To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,826
#1,826
hog88 said:
We did that and more advanced, in the tire house we did selective fire drills.
Click to expand...

Two days in Dix was all we got and all blank fire. And being that it was freezing (literally 25 degrees) trying to haul your behind through that window wearing all the cold weather gear and again after dangling on said rope and chucking a grenade through the window and firing that M16A2 musket one handed...
 
#1,828
#1,828
Grand Vol said:
Depends on the course. CSPD and SRT were taught center mass first and adjust to head if no center mass shot was viable. And always check hands first. Don't recall in the FBI course if it was covered.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a team member, sweeping one of their heads on entry and acquisition.

That's a huge no no.
 
#1,829
#1,829
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Ok, just be sure you don't slip and fall with your finger on the trigger. lulz

I listed the classes as you made the assumption that I've never had training. I spent the better part of my late 20's and 30's attending training classes. Doesn't make me right but do know common sense when I hear it.
As a team member, I'd say your heart will be pumping a mile a minute, the last thing you want in that instance is a sympathetic hand movement on the trigger. Possibly shooting a fellow team member or a innocent. That leads to paperwork, cops don't like paperwork right?
Click to expand...

I never assumed you didn't have training. I said you had not had CQB type training because in a multiple target type scenario, flagging innocents/hostages in the room is unavoidable as you shift from target to target.

Difference being is that confidence and practice keeps that instance of sympathetic hand movement to a minimum. And you never sweep your partner. Or never should even come close to sweeping a partner. Opposing entry no matter how the room is fed, one goes right or left depending on SOP, the other button hooks and clears the respective zones. But looking deep (beyond your target as the rules say) can make sure you or your partner don't go out of your zone and sweep your partner.
 
#1,830
#1,830
hog88 said:
I'm talking about a team member, sweeping one of their heads on entry and acquisition.

That's a huge no no.
Click to expand...

As I stated above, you should never be in a position to sweep your partner. Weapons should be either at high port or low ready until entry.
 
#1,831
#1,831
Grand Vol said:
I never assumed you didn't have training. I said you had not had CQB type training because in a multiple target type scenario, flagging innocents/hostages in the room is unavoidable as you shift from target to target.

Difference being is that confidence and practice keeps that instance of sympathetic hand movement to a minimum. And you never sweep your partner. Or never should even come close to sweeping a partner. Opposing entry no matter how the room is fed, one goes right or left depending on SOP, the other button hooks and clears the respective zones. But looking deep (beyond your target as the rules say) can make sure you or your partner don't go out of your zone and sweep your partner.
Click to expand...

So you don't sweep your partner but you do the public? Do you not see the problem there?
I've always been taught there is no such thing as advanced firearm handling tactics, just the basics applied.
You can shoot 1000 rounds a day but that will never prepare you for the real life instances that you will face. Your heart still beats fast, your hands still get clammy, and for some, you develop tunnel vision.
 
#1,832
#1,832
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So you don't sweep your partner but you do the public? Do you not see the problem there?
I've always been taught there is no such thing as advanced firearm handling tactics, just the basics applied.
You can shoot 1000 rounds a day but that will never prepare you for the real life instances that you will face. Your heart still beats fast, your hands still get clammy, and for some, you develop tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

Replace "public" with "hostage" and yes, you are correct. And would you rather have been flagged by an entry team that took down a target or continue to be a hostage because they got shot trying to bob and weave around the no-shoot targets in the room?

Again, the time it takes to move your weapon off target and around/above a hostage, back down, reacquire sight picture and fire is an eternity when split seconds count.
 
#1,833
#1,833
Grand Vol said:
Replace "public" with "hostage" and yes, you are correct. And would you rather have been flagged by an entry team that took down a target or continue to be a hostage because they got shot trying to bob and weave around the no-shoot targets in the room?

Again, the time it takes to move your weapon off target and around/above a hostage, back down, reacquire sight picture and fire is an eternity when split seconds count.
Click to expand...


As for me, I'd rather not be flagged at all thanks. Because what if said entry team member shot me instead, because he had his finger on the trigger and just so happened to stumbled over a toy on the way into the confrontation area. Works both ways.
 
#1,834
#1,834
Grand Vol said:
You and Hog are saying the same thing. But I'll ask this, if the military is moving through an urban area with the potential to run into an armed individual, do they continue to keep their weapons at the low ready? I know you know the answer and you know I do as well.

