The Semantics of Safety: A Critical Review of CNN’s Run, Hide, Fight Article

In CNN’s recent article on the ‘Run, Hide, Fight’ protocol’s potential obsolescence has raised some interesting points, but also some puzzling contradictions and alarming statements, which need to be addressed.

The piece begins by highlighting Franklin County, Ohio’s adoption of an ‘Avoid, Deny, Defend’ strategy, which the article frames as a significant departure from the traditional ‘Run, Hide, Fight’ approach. However, upon closer examination, the two strategies appear essentially identical, merely using different terminology. ‘Avoid’ and ‘Run’, ‘Deny’ and ‘Hide’, ‘Defend’ and ‘Fight’ all imply similar actions. This alleged ‘shift’ appears to be more a matter of semantics than substance.

The article’s assertion that ‘Deny’ represents a significant advancement over ‘Hide’ also leaves much to be desired. It implies a new action, whereas it merely restates the same principle in different words. Both concepts advocate for putting barriers between oneself and the shooter, and the distinction seems to be more about political correctness than practical effectiveness. ‘Hide’ is a clear, straightforward directive, whereas ‘Deny’ requires explanation and interpretation.

One statement from the article that raises serious concerns, from a law enforcement standpoint, is that “it doesn’t even matter how much we train for these active events,” purportedly because half of active shooter events end before law enforcement arrives. This sentiment seems dismissive of the importance of professional, prepared response in crisis situations. It undermines the significant role law enforcement training plays in neutralizing threats and saving lives, as evidenced in numerous successful interventions, such as the recent shooting in Memphis. I am certain that the officers in Memphis dedicated numerous hours to active shooter training prior to their response to this event, and their preparation was evident. Imagine if these officers had followed the advice and neglected their training. The outcome could have mirrored the Uvalde, Texas incident, where officers were mentally and physically unprepared.

As an officer that responded to the Oxford School shooting on November 30th 2020 and who has trained many years in Active Shooter Response with The Department of Homeland Security and with my department. I can say that without this training I would never have been mentally, physically, or tactical prepared for the event. The training gave me a better understanding of what I was about to encounter from treating the wounded to clearing a large facility solo or as a team. The key takeaway is this: training for Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) is absolutely paramount.

The rebranding of ‘Fight’ to ‘Defend’ for reasons of appropriateness on school campuses further underscores the misguided attempt to soften the language around such situations. While ‘Fight’ may be an unwelcome term in educational contexts, ‘Defend’ does not necessarily convey the critical urgency and potential danger of the situation.

In essence, ‘Avoid, Deny, Defend’ seems to be a repackaging of ‘Run, Hide, Fight’ with a veneer of political correctness, which could potentially create more confusion than clarity for anyone in a high stress situation such as an active shooter. It’s concerning that this has been framed as a revolutionary approach, suggesting a misinterpretation or miscommunication of what is essentially the same protocol.

Moreover, the article promotes the dangerous notion that engaging the shooter is preferable to running or hiding. While there have been instances where such actions saved lives it has also cost lives. Furthermore, it’s irresponsible to suggest this as a generalized strategy in the future. Confronting a shooter requires mental preparation, physical ability, and the perfect opportunity, which are not universally present and individuals in these events need to be able to evaluate their chances of success.

The real focus should be on reducing the prevalence of mass shootings, not splitting hairs over response strategies or suggesting untrained civilians should engage shooters. The discussion must move towards mental health support, and early intervention measures to prevent these tragedies from happening in the first place. Otherwise you’re just putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Effective and practical training is crucial for active shooter preparedness, and Soteria Security’s Active Shooter Preparedness training program provides a comprehensive solution. The program, developed by law enforcement officers with firsthand experience and nationally recognized affiliations, is tailored for individual workplaces following a thorough site assessment and collaboration with stakeholders. It covers five critical areas: Recognizing Planning Behavior, Preventing & Reducing Mass Shooting Incidents, Response During an Incident, Implementation of an EOP, and Medically Treating the Wounded.

Beyond theoretical knowledge, the training dives into practical skills applicable beyond workplace violence incidents. Given that medical personnel will not arrive to administer medical aid to the wounded until the scene is considered “safe”, post-incident. Soteria’s program, facilitated by certified instructors, aims to bridge this gap, teaching crucial life-saving skills such as Red Cross CPR/AED training and hemorrhage control. Soteria’s goal is to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to navigate an active shooter situation to promote safer and better-prepared communities and workplaces.