Sessions: Surviving a Workplace Shooting...and a Boring Session

Things I learned in Session RMG 203 "Lightening Strikes: Surviving an Active Shooter-Hostage Event in the Workplace":

1.) False Advertising: What is contained in the RIMS Conference Guide should be taken with a grain of salt. Sessions often do not live up to their cool titles and descriptions. Sessions also tend to be a bit more basic and elementary than their experience levels would suggest.

2.) Blind Leading the 20/20: Session speakers don't always represent their field's most brilliant minds. Those attending sessions can be disappointed to discover that they possess more knowledge about the topic than those standing behind the podium. These folks need to approach RIMS about leading sessions of their own in the future--we would all benefit.

3.) PowerPoint BS: When a topic demands you step outside the PowerPoint, do it! For example....

This particular session sounded engaging and exciting. Others must have shared my opinion because the room was packed. I was disappointed to hear some of the survival strategies though. They included such earth-shattering concepts as:

"The best way to survive is to be where the shooter is not."
(Really? I always thought murders could use a nice bear hug)

"Find a room that locks, block the door, and be silent."
(Hmm...I was under the impression that standing behind a potted plant half my size, like I do when I play hide-and-go-seek with my niece, would suffice)

"Assume that his intentions are lethal."
(But maybe he's just looking for a partner at the shooting range?)

"Remain calm."
(The response to this is so obvious, I can't mention it)

All half-jokes aside, the session led (disappointingly) mostly by PowerPoint presentation, did address one issue that many risk and safety managers have a difficult time grasping. In an active shooter situation, when no other options are available, you must confront the shooter. Session leader, Randy Spivey, director of the Safe Travel Institute, said companies often clam up when he broaches the subject.

"Some people wouldn't even discuss that in a corporate environment," he said. "My response is, how can you ignore that?"

Spivey pointed to the most well known example of the strategy, United Flight 93, whose passengers decided to take matters into their own hands on Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, we all know the plane crashed, but other than those on board no lives were lost. Spivey said confronting an attacker takes a group effort and a total commitment is necessary to be successful. Taking action, instead of freezing in place, is what Spivey terms giving oneself a "mental permission slip."

It seems that many people lose that permission slip, however. Spivey said research indicates that folks trained to respond in such shooter-hostage situations vary dramatically from untrained individuals when put in an actual event. He claims 10 percent of untrained individuals will respond well in a crisis, while 10 percent of trained individuals will screw it up. I find those numbers a bit difficult to believe.

I've taken a self-defense course, but does that mean when approached by an assailant from behind, I would have the clarity of mind to recall my training and be able to jab that elbow in a calm, calculated manner and hit my mark? Much more likely, I would flail about in a desperate and hysterical manner.

For now, I think I'll be able to sleep tonight, with the peace of mind that I am well aware of the emergency exits closest to my cubicle at the Risk & Insurance office building. And when no other options exist in an active shooter scenario, I think I'll try the bear hug tactic. That, and a piece of candy from the dish on my desk. That should sweeten the deal, don't you think?