|
Harry et al,
We in the infantry of the US Army generally do not train (as far as I know) in non-lethal diversionary devices. Generally, if we are going to assume the risk of delivery we will use a casualty inflicting device.
I am not certain what the SRTs are doing, in the MP community I would assume the same as the other Federal agencies in the employment of these for initiation of action.
I would like to make this observation as an one on the outside of the law enforcement community. The employment of any such device must be assumed to be incendiary in nature. The near immediate requirement to fight fire in conjunction with their use is quite likely. The safety of the divices has, I am sure, improved. How ever, one must be prepared to control a fire if it results. There are numerous cases of the structure having been burned as a result of these devices employment. In a combat environment flame weapons may be acceptable. The use of such weapons is supposed to be carefully balanced against the possible collateral damage.
If your department has not instituted a careful protocol concerning the employment and necessary employment preparation to include having the fire fighters alerted perhaps you might consider this. Remember the block that the Philadelphi police burned in the MOVE incident. The total destruction and accompanying loss of life at WACO would probably not be acceptable for a military operation in todays enlightenment.
(Make no mistake here, I am not being sarcastic in the least. The employment of force carries with it enormous burdens to avoid wanton destruction and loss of life.)
As a non-LEO it would make me feel alot better about the use of dynamic entry if I knew that the teams executing it were being careful to control the impact of the use of such devices.
This falls into the same category, in my estimation, as wounding civilians with uncontrolled gunfire.
Just an old infantryman's take on the situation.
yours in marksmanship
michael
|