With the increasing frequency of active shooter attacks, it is essential to be aware of how to protect yourself. While it’s critical to know what actions to take during an attack, it’s equally as important to understand what not to do.

Establishing Safety Guidance in the Aftermath of Columbine

After the tragic attack at Columbine High School in 1999, law enforcement officials, security specialists, and researchers recognized a need to establish safety guidelines to mitigate casualties during mass attacks. Since then, options-based response models such as “Run, Hide, Fight,”, “Avoid, Deny, Defend,”, and “Evacuate, Lockdown, Fight” were developed to educate the public how to respond when placed in an active shooter situation.

First 30 Group, headquartered in Virginia, specializes in active shooter safety training and research. They conducted a comprehensive review of over 670 active shooter attacks worldwide, analyzing thousands of pages of after-action reports, police reports, witness statements, and court documents. The group also interviewed 25 survivors of attacks from around the world, which provided valuable and unique insight through the eyes of those who lived through these types of attacks.

Patterns of survival behaviors were identified through the analysis of survivor testimonies and written documentation, which helped distinguish between effective and ineffective strategies.

Avoiding Common Mistakes During an Attack: Valuable Insights

The intent of this article is not to criticize the actions of victims of violent attacks. Instead, it aims to explore common responses to traumatic events and learn from them so others may avoid making the same mistakes in a similar emergency.

This article explores three common errors to avoid during an attack, drawing on the experiences of those who endured violent encounters. By learning from their actions, we can better prepare ourselves for similar situations.

Mistake #1: Pulling the Fire Alarm

Every action can have a significant impact on the outcome during an emergency. Unfortunately, many well-intentioned people have resorted to pulling a fire alarm during an attack in an effort to warn others. Activating a fire alarm during an attack can actually put people in more danger, as well as cause significant problems for first responders as they seek out the assailant to stop the attack.

Pulling a fire alarm during a mass attack may feel like the right thing to do. After all, we associate efficient evacuations with fire alarms. However, fire alarms are appropriate only when the nature of the emergency is an actual fire.

Unintended Consequences

Improper Evacuation Procedures:  Activating the fire alarm triggers fire evacuation procedures instead of multi-option response models such as “Evacuate, Lockdown, Fight”.  Casually moving out of a room into an open area such as a hallway can be dangerous, as it presents more targets for an assailant than if building occupants remained barricaded behind locked doors. 

In 2023 third grader William Kinney was shot and killed at Covenant School (Nashville, Tennessee) as he, along with other classmates, evacuated into the hallway after a fire alarm was activated.  Although it is believed the fire alarm was tripped by the smoke from the assailant’s rifle, rather than intentionally activated, it illustrates the dangers of evacuating under fire related protocols during an active shooter incident.  As a result of this tragedy, Tennessee lawmakers proposed legislation which would mandate schools to identify the cause of a fire alarm before evacuating students from classrooms.

Public safety organizations warn against using fire alarms as a mass notification system for mass attacks. For example, the National Fire Protection Association’s standard for active shooter response, known as NFPA 3000, states, “The signaling and messaging process or procedure shall be designed to be readily distinguishable from the fire alarm signals” (NFPA 2021).

Noise Cancels Out Emergency Notifications:  Public address systems can be a reliable method of notifying building occupants about potential danger. However, the noise from a piercing fire alarm can render these systems ineffective.

In 2005, a tragedy occurred at Red Lake High School on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota. During the attack, the fire alarm went off, making it difficult for the school to communicate with students and staff through the intercom system. The blaring fire alarm drowned out emergency announcements and masked the sounds of gunfire in other parts of the building. Many people only became aware of the gravity of the situation when they saw others fleeing and warning them of an active shooter.

Fire Alarm Complicates Efforts at the Navy Yard

On September 16, 2013, a gunman, armed with a sawed-off shotgun and a pistol he took from a security guard he murdered, roamed the hallways at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. The attack occurred within Building 197, an enormous structure filled with mazes of cubicles, offices, and SCIFs. In a misguided effort to alert co-workers of an attack, an employee pulled a fire alarm. This set into motion problems that would complicate evacuation efforts and plague the police response in search of the killer. The sound of the piercing alarm concealed the sounds of gunfire throughout the building. Believing it to be a false alarm or fire drill, many employees slowly navigated the hallways towards designated exits in compliance with fire alarm procedures. Unaware of the true threat, hundreds of people unnecessarily exposed themselves to the dangers of open hallways and atriums instead of barricading behind the relative safety of locked doors.

