAA Q4-2023

Continued from "Civilian Active Shooter?", on page 15

of this article is to start the discussion of enhanced education for civilians to provide a clearer and more understandable methodol ogy that would lead to the best survivability outcome. With Law Enforcement responders being the best equipped and trained to engage armed assailant(s), the principal function of civilians in these events is to preserve their personal safety while gaining the needed time (usually minutes) for responders to arrive. References FBI Press Release. (May 2022), FBI Designates 61 Active Shooter Incidents in 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-designates-61- active-shooter-incidents-in-2021.

civilians may have the inability to “think and reason” clearly and will revert to previous training and or simple methodology. Thus, keeping instructions simple and recognizable can create the high est degree of response success. CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE METHODOLOGY Escape, Hide, Defend The methodology we have proposed both locally and nationally (adopted in whole or part by organizations and agencies nation wide) consists of the following elements: 1. Escape: Instructing civilians to “Escape” creates a more understandable methodology providing more alternatives while not limiting the options to “running” alone. a. Escape may include rapid evacuation of an area but should be more orderly and organized. b. Escape should include movements that do not place civilians in “target rich” situational environments such as wide-open spaces or areas easily accessed by one or multiple armed assailants. c. Escape can occur through non-conventional ingress and egress areas such as windows, vents, or other access doors. d. Escape can include moving from one area (internally) to another safer area if leaving the building is not possible. e. Escape can include, if leaving the building is possible, moving to an exterior area that is a safer location, possibly with cover and concealment (such as behind an exterior wall, berm, or outside structure). 2. Hide: Instructing civilians to simply “hide” can be a vague and shallow instruction methodology. a. Instructions on proper “hiding” (sheltering) techniques will enhance the possibility of success in active aggressor events. b. Hiding utilizing the principles of quiet and concealment provides some limited margins of safety. c. Hiding utilizing “Cover” provides greater margins of safety from active aggressor events involving firearms. d. Hiding utilizing both “Cover” and “Concealment” provides the best overall availability of safety in certain active aggressor events. e. Hiding with the “Shelter in Place” concept where areas are restricted (such as locked, barricaded doors) can also provide the highest degree of safety margins in active shooter events. 3. Defend: Instructing unarmed civilians to “Defend” themselves in an armed aggressor(s) event can lead to an improved outcome as opposed to directing to a “Fight” encounter . a. Defense may include “Avoidance” - avoiding a direct confrontation with an armed assailant – thus, direct engagement – “Fight”- should not be a primary tactic for an unarmed civilian. b. Defense methodology for unarmed civilians can be in the forms of distraction, dissuasion, and diversion. These tactics can utilize physical and or verbal/audible techniques and other stimuli that would distract the armed aggressor. c. Defending can be in the form of proxemics, creating a difficult or unachievable focus point (target) for the armed assailant(s) by increasing space. Movements and body positioning such as lowering body mass closer to the ground, or changing the center of mass, can also increase the inability of an armed assailant(s) from achieving and or acquiring the target. CONCLUSION As we understand from a law enforcement perspective, ac tive aggressor (shooter) events are rapidly evolving and, in most cases, tragic events involving the senseless loss of life. The goal

About the Authors: Special Agent Anthony Giaimo, M.S. , (NA Session 241) is a Past President and Vice President of the Eastern Pennsylvania FBI NAA Chapter and Chief of Police and Emergency Management Coordinator (Ret. - Tredyffrin Township Police). Previous experience (25 years) as a SWAT operator, sniper, commander and cur rently is a university professor, teaching crisis leadership to specialized military units and first responders with duties as a Special Agent for the Florida Department of the Lottery – Law Enforcement Division. Dr. Dale Retzlaff is the Director of the Organizational Leadership Program in the School of Leadership at the University of Charleston. He is a decorated combat veteran having served with the 2nd Ranger Battalion and a career law enforcement official, retiring as a police commander with the Washington State Patrol (Lieuten ant, Ret.). Associate Professor of Leadership teaching crisis leadership to specialized military units and first responders.

Continued from "What is Your Measuring Stick?", on page 24

ment efforts alone to “attack” disorder to prevent predatory crime are not as reliable as measurements of neighborhood trust to predict crime within urban areas. So, while reduction of crime went down, it can be argued police trust and thus legitimacy also declined. While there is empirical evidence to suggest monitoring and repairing blight is effective within the premise that disorder breeds crime, more evidence is needed to link broken window theory to the reduc tion of fear of crime and public satisfaction with police services. Using public satisfaction with the police as a measuring stick has a positive relationship to police legitimacy. Despite monopo lizing the jurisdiction we are in, compare a citizen contact with a retail transaction – one bad encounter will imprint a negative connotation for future encounters. How we influence future police legitimacy is through our daily contacts now. While this concept seems practical, many police agencies are still using crime report ing, percentage of case closures, number of traffic stops made, and other quantitative analysis to measure the effectiveness of our employees. In order to truly gauge policing efficiency, we need to dig deeper into the contacts made with the public and the perception the public has with police.

About the Author: Dr. Kevin Chabot started his career in 2001. He has a bachelor’s degree in political science and minor in economics, a master’s degree in com munity economic development, a graduate certificate in criminal justice, and his doctoral degree in educational

leadership from the University of New England. His dissertation focused on the relationship of procedural justice to public satisfaction and legitimacy in southern Maine police agencies. Additionally, he graduated from the 272nd session of the FBI National Academy. Capt. Chabot is an instructor at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and former adjunct professor at YCCC in criminal justice. He served eight years in the Army Reserves and is a combat veteran serving in Bosnia 2000-2001 and Iraq 2003-2004.

28 FBINAA.ORG | Q4 2023