NFPA Journal - September/October 2019 - 55

I just sat here and I had no power, no
control. I was just a sitting duck." These
are their words. We ask what they did
to make it difficult for the shooter, and
they all say the same thing: "I did nothing." Then we teach them the more
proactive methods and run the exercise again.
What methods do you teach and what
does the second exercise look like?

We teach them how to swarm a shooter,
how to distract the shooter by throwing
objects at them, and how you get them
down. Before the shooter comes in the
second time, we're working with them
saying, "OK, there's a shooter on the
other side. What are you going to do if
they come in here? What is your plan?
You guys need to talk to each other
and kind of figure something out." And
that's where they start thinking. That's
where the changes occur, and that's
when they get the aha moment because
they just saw what they did previously
and it was a complete failure. When
they do it the second time, they realize,
"Wow, I guess we can really do something by attacking a shooter." You see
the empowerment kick in and you see
confidence build when they actually do
it and they're working as a team.
Does the proactive approach
usually lead to a better outcome for
the victims?

After we go through the second exercise using these proactive techniques,
we take inventory of how many people
were hit with a foam ball. Typically, it
might be one or two people in a room
of about 15, and often they are hit in the
leg or the arm where it would probably
be a nonfatal wound. I'm not saying that
there wouldn't be any fatalities or casualties in that scenario, but their chances
of survival go up greatly versus just
sitting there doing nothing.
You teach attendees to barricade the
doors to keep the shooter out. That
topic has been controversial among
fire protection advocates in general
because it could present an egress

problem. As the fire marshal, what
would you say to that?

I know my counterparts and I sometimes disagree on the barricading piece
of it, and I know that NFPA is very
sensitive to this area as well. People say
that we don't want people to barricade
doors or use certain locking mechanisms because now we have an exit
problem. I get that and I totally understand it. We want to follow fire codes,
but at the same time if there's a shooter
on the other side of that wall with an
AK-47, what's your reaction going to be?

We have to prepare
because this is the
new normal. So many
people don't want to
accept that. It's sad that
we're having this discussion, and so many
communities don't
want to. As a result,
they're not doing
anything about it.
But the discussion is
critical to making [the
situation] better.

We have to have a conversation about
this because we haven't lost anyone in
a fire in a school since 1958-but kids
are increasingly getting killed in school
shootings. I've had conversations with
counterparts, who I might call code
purists or code puritans, who say that
we can't do anything with door barricading-the notion just gets written
off quickly. In my opinion, that doesn't
really make a whole lot of sense and it
doesn't solve the problem. We need to
continue that discussion.
Has traveling to schools and holding
these trainings led you to any other
insights about the shooter problem?
Has anything surprised you?

The biggest surprise to me has been

how little consideration seems to be
given to active shooters when we are
designing and building modern schools
and other buildings. It's not considered in the building codes, so it's rarely
considered by architects. In some cases,
shooter mitigation might be in conflict
with environmental design features,
such as the amount of glass that's being
used. This is something that I hear all
the time from people in my trainings.
I've actually visited a school where all
the classroom walls are constructed
completely of glass. When you consider
the concepts of cover and concealment
in an active shooter situation, there
are very few positive choices available when you're being viewed through
glass. Much more work is needed to
incorporate mitigation efforts in building construction relating to active
shooter protection.
Nearly 1,000 Falls Church citizens
have been through this training,
including all of the public high school
and middle school teachers. Are there
plans to put students through the
program as well?

When I received the blessing from the
school board to do this program, they
actually said that they only see this
program really working if we train
students, too. I was thrilled to hear that
because students should be trained.
I think it should be part of the high
school and middle school curriculum
at some point, whether it be in physical education, health education, or
whatever. But we haven't done that
yet. That's a big lift and I'm not sure
exactly how we get to that point. It's a
manpower issue.
I could see how teaching kids-
or anyone-to confront a shooter
might be controversial. Have you
encountered any pushback from
teachers or the school district?

I had to go to my school board twice
to get approval for this program. I
think the first time was just to paint
the picture, and the second time was
to repaint the picture because I think
N F PA . O R G / J O U R N A L * NFPA JOURNAL

| 55
http://nfpa.org/journal
NFPA Journal - September/October 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - September/October 2019
