AURORA THEATER SHOOTING: ARMED RESPONSE ANALYSIS

[Daniel]

http://www.resist44....sponse-analysis

My initial response to the theater shooting in Aurora was a simple desire to understand more and learn the facts surrounding it. Who, what, when, where, and why? After reading through whatever news reports I could find, my tactical mind began considering the situation and the environment. I was going through the process of what's known as “mental rehearsalsâ€.

Essentially, mental rehearsals are exactly what they sound like: rehearsing potential actions to be taken 'in the event of'. What would I have done were I faced with the same dire situation of a heavily armed active shooter firing indiscriminately into crowds of people in a dark, smokey theater?

Using these same mental rehearsals in conjunction with a knowledge in firearms, tactics, and the ability to turn on an aggressive attitude, it is possible to mentally rehearse the outcomes of any number of scenarios. With that in mind, the purpose of this article is to ask the question: If members of the audience were armed, could the outcome of this event have been altered? If so, how and to what degree?

Considering the eyewitness accounts and reports released throughout the week, a few environmental and situational considerations stand out in my mind:

• Large darkened theater; reflected light from smoke and the screen; directed light from projector
  
• Loud surround sound audio playing from the movie throughout the incident
  
• Smoke canisters thrown (type unknown); good airflow and rapid movement in theater would spread smoke rapidly; smoke causes irritation in lungs
  
• Densely packed theater; approximately 300 people in ~5500 square feet
  
• According to cinema website (http://www.cinemark....px?node_id=1647) Every seat in the auditorium is placed higher than the seats immediately in front of them. Each row is roomier and provides excellent sight lines (to the screen).
  

The shooter must also be taken into consideration. Knowing the likely course of action of your enemy is extremely important when conducting any mental rehearsals. Some important considerations in regard to the shooter:

• 24 year old; reportedly 6'3†tall and athletic, slender build; likely around 200 lbs
  
• Armed with 12 gauge shotgun, AR15 assault rifle with 100rd drum, .40cal handgun
  
• Wearing load bearing vest, likely with extra shells, handgun magazines, and additional 100rd AR15 drum
  
• Wearing armored helmet, throat, groin, leggings, chest, and gas mask
  
• Fired shotgun in the air first, began firing indiscriminately into crowd
  

Follow source link to read the rest.

It includes this picture which I find interesting.

Come back to discuss.

I will say I agree with his assessment of AR drum mags.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Daniel

[Guest Revelator]

Yes, the rest is pure speculation.

[Daniel]

Of course it is...

[Lumber_Jack]

I feel like its an accurate assessment. I feel like if I were one of the audience members I could have responded in the manner described. Could it have happened completely different, sure.

I think a key to self defense in thy situation is having a bright flashlight. This was discussed in another thread, but it not only allows you to quickly see your target, but also provides a blinding affect to the attacker.

[Guest drv2fst]

I think a key to self defense in thy situation is having a bright flashlight. This was discussed in another thread, but it not only allows you to quickly see your target, but also provides a blinding affect to the attacker.

I think a bright flashlight would be very handy in most situations. But I wonder about this very unusual case. This attacker used smoke. I have never used a flashlight in heavy smoke situations. Will they be helpful with smoke cover all around?

[Lumber_Jack]

I think a bright flashlight would be very handy in most situations. But I wonder about this very unusual case. This attacker used smoke. I have never used a flashlight in heavy smoke situations. Will they be helpful with smoke cover all around?

Well of it was a complete cloud of smoke, it would be limited usefulness. Think of high beams in dense fog. But I'm not sure how much smoke was truly emitted in the theater. So depending on your seat location would determine how much smoke.

But its always better to have one just in case.

[Troutburger]

Sad thing is he left through the emergency exit got his gear and returned through the same door. A simple open door and alarm will sound style fire alarm could have hindered his reentry.

[Lumber_Jack]

Sad thing is he left through the emergency exit got his gear and returned through the same door. A simple open door and alarm will sound style fire alarm could have hindered his reentry.

That's a good point. Movie theaters often encourage exit out the doors to reduce congestion in hallways. Simply making them "emergency exit only" would solve way more here than any gun control.

