Examining the Run, Hide, Fight Active Shooter Response in Schools

Examining the Run, Hide, Fight Active Shooter Response

In the age of rising mass shootings, "run, hide, fight" has become the mantra taught to students and staff across many U.S. schools and universities for how to respond in an active shooter situation. But in the wake of recent high-profile campus shootings like at Michigan State University, some school safety experts are questioning if following this simple mantra is enough or even the right approach.

The Run, Hide, Fight Response

The "run, hide, fight" response rose to prominence after the 1999 Columbine High School shooting as the recommended training for how schools should teach students and staff to react during an active shooter event. It prioritizes first running away and evacuating the area, then hiding in a secure room if escape is not possible, and finally fighting back against the attacker as an absolute last resort if running and hiding have failed.

This approach has been adopted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and many law enforcement agencies as the best practices for surviving an active shooter incident in various environments like schools, offices, or public spaces. It aims to empower individuals to make quick decisions to protect themselves in life-or-death situations where waiting for law enforcement to respond could have deadly consequences.

Criticisms of the Run, Hide, Fight Response

In the wake of high-profile mass shootings like at Michigan State University, Uvalde, and others, some school safety experts are critically examining the "run, hide, fight" mantra as the frontline response taught to students and staff.

"Run, hide, fight" assumes an individualistic approach focused on personal survival. But critics argue that in an active shooter situation in a school, prioritizing individual escape can lead to chaos and trampling as students flee, inadvertently blocking others from escaping. They suggest a response that instead has students sheltering in place together could be safer.

The "fight" part of the mantra is also called into question. Fighting back against an armed attacker as a civilian requires immense courage and can also inadvertently endanger more lives. Critics suggest "fight" should not be presented lightly as an expected response for teachers or students in an active shooter situation.

Alternatives to Run, Hide, Fight

Some school districts are moving away from teaching "run, hide, fight" as the sole or even primary active shooter response. Alternate approaches include:

• Enhanced lockdown training - Locking down in secure locations but with additional actions like barricading doors, covering windows, readying evacuation routes.
• Counter techniques - Strategies to confuse, disorient, or incapacitate a shooter when escape is not possible.
• Avoid, Deny, Defend - This approach avoids suggesting fighting back against the attacker.

Other recommendations include investing more in identifying and addressing at-risk individuals before they initiate an attack through social services, mental health resources, and monitoring threats.

Holistic Training and Preparedness

"Run, hide, fight" can still provide a baseline framework for active shooter response. But more comprehensive training and preparedness plans are needed rather than relying on this mantra alone.

Schools need regularly drilled and tested active shooter plans tailored to their unique spaces. Students and staff need education on making quick but smart decisions, proper evacuation and lockdown protocols, first aid training, and how to provide real-time updates to law enforcement.

Active shooter training also needs to emphasize that individual actions affect the whole community. Escaping is safest when done together in an orderly way. And heroic actions like fighting back require much more than just a slogan to prepare someone for that terrible scenario.

The Search for Solutions

No single response can guarantee surviving an active shooter situation. But from rethinking "run, hide, fight" to increased preparedness and preventative measures, safety experts hope the tragedies seen so far can help schools continue to improve their readiness and ultimately prevent more attacks.

The search continues for the right solutions to keep students and staff safe while on campus. But by asking tough questions about existing protocols and not relying on simple mantras, schools can develop more thoughtful active shooter preparedness plans for their unique needs.

FAQs

What is the run, hide, fight active shooter response?

Run, hide, fight is the recommended response taught by many law enforcement agencies for surviving an active shooter event. It prioritizes first escaping the area, then hiding in a secure room if escape is not possible, and finally fighting back as an absolute last resort.

Why is run, hide, fight being re-examined?

In the wake of recent school shootings, some experts are questioning if run, hide, fight is comprehensive enough or could inadvertently create unsafe evacuation panic. Critics suggest enhanced lockdown training, counter techniques, and focusing more on pre-attack prevention.

What are alternatives to teaching run, hide, fight?

Some alternatives include enhanced lockdown training, counter techniques to disorient a shooter, and avoiding suggesting fighting back. Other options are preventative measures like identifying at-risk individuals early and providing social services.

Should schools continue using run, hide, fight?

Run, hide, fight can still provide a baseline framework, but should not be the sole active shooter training. More comprehensive education, drilled plans tailored to each school, and thinking about group safety over individual actions are also needed.

How can schools improve active shooter preparedness?

Improving preparedness includes regularly drilled lockdown plans, first aid and counter technique training, orderly evacuation protocols, real-time law enforcement communication, and preventative measures to intercede with at-risk individuals early.