Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 53 of 53
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    This is probably as good a place as any to remind that if you are not solo--if you're with family or friends who are not warriors and have not worked with you tactically, get out.
    And expect to have to fight your way out, while maintaining a low enough profile to avoid being shot by responding LE. See Gabe's comments above and elsewhere on keeping your firearm out of sight and yet instantly accessible.

    When you enter a business or a mall, better consider exits as well as angles.

    And think about what might be waiting for you outside.

    And again, if you're protecting those with you, any thoughts about hunkering down inside the structure, say under a circular clothing rack, and engaging threats as they come to you?

    (We've found folks hiding there after a running gun battle that flowed through a local department store.)
    Last edited by Papa; 09-16-2017 at 05:07 AM.

    Warrior for the working day.

    "One pistol is worth a thousand words."

    Es una cosa muy seria. --Robert Capa

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Southeast Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa View Post
    Last I heard this was "Warrior Talk." "Social Justice Warrior Talk" is some other forum, and one I won't be joining.
    Lest there be any confusion, I assure you that I am solidly pro-LE, pro-Warriors, etc. That's why I'm here, to hear the real warriors discuss warrior stuff and try to learn a little from them.

    I am also a dispassionate objective analyst by nature. Most find it difficult to understand how I can separate those two perspectives, but it's just the way my mind works. Coastalcop, of course you are correct--perception is often wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that perception=reality for the typical person. You can tell people they are wrong, but most will always prioritize their perception (created 100% by their personal experiences and what they have seen and heard) over your facts. So your actions + all your fellow cops every day = public perception > reality. And lawsuits/fear of lawsuits often lead to changes in department/institutional policies and procedures, which is why I mentioned that element.

    Anyway, moving on from that stuff, since it's not my problem to solve...

    I think I found a way to make my thoughts relevant to this topic. It's the question of how much risk should control action. Full disclosure, I'm just an interested but outside observer to all things military and LE. So I'm not giving my opinion as something of value, I'm simply offering potential food for conversation if it's of interest, and I'm certainly interested in the thoughts of those who have been there and done it.

    At some point on the risk spectrum, there's a point where prioritizing risk can freeze all forward progress. The guy who's avoiding getting shot above all else never enters the building, for example. One way to illustrate this is the movie Hurt Locker. The cowboy character is in frequent conflict with the "by the book" guy--"wait for the robot", "naw I'm just going to get it done", "wear the suit", "the suit just slows me down and I'll die anyway if it goes off", etc. Of course in the movie the hero always makes the right call. Our TV shows and movies are filled with heroes who disregard threats to their personal safety so they can save the day.

    In real life, I've heard Special Ops types talking about how all the armor and weight on the front-line grunts slows guys down and is counterproductive, I've heard veterans criticize how fear of IEDs led to soldiers staying inside their million dollar vehicles instead of getting out and being effective in the mission, etc. I think I heard somebody here (H60DoorGunner?) say that if he had to do it all over again, he might just skip all the body armor and rely on speed and movement to keep him alive. (I'm certainly not criticizing anybody or trying to critique military policy, just throwing out a few examples).

    In LE scenarios, much of what is done is focused on reducing risk. It affects how officers interact with individuals, it affects how they move through structures, how they move in teams, etc. So for me, the most critical question to answer in regards to CQB scenarios is not just finding the best tactics to reduce risk, but also finding that proper balance between risk and effectiveness. It's a question that has already been addressed in part--if you hear gunshots, you will proceed differently than if you don't. If you're a civilian, you will proceed differently depending on whether your family is present or not. In regards to risk, I think all of us would probably say that we would take greater personal risks to protect and defend our family in that situation than if we are alone and only protecting strangers as we hunt the shooters.

    I'll leave the LE treatment of this question to the LE guys, just hope that clears things up and brings this back on topic.

  3. #53

    Default CQB/ The Unknown Person

    apamburn> "I think it's safe to say that as the gap between inital incident and you taking action increases, the risk of getting shot by a good guy increases, and is increasingly hard to mitigate."
    Excellent. My purpose was to stimulate discussion on a topic that has appeared before and you summarized the the key points extremely well. Thanks.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts