CQB/ The Unknown Person

[Greg Nichols]

Ok again you are correlating unrelated things and are way left of anything of value for this thread I recommend taking LEO PR concerns to another thread as it appears to be a topic you're interested in. But I'll answer same as above since you seem to keep taking the same stance and not comprehending what I wrote above.

I'm focusing on the fact that to most external observers,they have no skin in the game, and I care not for a critics opinion, I care about the feed back from my mates and those who's lives I saved much of what law enforcement does appears to be very unreasonable. This is the perspective of people with no experience For example, if a game warden is approaching an hunting camp, why does he need to treat everybody like potential criminals/threats? because he's deep in the woods approaching potentially heavily armed people that could be using hunting as a cover for drugs or fugitives and if out numbered and out gunned it's far to easy to end up buried in a hill in the back country, he owes his family and anyone he may save in the future of his career to take care of himslef That may seem reasonable from a risk-based thinking on the side of law enforcement, but it seems extremely unreasonable from the perspective of the general public It doesn't make their opinion valid, again they aren't participants. If a game warden isn't comfortable around people with guns, he's in the wrong job. And his perceived potential for risk is not sufficient justification for treating the people he supposedly "serves" like that. Like it or not, that's the job he signed up for, and the people who pay his paycheck think there should be limits on what he does with the authority that comes with his badge and gun. I think I see the problem, you're basing your view on a false premises. First, risk is absolutely justification if the risk is high enough, Secondly, IT"S HIS JOB, he is not an indenture servant nor is he cannon fodder to soak up bullets so other people don't have to. His job is to PROTECT people through the enFORCEment of law not the enASKPOLITELY of law. He took the job for a paycheck and no where in his job description concerning the performance of his duties does it say he's required to be shot if he can avoid it so a third party observer can feel better about their safe little lives. Law Enforcement can talk about risk, how quickly a situation can go bad, etc. and be 100% right from a tactical perspective, but that is going to be irrelevant to the other side Because they feel it's irrelevant only makes it a feeling not a fact. I don't deal in feelings.. So the longer they insist on maintaining their position, the worse the public attitude will be toward them. Is that a good trend This is not an issue for this thread and PR isn't the responsibility of the troops on the ground, professionalism is but not PR?

On the other hand, I know there are plenty of good experienced cops who handle such situations much better. So my point is that there is probably a better way that improves PR without significantly increasing risk to the officer No see above, good tactics and professional discernment is how you do the job, swaying public opinion on something that is tactically correct, within policy, done professionally is not the officer's concern, again YOUR perspective/opinion is YOURS and isn't made fact because you feel strongly about it , and we should explore and pursue that instead of maintaining the "I'm going home at the end of this shift and nothing else matters!" attitude that is so prevalent, especially in the younger cops Younger cops either get shot by being too lax, or are afraid to shoot someone, what is being bread by people with the same perspective as you is cops that won't engage and stand off from a high risk situation because of PR, it's literally going to be your fault in a broad sense when cops stop responding to shootings because they don't want to chance the PR risk to their careers, when that starts to happen everyone with the same perspective as you will be hollering that they weren't bold enough to act to save lives... you can't raise pugs and expect them to turn into pitbulls when you need them to be.

You can say "I'm cuffing you for my safety" and really mean it, but all the other person (and everybody viewing the FB/YT video later) will care about is that they were treated like a criminal by the scared jack-booted thug cop who's hassling people for no good reason. Multiply that by many incidents over many years, and you get to where we are today. Of course you are correct about the way it ought to be, but that has no relevance to the PR/political question As above, how someone who is not there perceives my actions has 0 bearing on how I'm doing it or if it's correct or not. PR/PC gets people killed . Law enforcement has to deal with what is, not what ought to be And what is, is that it's safer to cuff someone until a scene is sorted out as just by the officer being there is detainment, and you aren't required to arrest everyone cuffed.

