Rethinking Run Hide Fight: Maybe it’s Time to Adapt

Created by government agencies, Run Hide Fight has helped millions of people think through their responses during an active shooter situation. But has Run Hide Fight run its course?

When I first heard about "Run Hide Fight" (RHF), it was easy to remember and mostly intuitive: if you face an attacker engaged in extreme violence (in other words, an active shooter or active assailant), you should either get away (run), avoid being seen (hide), or stop the attacker (fight.)

Those responses can help you survive, and we know RHF has made a positive impact. So, why rethink something beneficial? Let’s consider three reasons why rethinking RHF is necessary.

Adaptation is Survival

The best approach to today’s challenge may not be the best tomorrow. Law enforcement has been adapting their response to extreme violence for years. In my opinion, there’s no other profession that adapts as often as law enforcement. The attackers also continue to adapt. They study what previous attackers have done and how the victims of extreme violence respond. If the public should also adapt, they expect their community and company leaders to guide them.

Would you agree that the public also needs to adapt?

Concept Creep Affects Decision-Making

Run Hide Fight is often taught sequentially, and it wasn’t meant to be! This sequential approach goes something like this: If there’s an active assailant, run if you can. If you can’t run, hide. And as a last resort—if you can’t run or hide—then fight!

Sometimes running will always be your best option. Sometimes fighting is your only option. The wrong approach to decision-making can cause a survivor to waste time and it risks prioritizing a first response instead of a best or only response.

Does pushing a rote sequential response to an attacker reflect the importance of decision-making?

Response Impacts Deterrence

Today’s response should discourage tomorrow’s attacker! If we want to see the challenge of extreme violence diminish or disappear, then perhaps effectively responding to extreme violence should include deterring future attacks. I’ve seen no indication that Run Hide Fight has lessened the likelihood of someone becoming an attacker. (If I’m wrong – and I’d like to be, please let me know.) If I’m not wrong, then we need to address how our response can impact deterrence.

Is there a public response that might discourage a would-be attacker? Is it possible to train response to extreme violence that both increases survival and deters attackers?

For now, I’ll leave these questions open. If you’re part of the public and leaning on professionals to promote safety and help you survive, I hope you start asking some of these same questions. If you’re a professional responsible for training the public, I hope you’ll focus on how we should be adapting to this challenge. Responding to extreme violence is a life skill - something you can take with you wherever you go. Just make sure you have it.

The best approach to today’s challenge may not be the best tomorrow. At Strongside, we deliver innovation.

Ready to take your skills to the next level? Check out our options on the sidebar.