[Jonnin]

Given that his vest was not actually armor after all, yes I think a handgun would have stopped him DRT in the hands of a decent shot if the shooter were not too far from the gun owner. I will not claim that he will hit him 100% nor that he will not accidentally hit someone else in the crowd or even shoot thru a wall, but the total number of people shot could have been cut from 70+ down to 1/3 or less of that under some conditions.

Theaters are never truly dark. The things that matter are the noise/setting (duh, what? factor) and the smoke (if you were near a canister, it would be awful, and after a few min, it would be generally a mess all over).

Now, I said under some conditions. Under other conditions (the only gun owner is blinded, confused, shot in the first few rounds, hesitates due to crowd, runs away or cowers instead, or whatever else) nothing would have changed. Its luck of the draw on a gun owner being in a good place to make the shot and then doing so.

[Lumber_Jack]

I carry a 10mm Glock most of the time, I carry a .45 other times . What would 2-4 good center mass shots have done, IF it were real body armor? I'm sure it would be rib breaking, but knock him down? Possible pass thru?

[atlas3025]

I carry a 10mm Glock most of the time, I carry a .45 other times . What would 2-4 good center mass shots have done, IF it were real body armor? I'm sure it would be rib breaking, but knock him down? Possible pass thru?

A 10mm would have vaporized him, and a good deal of the front corner of the theater.

In all seriousness, I would have had a LCP on me in a summertime theatre...not sure how much use it would have been. I would have only been sitting near him in that portion of the theatre if I'd had to be...likely would have been dead center of the theatre. I am not sure I could have done much given that and my sidearm. A non-bullet proof vest that had loaded mags in it would likey have stopped any of my fire.

EDIT: wanted to add that I spelled "threatre" that way to bring some elegance to the discussion.

Edited July 27, 2012 by atlas3025

[TMF]

EDIT: wanted to add that I spelled "threatre" that way to bring some elegance to the discussion.

You are a proper gentleman, Sir.

I think it's great to look at this and sorta aar it, but I'm still of the mindset that there wasn't much could be done other than seek cover or try to get away.

I consider myself to be a good shooter and less fearful of a d-bag with a gun than most, but in this situation, had I been sitting in the lower rows, surrounded in a packed theater with no escape or cover.... I dunno, I imagine I woulda been shot before I realized what was going on. When you figure out how many people were in the theater in that first section he shot up versus the number of people shot, odds aren't that good. It's just a really crap situation and I really feel for those folks. It makes me hate this shooter even more to know how confident he musta been that no one would have time to respond even if they were armed.

BTW, if it was body armor a 10mm ain't doing jack to it. Unless your 10mm has more impressive ballistics than a 7.62 x 51 ball round he ain't gonna fall down or even get major bruising.... Not if you hit him in the plates.

Edited July 27, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Lumber_Jack]

BTW, if it was body armor a 10mm ain't doing jack to it. Unless your 10mm has more impressive ballistics than a 7.62 x 51 ball round he ain't gonna fall down or even get major bruising.... Not if you hit him in the plates.

...and that's why I asked. I mean most attackers don't have armor. very few stories to my knowledge where a domestic assailant wore armor. There are some, but not many.

[TMF]

I wouldn't sweat someone wearing armor. People don't like gettin shot at no matter how much protection they have. I'm confident that anyone who is intent on shooting folks ain't gonna react well to getting shot back at. Criminals are cowards, and when they draw a pistol it ain't because they're fighting for their lives, but if I draw mine it's because I am. Different mindset; they will break contact at the first sign of trouble.

[Guest adurbin]

I wouldn't sweat someone wearing armor. People don't like gettin shot at no matter how much protection they have. I'm confident that anyone who is intent on shooting folks ain't gonna react well to getting shot back at. Criminals are cowards, and when they draw a pistol it ain't because they're fighting for their lives, but if I draw mine it's because I am. Different mindset; they will break contact at the first sign of trouble.

Been saying this all along.

