Still, an
aggressive counter attack at the outset of the incident seems to
be a better option than hiding and hoping to go undetected once
the bad guys have consolidated their forces. I do think that if
you are unarmed (why would anyone do that today?), your options
are very limited.
Additionally, if
you are not at the point of contact, going to the fight may not
be smart as you don't have any more info other than shots have
been fired.
Going out in a blaze of glory is not on anyone's "to do" list
here - at least I don't think so. But hiding helplessly and
calling for help is not on it either.
If you can't do
anything about the event, I am all for getting the "foxtrot" out
of dodge. As far as evidence gathering - or getting intel out -
or helping the police identify the bad guys, etc. Why is that
your problem?
2). If you are armed (as well you should be), and know what is
happening beyond a shadow of a doubt (its not the DEA in a
firefight with a drug dealer that you are now intervening in),
and in a position to shoot the bad guys - well - what do you
think you should do?
911? Nope - not for me. Someone else can do that.
Call someone else
? Not at that point - not for me.
I am either
engaging, or getting out. Once I am out, I may call, but when in
the fire, you either fight, fly, or fry.
3). Before considering engaging the bad guys, consider who is
with you. For example, endangering your family to save someone
else may be seen by some as the epitome of selflessness, but I
see it as the epitome of stupidity. I got a chance to speak
with a Deputy whose daughter was killed by an armed robber
because he chose to put another's property and safety above that
of his own family. Bad choice - very bad choice.
If I am in a
Mumbai-esque situation with them, my job is to use my skills to
get them out. Those who did not prepare are on their own until I
get them to, what I consider, safety. If fifty unarmed peacenik
liberals get slaughtered because I chose the safety of my tribe
and family first, oh well - they made their bed, now they can
bleed in it.
Now, having said that, if any tangos are in your way as you
egress, you bet you should shoot your exit right through them.
If I am alone, I may do something different, but family and
tribe comes before anyone and anything else - so should yours.
4). If I am at ground zero, when the bad guys begin shooting,
and I am alone, I will attack. Not because it is the best thing
to do, but because it is the only thing to do. What other
option do you have? I suggest you do likewise. And understand
the tactical implications of "ATTACK". It doesn't mean running
into their midst with a knife in one hand and a Glock in the
other screaming "Wolverines". If that is what you think
attacking means- dude! - you need to come to class and get
updated. How many times have I made an issue of shooting from
long range in the Terrorist Interdiction Course?? Attack means
you get your sights on the terrorist (his head if possible) and
you smoke him in cold blood. This is vastly different from a
typical civilian CCW self-defense shooting. There is no need
for warning - no requirement to do anything, nor any chance
given for surrender.
Perhaps
AMBUSH