So to bring it back to where we started, this is the part that I'm focused on:

-----------

If they’re compliant and following command they will get subsequent string of command. I’d prefer them to be kneeling with their ankles crossed and their fingers laced behind their head, facing away from me. Once in this position I will back sling and go to pistol until I have a crush grip on their laced fingers, then I will holster.

After cuffing or zip-tieing their hands behind their back I will conduct a cursory search for weapons or anything that can be used to unsecure themselves. I prefer them on their knees because it’s easier and faster to search and if you are working with contact/cover you can pitch the person away to keep yourself out of cover’s line of fire which is harder to do in the prone. Once the search is concluded I pull their shirt over their face and lay them face down to continue with the search or depending on the environment take them outside and lay them on their face with their face covered and start my clear over again. In general I will rather clear the structure entirely before I do more with the unknown especially if I’m solo.

----------

Obviously solid strategy tactically speaking, but don't be surprised if somebody who is treated like that is a BLM type who is not inclined to follow the direction of LE without resistance,My fucking god...... do you really think someone in an active shooter scenario is going to refuse orders due to principal? or if as in my OP if in a smaller structure I don't care what he wants to do, that my scene and I own it until I release it because if I don't know what is going on I don't give a fiddlers flying fornication what some social justice warrior wants to do and in general if they don't want to follow direction and an officer is there it's because they're the instigator, hiding something, wanting to handle it themselves. Victims want you there and are pissed you didn't get there faster takes great offense to being treated like this as a result, and will immediately try to bring a lawsuit for having their civil rights violated resulting in great irreparable emotional and psychological harm Lawyers are cheaper than doctors and/or funerals, again being detained and restrained isn't violating civil rights if you're there with probable cause. I think you're watching too much TV..

[Papa]

Anyone can sue anyone over anything at any time.

But no one is bringing a lawsuit until I safely clear the building and eliminate the threat. And nothing I do in that building will be driven by anyone's perceptions except mine and those of my crew.
I assume, because this is America and we glorify the outlaw culture, that whatever I do and however I do it someone will be unhappy. I hear daily about how all cops are corrupt and stupid and it's ceased to have any effect on me except controlled anger. And I've been called far worse than that.
So I'll cuff, control, flextie whomever I need to in order to do what I came to do. I don't care what's relevant to "the other side." I don't care who "take(s) offense."
And I do treat everyone like a potential criminal/threat. 35 years in law enforcement, the last 12 as a road cop in a one-man car, have taught me many things, but I already knew that you can't judge a book by its cover.
PR is helping you change a tire, or giving you a ride to the homeless shelter, or corralling your loose livestock. PR is slipping you $5.00 when you don't have two nickels to rub together and you spent last night sleeping under a bridge. PR is responding to the unattended death and dealing with those onscene and making the death notification in a compassionate, professional way. Enough of that: none of those things happen in my world without a realistic threat assessment first. None of those things are done to "improve PR" or to generate it.

And PR is irrelevant when it's "game on."

Last I heard this was "Warrior Talk." "Social Justice Warrior Talk" is some other forum, and one I won't be joining.

[ronlassit]

Glad to see that so many here took the bait. I wanted to see some discussion that revealed who lives here. Lots of good points made. Times have sure changed, and I can say I'm sure glad I'm not the spear point . There's one thing that I probably have on 99% of those posting here, and that is age. Time has a unique way of altering perspectives. I have over the years been fortunate to have received some excellent training. I have enjoyed playing with lots of toys and experiencing things most never have the opportunity to , along with meeting some excellent people. The years have mellowed me and I have come to realize the truth of the greatest teacher ever. He said " No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for a friend." He knew what real combat was all about, so I really listen to him now. I have come to regret things I have done in my past, as is common to us all. That I cannot change. My purpose in what I wrote was to make you think, beyond all the bravado and testosterone. Your life means nothing unless you do what is good and noble, but it is not up to me to decide that. That responsibility belongs to a power far greater than I; but it also belongs to you. Gabe, I'm going to call you out on one thing. I hope you do not take it as an insult or an affront, for it is surely not meant to be. Its sole purpose is to make you think. To all those here who have taken the oath, the first time you violate the rights of a single individual, you have violated that oath. It is something to think about.