[TrickyNicky]

I wouldn't sweat someone wearing armor. People don't like gettin shot at no matter how much protection they have. I'm confident that anyone who is intent on shooting folks ain't gonna react well to getting shot back at. Criminals are cowards, and when they draw a pistol it ain't because they're fighting for their lives, but if I draw mine it's because I am. Different mindset; they will break contact at the first sign of trouble.

I don't know. There seems to be different classes at play. I would agree the majority don't want trouble and will do their best to avoid it or flee but not all and is it worth making assumptions as to which you are dealing with?

The North Hollywood bank robber had no problem taking action against police, they where better armed, had better armor and clearly where not afraid to die.

A certain type of thug may react to the flight or fight response with an escalated level of violence as aposed to breaking contact.

Hard to say what the case is with Holmes as he seems to have a defective ability to reason. I'm willing to bet his plan was to go out in a hail of gunfire, and somewhere along the line that plan changed.

Maybe it was the first hand exposer to violent death? Maybe he had a moment of lucidity, maybe e didn't want to die at all. It's hard to say but one things for sure, I would never bet on the criminal element breaking away at the first or any sign of trouble. If that where the case we wouldn't need police, old timers taking a stroll with their nine irons would keep everyone in line.

[QuietDan]

Under almost any outcome of this scenario, SOME armed response would have been better than NO armed response.

Most patrons in the theatre, after the first shot into the ceiling, would have been at least sitting down if not actively gluing themselves to the floor. The shooter, by accounts, was up and walking around, and therefore a clearer target.

Even with smoke obscuring vision, in the dark theatre, a armed response aimed at at least at the muzzle flashes would have a good chance of connecting with the perpetrator.

Empty a magazine into the bastard: whether body armour or no, whether a head-shot or no, whether collateral wounding or no, an armed response from any point in the theatre would have meant either the same or fewer people shot.

Edited July 27, 2012 by QuietDan

[TMF]

I don't know. There seems to be different classes at play. I would agree the majority don't want trouble and will do their best to avoid it or flee but not all and is it worth making assumptions as to which you are dealing with?

The North Hollywood bank robber had no problem taking action against police, they where better armed, had better armor and clearly where not afraid to die.

A certain type of thug may react to the flight or fight response with an escalated level of violence as aposed to breaking contact.

Hard to say what the case is with Holmes as he seems to have a defective ability to reason. I'm willing to bet his plan was to go out in a hail of gunfire, and somewhere along the line that plan changed.

Maybe it was the first hand exposer to violent death? Maybe he had a moment of lucidity, maybe e didn't want to die at all. It's hard to say but one things for sure, I would never bet on the criminal element breaking away at the first or any sign of trouble. If that where the case we wouldn't need police, old timers taking a stroll with their nine irons would keep everyone in line.

I play the averages but still recognize that anything is possible. 99.99% of the time a criminal just wants to do their thing and get away. There are an abundance of videos of victims taking the fight to he attackers and the attackers always flee. The N. Hollywood shootout was a fluke. I'm not basing action on that, I'm gonna go with the averages a d that says that criminals are cowards. This guy is no different or special.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Criminals are cowards and TMF andDan are right. If you have the chance to defend yourself when bullets are flying,

how fast do you think you have to get to to outrun them? Survival is going to depend on how well you can

find cover and react, and obviously other things. I hope to never find out.

But in this case the shooter was crazy, anyway, wasn't he, and that adds to the variables. But a shooter is a shooter

and I can't see running as the best option if I have a weapon. If I'm not already shot, this guy would get a lot of return

fire and I would be changing my pants, afterward.

[Guest BungieCord]

Regarding body armor, the obvious answer is...

Mozambique 'em

(Stolen from Gunsite Academy, sung to the tune of Dominique)

1.

With your sights on center chest

Twice your trigger you have pressed.

If two don't stop the fight,

A head-shot should set it right!

[Chorus]

Mozambique 'em, Mozambique 'em,If he fails to hit the ground

After two well-placed rounds!

Shoot between the eyes and lips,No, NOT between the hips,

That should put the goblin down!

2.

It is best to use a slug

Big enough to stop a thug.

Calibers that start with four

Will better drop them to the floor!

