Lost in Translation – Military Jargon in Civilian Emergencies

In emergency response, language serves as more than a means of communication—it is an operational directive. It influences how responders train, maneuver, and ultimately survive. In recent years, civilian law enforcement and emergency services have increasingly adopted terminology from military doctrine, borrowing phrases, tactical concepts, and frameworks in an effort to enhance readiness and operational efficiency. While this cross-pollination has introduced valuable principles, it also carries a significant risk: the use of military language without a full understanding of its original context can lead to confusion and mission misalignment.

A prime example of this is the phrase “get off the X.” In military operations, this term is rooted in high-stakes, life-or-death scenarios. The "X" denotes a known target site—a location where remaining stationary, even for seconds, can be fatal. This urgency stems from the enemy’s ability to rapidly reinforce and dominate the area with reinforcements. The directive is clear: move immediately, break contact, return fire, and regain control of the engagement. Within the context of kinetic military engagements, the principle is not just valid—it is essential.

But when this same phrase is introduced into domestic law enforcement or civilian emergency response—particularly during active shooter incidents—its meaning is not just lost in translation; it's dangerously misapplied. Instead of improving clarity and cohesion on the ground, it often creates confusion, misaligned priorities, and even delays in lifesaving action.

“Off the X” in Military Doctrine

To appreciate how deeply flawed this terminology transfer is, we must understand the term in its original context. “Get off the X” is drilled into the mindset of warfighters for a reason. The X is a fixed, high-risk location—such as the site of an ambush, an IED blast, or a known enemy stronghold. Staying in that position is synonymous with inaction and death. Survival hinges on movement, aggression, and shifting the battlefield dynamic.

Military teams operate with the expectation of being ambushed or reattacked with and overwhelming force. They respond with suppressive fire, maneuver elements, and close coordination with supporting assets. The X is not abstract; it is a grid coordinate, a GPS point, a tangible location to be avoided or escaped.

The Civilian Reality: The X Is Not Fixed

In active shooter events, the situation is very different. The shooter, not the terrain, is the X. And unlike in conventional combat, the threat is dynamic, mobile, and psychologically volatile. The enemy moves from hallway to classroom, from open spaces to concealed rooms. The objective in these events is not to “get off the X” but to close in, engage, and neutralize the threat as quickly as possible. This is where military terminology becomes a liability.

When officers, medics, or fire personnel hear “get off the X,” they may assume that lingering near casualty sites or pushing toward known areas of violence is tactically unsound. But this interpretation conflicts with the current standard of care, which emphasizes rapid movement into warm zones, hemorrhage control, and patient extraction—often under the protection of law enforcement contact teams.

Moreover, the shooter is not a fixed point. Until they are contained or neutralized, the entire building remains part of the X. Once that occurs, the threat may be reduced, but the risk is not eliminated. There may still be secondary devices, unsearched rooms, or disoriented civilians. Yet this does not mean that casualty care should be delayed or that medics should rush without structure. With proper perimeter control and coordinated movement, Medical Rescue Teams (MRTs) can operate deliberately, efficiently, and safely—without reacting to vague phrases like “get off the X.” IN my option the phrase get off the X is a training scare no different than BSI Scene Safe. Training scares get people killed.

Tactical Confusion and Operational Drift

Terminology without context leads to tactical confusion. While a SWAT team may understand what “off the X” implies in their world, patrol officers, fire captains, or EMTs may interpret it differently. The result is hesitation, miscommunication, and fragmented mission execution. Instead of synchronizing actions across agencies, misunderstood terminology fractures operational cohesion.

We’ve seen this in real-world incidents. After-action reports from active shooter events repeatedly reveal gaps in movement, delayed entry, and confusion over who is responsible for what. Officers report being told to wait for backup. Medics hesitate to enter buildings, unsure if it is not secured. Fire personnel are left wondering if their staging area is safe. All of this stems from a lack of clarity in terminology and a failure to adapt language to the environment.

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) succeeds because it is practiced daily. Fire departments use the same structure and terms for everything—from a car accident to a three-alarm blaze. That kind of consistency builds muscle memory and predictability. Unfortunately, EMS and law enforcement do not have the same institutional discipline around unified language, especially when importing unfamiliar terms from military doctrine from different agencies.

Mission Misalignment: Are We Training for War or Rescue?

Misused military terminology doesn’t just confuse—it changes how we view the mission. Words like “force protection,” “kill zone,” or “secure the X” can push responders into a mindset of delay, over-caution, or aggressive posturing when the actual goal should be speed, coordination, and casualty care.

For MRTs, the goal is not to flee the scene but to move toward it under structured protection. Once the shooter is contained or eliminated, the building still holds risks, but those risks must be managed—not avoided. MRTs must be trained to operate within that gray zone, balancing caution with mission execution. Once a perimeter is in place and the shooter is down, there is no reason to “rush off the X.” Instead, the priority shifts to safe, efficient triage and transport.

Phrases like “off the X” suggest that staying in the building—even for care—is tactically unsound. But the reality is that life-saving care occurs inside the hot & warm zone. Hemorrhage control, airway management, and tactical triage are needed right there, on the ground. The objective is not rapid withdrawal—it’s deliberate stabilization and transfer to higher levels of care.

Language Transfer Without Doctrine

One of the most damaging outcomes of misapplied terminology is when instructors or leaders use military phrases without building the doctrine to support them. Saying “get off the X” without defining what the X is, who decides where it is, or what actions follow creates ambiguity. Worse, it fosters the illusion that everyone knows what’s being discussed—when in reality, each responder may interpret it differently.

This is especially dangerous during multi-agency events. If law enforcement is moving toward the shooter, fire is staging for assistance, and EMS is organizing a triage area, all three components need to understand exactly what “the X” refers to. Miscommunication in that moment can lead to failure: patients waiting too long, responders exposed to unnecessary risk, and lives lost.

A Better Way Forward: Clarity in Language, Unity in Action

The solution is not to reject military tactics entirely. Many of the principles from Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) and battlefield medicine are applicable in high-threat civilian scenarios. Rapid blood sweeps, MARCH assessments, and casualty collection points (CCPs) are proven life-saving strategies.

However, civilian responders need purpose-built terminology that fits their environment. Words should describe specific actions, assigned tasks, and clearly defined zones of operation. Instead of “get off the X,” we should use:

• “Advance to casualty location under escort.”

• “Hold and treat at designated CCP.”

• “Maintain awareness—threat not fully cleared.”

• “Scene not cold—operate under hot and warm zone protocols.”

These terms describe both the risk and the responsibility. They instruct without ambiguity and support a common operational picture across agencies.

Conclusion: Words Shape Tactics, Tactics Shape Outcomes

Every responder knows that in an emergency, seconds count. Clarity matters. Confusion kills. And language—when misused—can become a liability instead of a tool.

We must rethink how we import military terminology into the civilian context. Terms like “off the X” may have served us well in uniform, but on American soil—in our schools, malls, and city streets—they must be reevaluated. In active shooter incidents, the shooter is the X. Once neutralized, the focus must shift to methodical care, not hasty evacuation. MRTs must operate with calm precision, understanding that while danger may remain, their mission is no longer escape—it is stabilization and survival.

The language we use must reflect that mission. It must unite fire, EMS, and law enforcement in a shared understanding, rooted in doctrine, shaped by purpose, and free from misinterpretation. This is completed with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and interagency training, only then will you all be on the same page.