Reference no: EM132285513

We have had this discussion several times at my firehouse, mostly because in my first due we run a significant amount of violent incident calls. We also have thirteen known mental health care facilities in residential areas that have historically kept us on guard. The frequency of the scenario presented occurring has dramatically increased over the past several years, and should be the impetus for all fire departments to review their procedures and have candid and frank discussions about this situation being realized.

The Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures have several policies that are related to each other regarding the actions fire department members should take when operating in this type of environment. One of the policies discusses the need to apply the risk model for decision making at violent incidents. This policy more or less addresses the way we employ our tactics at a violent incident and how to calculate the risk (M.P. 206.01, 2018). The second policy is more aligned with a scene that escalates to the point of violence. This policy, albeit more geared toward EMS incidents, basically describes the communications for requesting assistance and how to appropriately de-escalate an incident (M.P. 209.310, 2017).

The obvious policy, which is of major dispute in our region right now, is an active shooter response plan. Due to grant cycles, funding, and issues within our regional operating committee about the best course of action, what we have been left with is nothing. In the Phoenix metropolitan system there are approximately 5000 professional fire fighters over 26 interconnected cities. This is a major advantage at times, and a major hindrance at other times. Unfortunately, the active shooter policy is one that’s been contested and disputed to the point of inaction.

My reaction, as a company officer, would be based on several factors: location and demographics of the incident, safety of personnel, and the risk of potential victims. This would put us in the position of having to employ the risk model which calls for us to risk a lot to save a lot. While rescuing victims is always a top priority, we can do it effectively if we become victims ourselves. At this point, I would employ a more measured response that would consist of information gathering and reconnaissance. With the small amount of information presented in this scenario, it is difficult to be precise with an answer, so I would seek more information and take risks appropriate to the present threat.

What would you have done different?