[repeat Chorus]

3.

Stop this talk of “failure drills,"

For it denigrates our skills.

Failure is a word so bleak,

But I rejoice at “MOZAMBIQUEâ€!

[repeat Chorus]

[TMF]

Yes but "failure drills" are so far less Hollywood to describe in training.

[TrickyNicky]

I play the averages but still recognize that anything is possible. 99.99% of the time a criminal just wants to do their thing and get away. There are an abundance of videos of victims taking the fight to he attackers and the attackers always flee. The N. Hollywood shootout was a fluke. I'm not basing action on that, I'm gonna go with the averages a d that says that criminals are cowards. This guy is no different or special.

Well I think 99.99% is a bit strong, but on the whole I agree. All I'm trying to say is I wouldn't bet my life on whatever the odds are, and even a coward can stand his ground if his survival depends on it.

I think QuietDan has the right of this, do whatever is in your ability to stop the threat as quick as possible. Me, I'm not even going to consider the fact that someone who has already gone that far into endangering my life might want to quit and go home just because I turned out not to be an easy target. If he does run fine, but I'm not going to hold myself back from the strongest warranted action in the hopes that he does. I hope to never be in that kind of situation but if that's where I end up I just hope to be the one least injured.

As to the tons of videos of people fighting back and criminals fleeing, I'd be willing to bet there's as many of people fighting back and losing with tragic results in the evidence rooms of LEO world wide.

I had a friend once who was convinced he could stop even the wildest dog from attacking by hitting it in the nose. I guess he's never been proven wrong cause he he's never been attacked by a dog, but not being proved wrong doesn't make him right.

The message I'm trying to make is don't underestimate.

[TMF]

Well I think 99.99% is a bit strong, but on the whole I agree. All I'm trying to say is I wouldn't bet my life on whatever the odds are, and even a coward can stand his ground if his survival depends on it.

I think QuietDan has the right of this, do whatever is in your ability to stop the threat as quick as possible. Me, I'm not even going to consider the fact that someone who has already gone that far into endangering my life might want to quit and go home just because I turned out not to be an easy target. If he does run fine, but I'm not going to hold myself back from the strongest warranted action in the hopes that he does. I hope to never be in that kind of situation but if that's where I end up I just hope to be the one least injured.

As to the tons of videos of people fighting back and criminals fleeing, I'd be willing to bet there's as many of people fighting back and losing with tragic results in the evidence rooms of LEO world wide.

I had a friend once who was convinced he could stop even the wildest dog from attacking by hitting it in the nose. I guess he's never been proven wrong cause he he's never been attacked by a dog, but not being proved wrong doesn't make him right.

The message I'm trying to make is don't underestimate.

We have three choices in a "victim" scenario: fight, flight or submit. I'm familiar enough with myself to know that the choice between the three will not be made on much ponderence. It will be made quick and instinctively, and likely will not give me a chance to weigh the pros and cons of whether the person has body armor, exploding bullets, tear gas or the ability to slow time like Keanau Reeves. If I'm choosing flight or submit it is because I have used the valuable split second I've been allowed to weigh my options and calculate a rough estimate in my head of the most survivable course of action and determined that I am more likely to get killed trying to defend myself than picking the other options. Now, if it is determined that my greatest survivability would be to take the fight to the bad guy it is because fleeing or submitting is perceived to have a better chance ending in my demise. At this time whether or not the individual has body armor will probably not enter into the decision matrix for a variety of reasons: 1. I probably won't have time or focus to even notice. 2. It is moot because my other two options have been determined untenable.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, and in this case, if you submit, you are likely dead. Of course the victims were unarmed, so that

limits the options. If I was armed and had an opportunity to fire, I wouldn't have to think much about

shooting back. I would be thinking about my survival, which might save others.

Body armor doesn't mean don't make the attempt. Besides, in a cloudy room you probably couldn't tell.

Non-issue to me.

What will you do when backed into a corner?

[TMF]

I think in this case there were likely no good options, even if someone were armed. I can't imagine how quick and how chaotically it happened. I figure most people were shot before they realized what was going on.