CQB/ The Unknown Person

[Greg Nichols]

The scenario as presented is ok if you're ST6, the Unit, or 75RR on a snatch and grab your points of reference tell me that you likely haven't dealt with anything like the proposed scenario.. In an LEO scenario, it is totally unacceptable That's interesting, since this is exactly what I teach CT LEOs. First off is the mindset. You do not look upon everyone you see as an enemy until you have a mate or yourself shot in the back of the head by a sleeper/layoff man. For example, in an active shooter situation there is absolutely no need to worry about an unarmed person, because an unarmed person is not an active shooter by definition, and no threat to you so you know they're unarmed through clairvoyance? Trust but verify should be the motto, be in command of the scene or you are opening you and your mates to risk . If you are more worried about protecting yourself than helping the defenseless around you to safety, then you're in your job for all the wrong reasons oddly enough I heard the exact same argument from a young CT member in training and the end result was him being moved back to patrol. The answer is this, who will save the victims you speak about if you're shot because you didn't take appropriate measures to ensure your safety and that of your mates? How many more will die because you rushed in half assed and got shot vs. doing it right and safely. Maybe I'm just old school, but the talk of putting on their knees and cuffing an innocent citizen, perhaps treating them roughly if you have to employ a long gun, just riles me up a bit. It would also allow the active shooter the time to kill a few more people as I've said a few hundred times it's all context. People fleeing aren't a threat, people that aren't fleeing are potential threats and need to be handled, at the very least proned out and pat down for following officers to secure.
see above comments. Again, the body count will go up regardless of rushing in or not, but will definitely go up more if you're shot early due to lack of good tactics .

I hope this answers your questions. I understand your sentiment but it is not tactically sound, nor does it take into account today's threats. If we were talking about a medicated manic or other mentally disturbed person who is likely to off themselves at the first sign of resistance then I would agree that the rush in tactic would work. But that likelihood ended around 2001, the threat has evolved, if our tactics don't evolve with them good men in the service of others die.

[JonathanNobody]

I do hope everyone realizes SI training isn't theoretical in nature, but based on, and for, real life operations.

[Greg Nichols]

Context gang. At any point in this thread did I ever say that force should be used on a compliant person?

[coastalcop]

The scenario as presented is ok if you're ST6, the Unit, or 75RR on a snatch and grab. In an LEO scenario, it is totally unacceptable. First off is the mindset. You do not look upon everyone you see as an enemy. For example, in an active shooter situation there is absolutely no need to worry about an unarmed person, because an unarmed person is not an active shooter by definition, and no threat to you. If you are more worried about protecting yourself than helping the defenseless around you to safety, then you're in your job for all the wrong reasons. Maybe I'm just old school, but the talk of putting on their knees and cuffing an innocent citizen, perhaps treating them roughly if you have to employ a long gun, just riles me up a bit. It would also allow the active shooter the time to kill a few more people.

When you hear shots you move direct to threat, but mindful of others in the area that might be waiting to kill you, and the angles on your approach. if shooting has happened but isnt happening upon your arrival you take a little more time to suss out the bad guy(s) , you excepted the job and the risks involved, BUT you play it smart to make a difference. And in that environment you absolutely MUST dominate the area you are in. Most people flip out during events like this and a dominant and directive approach helps sort them out and can usually take them out of "vapor lock" to compliance.

[Gabriel Suarez]

Just coming to this - Some perspectives. I worked gangs, Narcotics, and SWAT...like many here. I did alot of entires and building seraches. I understand that today they are counted and kept track of. We never did...but still.
So, if you haven't done this for real - hunted an armed and dangerous man or men, inside a structure with the intent of shooting or at the very least capturing them with you yourself being shot, maybe this is the time to remain silent and listen, rather than postulate on what ought to be based on political sentiments rather than experience.

1. From the POV of the assaulter, the SWAT guy or the officer going in, they have one objective with some variations. They may say it is to "go home", but that is a PC falsehood the pencil-necks at the station tolerate. They are going in to find and shoot the bad guy. If they tell you otherwise, they are either simply parroting a policy...or lying.

Secondarily save victims or potential victims...sure...but the ones that will be shooting the bad guys...they bypass victims on the hunt for the bad guy. Its the guys that will never shoot anyone in 30 years of service that focus on saving the victims when there can be some shooting done.

2). Your rights...whatever you think they may be, do not supercede their desire to accomplish the mission. If they think that you are a victim, they may pass you by...or they may secure you for further investigation. If they think you are a bad guy, at minimum you will have guns pointed at you regardless of your perceived rights and you will be ordered to get on the deck. If you refuse, you will be manhandled and forced onto the deck. if you are armed and turn toward them armed, you will be shot. And that...is that. You may not like it...it may not be right...it may not be fair...but it is what it is.

There are street combat proven ways to minimize the potential for being shot by the good guys. I suggest prying open that wallet and enrolling in a class. there is only so much free stuff we can give out.

3). From the POV of an armed good guy inside when an active shooter event takes place. If there is any doubt about what is happening it is simple...get out. You do not know enough to act. Acting requires knowledge. The responders are being given actionable info on the event (that regardless of its validity will excuse any incorrect actions taken by them), you do not. If you do have credible and actionable information, your options increase. This may be from various things, sounds, scenes, and smells that you can articulate later.

