OK - not seeking to revive the same conversation in the moved and now closed thread, but Carina asked a good question which is directly relevant to CQC:
What you do, Carina, is use deadly force at the earliest opportunity, and generally in a specific way that I'll not go into. Sadly, many in U.S. LE have been extensively trained in dealing with this situation due to the threat of terrorism of various types. Instances have occurred a number of times over the years, and not from radical Islamists. The Discovery Channel incident is probably the most well known, and I attended a debrief of that incident from the officer whose team and personal actions ended it.Just tell me Kit what would you do, if there was a man with a bomb in his backpack, threaten to blow himself up in a shopping center full of people? Would you provoke him, or would you try to calm him down?
We would deal with other active threats - such as the shooters mentioned in the closed thread, noted only for the fact they were shooters and not due to their motivations. If someone is in the process of intentionally causing death and serious injury, or has the immediate means to potentially cause imminent loss of life, they are handled with deadly force.
They are not negotiated with, and doing so violates what we call the priority of life by placing the suspect's life over that of victims and responders.
These are treated very differently than static hostage situations, disturbed persons barricaded in locations, or suicidal persons who are only a threat to themselves. Those people are negotiated with up to and until they give up or begin actively attempting to kill or injure others.
Some of us willingly risk our lives to attempt to rescue the people that people like this are harming - first by attempting to stop the killing, next by getting the injured treatment as quickly as possible. That means neutralizing the present and future threat as rapidly as possible by killing them or making them so injured that they cannot continue their action, overwhelming them so they suicide or immediately - and I mean immediately - surrender, or precluding their access to victims.
We do not willingly throw our own lives away (a critical difference from risking your life), and we do not willingly risk the lives of the public, by allowing a subject to retain the initiative when attempting to calm him down while he has the means to kill us or others.
When you do that, you place all the decision making over your own life and the lives of those you are sworn to protect in the hands of the very person threatening them.