Point is, this umbrella guy got called in as having a long gun. Probably by a person who could identify a long gun two out of hundred times if he was lucky, but the call came in nonetheless. And in a situation like this you don't know if there's one or more. And you always go in on the assumption that there is "more" than the one. So to be ready while others on your team lowers their own weapons to search said individual is the method of training and response. And this team, other than the finger on the trigger faux pas, looked like many others that have done the same thing for years. Do I support it? Yes as a matter of fact I do. Because if there is more than one out there and they managed to start picking off a team, would you rather them not to be in a position to immediately react? How long does it take you to get from a low ready to a position of engagement?

It's the way they are trained. Have been trained and probably will continue to be trained. There are no sinister "intimidation tactics" at work here. It's performing said training in a real scenario. Go look at any pictures of a tactical team and the way they form up on security halts or taking a perp into custody. I'd almost be willing to bet they are almost identical to what you see in that picture.
Click to expand...

If you are doing a movement to contact you might keep your weapon trained and eye in the scope, but you can't do that for very long. Your eyes and arms get tired quickly and that affects both your judgement and your aim. Better to have spotters watching the crowd and feeding info to the guys moving.

If you are in a crowd of potential friendlies, you keep your weapon down and away from the people. That way if there is a bad guy in the area, one shot from him doesn't turn into you committing mass homicide on unarmed civilians.

I just think the picture shows poor technique. The first flaw is they assume they are going after multiple shooters and are in a hostile environment. That wasn't the report and there isn't a trend of multiple shooters in any of the recent mass shooting events. They were looking for one person in plain view among a crowd of friendlies. Their first responsibility is to protect the friendly civilians around them, not assume everyone is a shooter. That assumption alone put anyone and everyone in the vicinity at risk.

Secondly, if he did have a weapon, they are all so close he could have turned and shot several before any shots they took would have an effect. Or they would have ended up shooting each other. So they put themselves at greater risk simply by following poor procedures. If this is how they are training, then they need to revise their training.

Third, it appears they are in the process of frisking the alleged gunman. The two officers engaged with the man have their weapons slung on their backs, yet everyone else appears to be at the highest state of readiness. At this point they must have realized it wasn't a long gun and the guy is clearly cooperating. So now where is the threat? While they are now sure they are dealing with a false report, they continue to put people at risk. Yes, they need to provide security but a lower state would be appropriate. Bottom line is I think they have some flaws in their procedure. I wouldn't have trained my folks that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,835
#1,835
YorkVol said:
If you are doing a movement to contact you might keep your weapon trained and eye in the scope, but you can't do that for very long. Your eyes and arms get tired quickly and that affects both your judgement and your aim. Better to have spotters watching the crowd and feeding info to the guys moving.

If you are in a crowd of potential friendlies, you keep your weapon down and away from the people. That way if there is a bad guy in the area, one shot from him doesn't turn into you committing mass homicide on unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...

Agree on both points. I was worse case scenario-ing it with known hostiles in the area. Spotters are good if they are available.

YorkVol said:
I just think the picture shows poor technique. The first flaw is they assume they are going after multiple shooters and are in a hostile environment. That wasn't the report and there isn't a trend of multiple shooters in any of the recent mass shooting events. They were looking for one person in plain view among a crowd of friendlies. Their first responsibility is to protect the friendly civilians around them, not assume everyone is a shooter. That assumption alone put anyone and everyone in the vicinity at risk.
Click to expand...

Agree and disagree. I agree we haven't seen many multiple active shooter situations and relatively recent history does show a trend to single perp type scenarios. But doesn't mean it can't and won't happen. In fact, with what's going on in the world, I'd expect it sooner rather than later.

The problem in the situation you presented about crowd of friendlies is the problem of identifying the wolf in sheep's clothing. I hate to put it this way (and I'm about to get flamed for it) is everyone is bad until they are good. Problem is not everyone is going to stick out like James Holmes did. Many of the more recent mass shootings have been by ordinary looking people that can turn into a threat in a split second. The Washington Naval Yard for instance. Take away the shotgun and the person disappears into a crowd fairly easily even though he was still armed with the service pistol taken from the security guard.

YorkVol said:
Secondly, if he did have a weapon, they are all so close he could have turned and shot several before any shots they took would have an effect. Or they would have ended up shooting each other. So they put themselves at greater risk simply by following poor procedures. If this is how they are training, then they need to revise their training.
Click to expand...

Disagree. It's really not the best picture to determine positioning, but there (should be) one or two covering the perp that aren't in a crossfire. And the only ones that should be firing in case it turns bad.