Laurel Myers, who was hiding under her desk and providing information to a 9-1-1 call taker, felt the alarm made it difficult to hear where the shooter was and crippled her ability to provide vital information to the police on the other end of the line. In her book, Myers wrote, “Why would someone set off the fire alarm? Now I had to talk to the operator over the din of the alarm and announcements to ‘leave by the nearest exit,’ all the while trying to discern the shooter’s location. It was easy to hear the shooter walking around when it was silent in the building, but now there was an alarm blaring, and on top of the alarm, there was the continuous announcement to exit the building.” (Myers 2014)

Handicapped by the persistent noise of the fire alarm, responding officers were unable to quickly locate the gunfire and stop the attack. An after-action report generated by the Metropolitan Police Department stated, “Officers are trained to go towards the sounds of gunshots and neutralize the threat; however, the structure and environment of Building 197, along with the blaring fire alarm, made it nearly impossible to accurately determine from which area the shots were being fired.” (MPD 2014) In addition, police were unable to communicate with one another and with dispatch, hindered by the sound of the alarm.

Excessive Noise Creates Problems for Building Occupants and Police

Similar problems were observed during the 1999 attack at Columbine High School. Sophomore Marjorie Lindholm experienced frustrations with a fire alarm as she was barricaded in a science classroom. She wrote, “They were so loud, that they did the unimaginable. They made the most unbelievably horrible experience a person could ever imagine, worse. We stayed frozen, listening to those blaring alarms, for what must have been an hour, listening, still.”   (Lindholm 2005)

As Lindholm and hundreds of other students waited for rescue, SWAT operators had difficulty communicating with each other verbally as they moved through the building. In order to mitigate the problem, they communicated through hand signals. Officers had difficulty shutting down the alarm through the control panel and resorted to attempting to break the speakers and disable the control panel by smashing it with the butt of a rifle. Ultimately, it took several hours to deactivate the piercing alarm.

Do This Instead

Resist the urge to initiate a fire alarm when attempting to alert others of an attack. There are other means to warn others, such as shouting “Active Shooter!” and using various technologies such as intercoms and mass notification systems.

Mistake #2: Hiding under a Desk 

Seeking cover under furniture may be appropriate for some emergencies, such as during an earthquake, tornado, and even “Duck and Cover” protocols for nuclear attacks during the Cold War. When faced with an active shooter situation, people often take cover behind or under a desk or table as well. This instinctive reaction of dropping to the ground and crawling under an item, even if it doesn’t provide adequate concealment or ballistic protection, is similar to someone hiding under the covers when they hear a frightening noise. 

It may work. It may not.  

In the first moments of an attack, a desk may be the closest concealment available. Seconds after an assailant shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary (Newtown, Connecticut – 2012), two faculty members concealed themselves under desks within the front office. The killer quickly scanned the office, didn’t observe anyone, and kept moving in search of victims in other parts of the building. 

At Sandy Hook, the actions of the two staff members may have saved their lives. However, it is critical to understand the limitations of crawling under a desk or table. Furniture offers almost no concealment and a minimal amount of ballistic protection, if any at all.   

Unfortunately, many people have been shot as they attempted to conceal themselves under furniture. For instance, police found many of the deceased under tables within the library at Columbine High School (Littleton, Colorado – 1999). More victims were shot under tables at Luby’s Restaurant (Killeen, Texas – 1991), Luigi’s restaurant in Fayetteville, North Carolina – 1993), General Motors Acceptance Corporation (Jacksonville, Florida – 1990), University of Iowa (Iowa City, Iowa – 1991), and Edgewater Technology (Wakefield, Massachusetts – 2000).  

False Sense of Security

Hiding under a table is similar to an ostrich burying its head in the sand. While the ostrich may believe he is camouflaged, in reality, he is quite visible to everyone. Katherine Schweit, who ran the FBI’s active shooter program for several years wrote, “I still have nightmares about details from school shootings in which survivors told me they huddled under their desks, hoping against logic that the shooter would not see them.” (Schweit 2021) 

Do This Instead

Hiding under a desk is not a reliable or safe option. While it may be necessary to seek temporary concealment behind or under furniture in the first few seconds of an attack, it is crucial to develop a plan and move quickly with a purpose. Instead, consider more effective options such as Evacuate, Lockdown, or Fight.

Mistake #3: Playing Dead

On occasion, media outlets report someone survived an attack by playing dead. While playing dead may seem like a viable option in certain situations, it is important to note it is not always effective. Surviving a mass attack requires quick thinking and decisive action. It is often better to attempt to escape or find shelter rather than relying on the hope that playing dead will protect you. Additionally, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique response. 

The Benefits of Playing Dead in the Animal Kingdom

Animals such as snakes, rabbits, chickens – and, of course, the opossum, are known to feign death when confronted by a predator.

According to some researchers, feigning death might be advantageous, particularly when other prey is present in the area. The theory suggests that predators will expend more energy catching live prey than they would pursuing potential victims that are probably deceased or fatally injured. It’s worth noting, however, that these studies were conducted on wild animals, which have different cognitive processes and motives than humans.