[Gabriel Suarez]

"Social Justice Warrior Talk" is some other forum, and one I won't be joining.

Nor one that I will be paying for.

[Gabriel Suarez]

Gabe, I'm going to call you out on one thing. I hope you do not take it as an insult or an affront, for it is surely not meant to be. Its sole purpose is to make you think. To all those here who have taken the oath, the first time you violate the rights of a single individual, you have violated that oath. It is something to think about.

No offense taken.

My oath is that first duty is to GFT...second is to fight evil when evil is presented to me.
That is the oath I took for myself.

And it supercedes anything else. To live and die a warrior.

And everytime I was stabbed in the back by administrators, and other officers looking for advancement through betrayal...it was the same as what you are suggesting.
When a group takes an oath and them selectively applies it, it is no longer an oath.

I was and have remained always true to MY PERSONAL OATH.

The rest?



I had my fingers crossed.

[Greg Nichols]

Glad to see that so many here took the bait. I wanted to see some discussion that revealed who lives here. Lots of good points made. Times have sure changed, and I can say I'm sure glad I'm not the spear point . There's one thing that I probably have on 99% of those posting here, and that is age. Time has a unique way of altering perspectives. I have over the years been fortunate to have received some excellent training. I have enjoyed playing with lots of toys and experiencing things most never have the opportunity to , along with meeting some excellent people. The years have mellowed me and I have come to realize the truth of the greatest teacher ever. He said " No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for a friend." He knew what real combat was all about, so I really listen to him now. I have come to regret things I have done in my past, as is common to us all. That I cannot change. My purpose in what I wrote was to make you think, beyond all the bravado and testosterone. Your life means nothing unless you do what is good and noble, but it is not up to me to decide that. That responsibility belongs to a power far greater than I; but it also belongs to you. Gabe, I'm going to call you out on one thing. I hope you do not take it as an insult or an affront, for it is surely not meant to be. Its sole purpose is to make you think. To all those here who have taken the oath, the first time you violate the rights of a single individual, you have violated that oath. It is something to think about.

Seem to be toting around a pocket full of stone for one so in tune to the word. May want to go reread what it says about war and judgement

[JonathanNobody]

I think you just found the non-pretenders calling you out on nonsensical tactics.

Let's run this in force-on-force and see what really works.

[ronlassit]

Gabe, sorry you had to go through that with your superiors, I can relate to that. You may indeed be a warrior that has no need of weapons as we generally talk about, which is indeed the greatest warrior of all. Greg, war and judgement are very far above my pay grade. My sole purpose in life may be opening the door for a person I do not know and wishing them a good day and I'm okay with that. Jonathan, if you're talking to me, the person I'm talking about will destroy the best tactics ever devised.

[RPG]

Great topic, Greg. Looking forward to your CQB schedule. Let's say you and I are at the mall both solo. We don't know each other but both respond to the sound of gunfire down the way. How do we keep from shooting each other as we work our way toward the shooter? We are cognizant of the potential for secondary shooters but delay means more dead shoppers. Haste may mean dead us. I'm sure there's a weekend full of information that you can answer with but what are the key points?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Greg Nichols]

Great topic, Greg. Looking forward to your CQB schedule. Let's say you and I are at the mall both solo. We don't know each other but both respond to the sound of gunfire down the way. How do we keep from shooting each other as we work our way toward the shooter? We are cognizant of the potential for secondary shooters but delay means more dead shoppers. Haste may mean dead us. I'm sure there's a weekend full of information that you can answer with but what are the key points?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That you're not shooting indiscriminately into shoppers?