Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 70
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ronlassit View Post
    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.
    Why in the world would you derail the good information in this thread when all you had to say is "I'm a conscious objector" and disengage from the thread because you wouldn't participate anyway? What a waste.
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally Posted by RPG View Post
    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
    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.

    That means that if you are nearby when an incident sets off you can resolve it quickly.

    If you are not near, then the longer it takes you to move towards and engage shooter the greater the risk of drawing fire of other well-intentioned people including responding LE.

    There are a bunch of threads directly covering this topic and a few Blog articles as well. Here is one recent thread from JonathanNobody and a link I included to an article from Gabe.

    Here are a few ideas on how to mitigate the risk of being shot by other good guys:

    1. If you aren't in near proximity to the shooter, maybe you should get out rather than hunt.
    2. If you decide to move towards the shooter, get to the shooter and end it as fast as you can. The longer things are drawn out the greater the risk of getting shot by a good guy.
    3. As Gabe / Greg have said, look the part.
    4. As Gabe / Greg have said, keep your weapon concealed or at least covered until it's time to shoot.
    5. As Gabe / Greg have said, if you encounter LE, do what they say, don't turn towards them with weapon, and loudly, repeatedly, state that you are a good guy.

    I am far from the most qualified person to answer any of these questions so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
    Last edited by apamburn; 09-15-2017 at 11:27 PM.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by apamburn View Post
    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.

    That means that if you are nearby when an incident sets off you can resolve it quickly.

    If you are not near, then the longer it takes you to move towards and engage shooter the greater the risk of drawing fire of other well-intentioned people including responding LE.

    There are a bunch of threads directly covering this topic and a few Blog articles as well. Here is one recent thread from JonathanNobody and a link I included to an article from Gabe.

    Here are a few ideas on how to mitigate the risk of being shot by other good guys:

    1. If you aren't in near proximity to the shooter, maybe you should get out rather than hunt.
    2. If you decide to move towards the shooter, get to the shooter and end it as fast as you can. The longer things are drawn out the greater the risk of getting shot by a good guy.
    3. As Gabe / Greg have said, look the part.
    4. As Gabe / Greg have said, keep your weapon concealed or at least covered until it's time to shoot.
    5. As Gabe / Greg have said, if you encounter LE, do what they say, don't turn towards them with weapon, and loudly, repeatedly, state that you are a good guy.

    I am far from the most qualified person to answer any of these questions so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
    Or... you're not shooting indiscriminately into shoppers
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    3,348
    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 06:07 AM.
    Warrior for the working day.

    Es una cosa muy seria. --Robert Capa

    "...I ride the range in a Ford V8...Yippy Yi Yo Ki Yay." --Johnny Mercer

    "What cannot be remedied must be endured."

    362. And a wakeup.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,768
    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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111

    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

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,564
    Well I think after Sunday's incident some of the detractors of my perspective on controlling an unknown subject may have changed their tune. If you look at the pictures of the inside of the hotel EVERYONE was proned out until it could be determined if they were a threat or not.


    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Well, I think this issue, possibly more than any other tactical issue, is very much determined by the situational context.
    It depends on what you are allowed (ROE/ Law/ SOPīs), able and willing to do in a given situation.

    This leads to the whole controversy in the discussion.


    Now as I said, since I was asking for your take on contacts with unknown persons in CQB situations and arrests, here is the condensed/ rough version of what I learned as a standard procedure.
    (Which might be just right in some situations and entirely wrong in another.)

    If possible move to cover before challenging the person
    Order suspect to turn his back towards you
    Have him move 3 steps forward and kneel
    Possibly change your own position so he does not know where you are precisely (keeping distance since you are armed with a gun and ready for precise shooting if necessary, giving you an advantage with increasing distance)

    The following are additional steps for suspects who were found with their hands in the pockets
    Once suspect is in kneeling position order him to slowly pull out his left hand (usually the weak) and put it on his head
    order him to slowly pull the right hand
    If you see a weapon in his hands order him to drop it immediately (or use force, if according to ROE; on average there would only be confusion or possible aggression as a reason for the suspect to pull out the weapon he might hold in the pocket) then order him to move slowly away from the weapon
    Then proceed as mentioned earlier in order to put the suspect into a tactically untenable position again (unable to quickly attack or flee and not knowing your position).

    If not cooperative during the whole process, use force according to ROE (whatever you have to follow).

    Very much relevant to the whole issue is the force science institutes research on the problem of quick counter attacks (often beating the average reaction time of arresting persons).
    This was posted originally by Jeromy Hasenkamp

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Nichols View Post
    Well I think after Sunday's incident some of the detractors of my perspective on controlling an unknown subject may have changed their tune. If you look at the pictures of the inside of the hotel EVERYONE was proned out until it could be determined if they were a threat or not.


    Without saying anything about the point you are trying to make here and prior in this conversation, I'll just point out for sake of accuracy that the top picture you posted is of somebody who did something suspicious (he was driving down the street that had been closed), and the second picture does not appear to be people "proned out". It looks more like some officers walking through a room full of people in some sort of holding situation--everybody is relaxed, appears to be stuck there with nowhere to go for an extended period of time, probably wrapped in sheets/blankets for warmth, etc.

    What officers did in the initial reaction and entrance to the hotel is a different question--whether or not we get any video from that remains to be seen.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Nichols View Post
    I would wager that one of these groups has been shot at and the other has not.
    If you're in back of the beyond in NorCal you had *better* be careful of any group you see hanging out in the woods in tents. Hippies are pacifists about their dope. The people who grow dope and sell it to hippies are *NOT* pacifists and there's lots of forest to bury the bodies in.

    Context Context Context.

Posting Permissions

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