Playing Dead: Is It a Safe Option?

In the event of an attack, some people may consider playing dead in the hopes of avoiding further harm. However, assailants have been known to shoot victims who are lying on the ground, whether they believe they’re already dead, are wounded, or simply want to ensure they’re no longer alive. By choosing to play dead, you’re essentially giving up control to the attacker.  This option should be considered only as a last resort.  

Let’s Talk About When This Tactic Worked 

The American Civic Association in Binghamton, New York, was the site of a tragic event in 2009. A man with two handguns entered the building and began firing. The receptionist was among the first to be shot, but she managed to save her own life by playing dead. After the attacker walked to another area, she moved under a desk and contacted the police. Despite the loss of thirteen lives in the massacre, the receptionist miraculously managed to survive.

There are other examples where someone played dead and survived, such as Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Office (Alturas, California – 2014) and Robb Elementary School (Uvalde, Texas – 2022). In many cases, the assailant knew he had already shot the victim, making it reasonable to assume the motionless body of the survivor was dead. Playing dead when uninjured would be a riskier affair.

The Risks of Playing Dead: Real-World Examples

Playing opossum is not an effective strategy in most situations. Active shooters will not hesitate to shoot their victims, regardless of whether they are standing, sitting, or lying motionless on the ground.

In 1984, a heavily-armed assailant entered a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California. During his attack, which lasted over an hour, he kicked bodies to confirm they were dead, then shot them again for good measure. Thirteen of the twenty-one fatalities suffered gunshot wounds to the head, and a pregnant woman who was murdered was found to have suffered from 48 separate wounds, an indication the assailant was intent on ensuring those he shot were indeed dead.

In the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the killer shot his victims multiple times. Many of these students were either wounded, playing dead, or were already deceased. In other words, when victims fell to the ground, they were not immune to further assault.  

Staff from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University wrote: “The data show a clear pattern that those who took some form of defensive action at Virginia Tech fared much better than those who did not. Freezing or playing dead were not good options.”  (Blair 2013)

As these attacks illustrate, gunshot-wound victims are not immune from further attack after they fall to the ground. Further examples include:

• Luby’s Restaurant (Killeen, Texas – 1991)
• Momentum Securities (Atlanta, Georgia – 1999)
• Fort Hood (Fort Hood, Texas – 2009)
• Inland Regional Center (San Bernardino, California – 2015)
• Masjid an-Nur and Linwood Islamic Centre Mosques (Christchurch, New Zealand – 2019)
• Tops Friendly Market (Buffalo, New York – 2022) 

Tragedy at Utøya Island

Perhaps no other case emphasizes the dangers associated with playing dead than the 2011 brutal attack by a lone gunman on the island of Utøya in Norway. Eleven desperate teenagers played dead in hopes their pursuer would pass them by. Tragically, the killer noticed the group of campers, approached, and shot them as they lay motionless on the ground. All but one was killed. According to a Norwegian court document, “They had lain down next to each other and played dead. N101 was holding the hand of her best friend N044 when the defendant came and shot them one by one.” (Arntzen 2012)

Do This Instead

As these tragic examples illustrate, the tactic of playing dead is a gamble. Unless you are already shot and are incapacitated to the point that you are unable to move, it’s best to avoid playing dead and use other options such as Evacuate, Lockdown, Fight.

Learning From the Past, Preparing For the Future

It’s important for us to learn from past attacks when preparing for future emergencies. Remember, every minute matters during an active shooter incident. Ask yourself if you, your family, and your workplace are sufficiently prepared to respond to an attack. Being equipped with the knowledge of what works and what doesn’t will make all the difference, and potentially save lives.

References

• Arntzen, Elizabeth. 2012. District Court Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen. TOSLO-2011-188627-24
• Blair, John P. 2013. Active Shooter: Events and Response. CRC Press.
• Lindholm, Marjorie. 2005. A Columbine Survivor’s Story. Regenold Publishing.
• MPD (Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.). 2014. After Action Report, Washington Navy Yard, September 16, 2013.  Internal Review of the Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.
• Myers, Laurel. 2014. Shooting at the Navy Yard: One Survivor’s Memoir. Lulu Publishing Services.
• NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2021. NFPA 3000 Standard for an Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response (ASHER) Program
• Schweit, Katherine. 2021. Stop the Killing, How to End the Mass Shooting Crisis. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

Greg Pass is the Director of Training and Research at First 30 Group, a leader in Active Shooter Safety Training. He is a retired police lieutenant from the Washington, D.C. National Capital Region with an extensive background in active shooter training and response. He also serves on the board of directors for the VTV Family Outreach Foundation, a nonprofit organization committed to assisting survivors of mass attacks across the country.