For example...a woman that knows you runs past in a fleeing crowd and says, "RUN GABE...THERE IS A MAN WITH A RIFLE SHOOTING PEOPLE".

4). When moving TO the threat, keep the pistol holstered. In fact, keep it holstered until the last moment. Look at everyone's actions and faces. You will be able to discern victims and combatants. Draw only when you see the threat and can take the shot. As soon as he is down and dead, holster...soonest. Head on a swivel as bastards have brothers. Once the shooting is done, make sure your six is secured and your blaster put away. Follow the dress and grooming standards that will categorize you as a good guy. Pretty simple actually....for more - enroll.

[Gabriel Suarez]

mine addressing points

The scenario as presented is ok if you're ST6, the Unit, or 75RR on a snatch and grab. In an LEO scenario, it is totally unacceptable.

Actually it depends. It depends on why. what and where. I have gone in to search for suspects...I have also gone in to kill a suspect. What is told afterwards may always be that we are concerned for everyone's safety...even the bad guy...bla...bla...bla. But in reality, when you are driving in the van to the sleeping suspect's house that has already shot another officer, the word is as soon as you see him, take the shot and empty the stick.

First off is the mindset. You do not look upon everyone you see as an enemy.

As a potential eney? Damn right we do...hell...I still do. When I walk into a coffee shop I scan the room....for potential enemies.

If you are more worried about protecting yourself than helping the defenseless around you to safety, then you're in your job for all the wrong reasons.

Not your safety...but the mission. What is your mission...help others to safety or kill the bad guy? Mine was always to kill the bad guy. And in retrospect...maybe I was in the job for the wrong reasons...but damn if I did a good job at those wrong reasons.

Maybe I'm just old school, but the talk of putting on their knees and cuffing an innocent citizen, perhaps treating them roughly if you have to employ a long gun, just riles me up a bit. It would also allow the active shooter the time to kill a few more people.

Well...that is the way it is. See my other post for reasons.

[Greg Nichols]

I will say also that the OP was written to specifically answer a question posed to me by an experienced CT LEO and in my mind was written with the thought of a medium sized structure in mind like a home, apartment, warehouse or individual business. If dealing with a larger structure like a mall, school, or stadium you don't have the time or manpower to handle this in the same manner. As Gabe addressed above, in a scenario with a lot of people it will depend on the size of your team and the amount of information you have in advance. Gang, urban combat is a thinking mans game, you've got to rapidly address, assess, and discard tons of information that is all based on the mission you're trying to accomplish. I've taken risks to my own safety for expediency and in many instances your personal speed and/or that of your team is your security, other times it is not.

[mike135]

Thanks for the clarification, Greg--I can understand where some of the negative reaction comes from, but what you said makes more sense now.

In general, I think a lot of people see the "I'm going home tonight!" attitude taken so far by some that it results in actions that appear too extreme or just absurd. It's not a debate I'm trying to start here, but just remember that the perception of many does not come from personal experience but is primarily defined by videos they see on YouTube and stories they hear about, absent the whole story and an understanding of the philosophy behind policies and procedures.

For example, I remember a reaction of incredulity when I saw a segment from a TV show following game wardens in northern California. The two guys approached a hunters' campsite in the woods and basically treated everybody like a felony suspect--come out of the tents with your hands up at gunpoint, patting everybody down, securing every single gun, etc. all to do something simple like checking hunting licenses. It seemed a ridiculous exercise of caution that leads to a very negative perception/attitude toward law enforcement from the people who are treated like that, or who see it happening.

In contrast, I've seen videos from another TV show following game wardens in Texas where they don't do much besides asking guys to keep their rifles pointed away. I'm sure there's a cultural element involved, but it's that kind of stuff that can have a big impact on public opinion toward law enforcement, and in these days the PR trend is going in a bad direction in many places.

[Greg Nichols]

I encourage questions on this topic because it get's my mind rolling, in my CQB events it's the teachable moments and questions that really add to the class and this has been good to have a dissenting opinion as it allows people to address misconceptions. One thing I didn't address last night because I wanted to marinate on it so I could give and articulate response.

Mindset of CQB/Urban gunfighting:

If you take something, it's yours. Be it a room, a hall way, or an entire building, once you take it it's yours until you decide to release it. While you own that piece of the puzzle you need to enforce your will in that space (for context of non-LEO this is after your gun comes out). You have to control that space and everyone in it, gain compliance or force compliance and at the same time evaluate what's going on. For the safety of non-combatants you want them on the ground so they don't get shot, in the fight, flight, or freeze response, for people unaccustomed to violence it will mainly be flee or freeze. If they freeze they still represent a potential threat to you as well as a threat to their own safety by standing there doing nothing. It is safer for both you and them to put them on the ground until they can flee if you don't secure them. Let the fleeing flee, it gets them clear of your space and reduces the amount of visual clutter you have to deal with and the amount of people that have no idea what they are doing. Panicking people are stupid, wild, animals that could compromise your safety through ignorance and/or panic. They can cling to you, attack you, or block your shot and all of which compromises your ability to react to threat.

[mike135]

Good points, and there's a difference between commanding somebody to get on the floor at gunpoint vs saying "I need you to get down on the floor until it's safe to get up". Sheep are quick to comply and follow when given effective leadership. Sometimes screaming commands is counter-productive. Keeping your brain working helps you analyze and proceed appropriately. If people recognize you as a good guy with a gun, they will generally want to cooperate and do their part to help.