YorkVol said:
Third, it appears they are in the process of frisking the alleged gunman. The two officers engaged with the man have their weapons slung on their backs, yet everyone else appears to be at the highest state of readiness. At this point they must have realized it wasn't a long gun and the guy is clearly cooperating. So now where is the threat? While they are now sure they are dealing with a false report, they continue to put people at risk. Yes, they need to provide security but a lower state would be appropriate. Bottom line is I think they have some flaws in their procedure. I wouldn't have trained my folks that way.
Click to expand...

And because there isn't a time stamp on the situation so to speak, we can't be sure if they had just rolled up on the dude or had already identified said umbrella. I mean, if we are talking about the first minute of identification and frisk, there is a completely valid reason for them to still be at a higher state of readiness. As well as having limited info on the story at hand, they probably were still at a higher state since it may be unknown if that's the guy or not. From the picture, it appears to be "middle aged white guy" of which there could have been several matching the description on campus that day.

As for the weapons slung, the patrolmen should either holster or sling their weapon prior to a frisk. Without doing so puts it in very convenient reach of potential suspect. So while some may have slung their weapons, it's to perform a frisk as the others will provide an overwatch.

Reasonable post.
 
#1,839
#1,839
In an Intense Rescue Caught on Camera, a Police Officer Becomes this Wheelchair-Bound Man

Fort Myers Police Officer Gil Benitez was on duty, driving through a downpour that was so bad he could barely see stop signs, when he saw a man stranded in a wheelchair on the side of the road.
Michael Arnold’s electric wheelchair had stopped working, leaving him stranded a block from his house.
Benitez jumped to action and got out of his car. Despite being almost hit by lightning after approaching Arnold, he pushed him in his broken electric wheelchair (these can be very heavy to push when broken) all the way home. Then he refused to leave Arnold’s side until his family returned home.
Benitez thinks he was just doing his job, but that’s what you call going above and beyond when the job is “done.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,840
#1,840
Obsessed said:
In an Intense Rescue Caught on Camera, a Police Officer Becomes this Wheelchair-Bound Man

Fort Myers Police Officer Gil Benitez was on duty, driving through a downpour that was so bad he could barely see stop signs, when he saw a man stranded in a wheelchair on the side of the road.
Michael Arnold’s electric wheelchair had stopped working, leaving him stranded a block from his house.
Benitez jumped to action and got out of his car. Despite being almost hit by lightning after approaching Arnold, he pushed him in his broken electric wheelchair (these can be very heavy to push when broken) all the way home. Then he refused to leave Arnold’s side until his family returned home.
Benitez thinks he was just doing his job, but that’s what you call going above and beyond when the job is “done.”
Click to expand...

Serving. Good.
 
#1,842
#1,842
hog88 said:
fify

:p
Click to expand...

Lol. Your words, not mine. Really, though, it's a shame that police are so involved in fund raising for their municipality. Writing bullshat tickets for loitering and traffic violations means they have less time to do things like this.
 
#1,846
#1,846
SamRebel35 said:
If I were a citizen there, I would be glad to donate monthly to the city if it meant getting these cops off the traffic detail and on to important matters.
Click to expand...

As I've argued before, traffic details do have their time and place. School zones, child care centers, residential neighborhoods, etc. But I understand your gripe is highways and main roadways.

But I don't agree with quotas at all. You either get significant violators or you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,847
#1,847
Lawyer: Video Shows Cops Shot John Crawford "On Sight" at Walmart

A follow up from a few weeks back.

Interesting comments regarding open carry rights in Ohio.

First comment from link:
It's an open carry state. Why was it considered dangerous for Crawford to have a gun in public the first place? Why aren't those NRA and Tea Party gun rights enthusiasts protesting and demanding justice for someone killed because he was, at worst, assumed to be exercising his Second Amendment rights? (Both questions have the same answer; we all either already know or won't admit it.)
Click to expand...
 
#1,848
#1,848
#1,849
#1,849
I have a question that's been boggling my mind lately...

To our LEO's: are officers trained to restrain their fellow officers when the need arises? If so, what conditions need to be met to preface, execute, and close such a scenario?

Such a job cannot come without unwarranted, emotionally charged aggression.
 
#1,850
#1,850
DinkinFlicka said:
I have a question that's been boggling my mind lately...

To our LEO's: are officers trained to restrain their fellow officers when the need arises? If so, what conditions need to be met to preface, execute, and close such a scenario?

Such a job cannot come without unwarranted, emotionally charged aggression.
Click to expand...

yes

and that's absolutely ridiculous

most are passive even if just by human nature
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top