The Quick Peek Technique and Active Shooters

[Deaf Smith]

"Quick peek is a SEARCH technique, not an aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible technique."

While you are cutting-and-pasting find where I said the QP technique was anything but a SEARCH technique.

Whle you are at it, when you are SEARCHING just what are you looking for.... duh... the active shooter, right david?

Guys, take the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City. It has insides that basicly are 360 degrees of windows. Most down to the floor.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...195049,00.html

and the Spokane WA, Lewis and Clark High School shooting. The school is quite difficult to pie all around the outside, I don't care how you modify the pie technique. And the interior hallways will be even worse.

http://warddesigngroup.us/portfolio/...clark-ext1.jpg

In order to locate where the active shooter is you are going to have to seach some. Might be lucky and others point out just where they are. Might be very unlucky and have quite a large number off rooms, if not floors, to check and plenty of noise to make it difficult to pinpoint by sound.

So if you do this, especially if by yourself, I strongly suggest you have several good techniques you can interchange as needed. Including the quick peek.

[David Armstrong]

While you are cutting-and-pasting find where I said the QP technique was anything but a SEARCH technique.

You are pushing it as a technique to go after active shooters. You have said how it would be of value in that effort. Seems like a whole lot of folks involved in actually doing that job have said you are wrong.

Whle you are at it, when you are SEARCHING just what are you looking for.... duh... the active shooter, right david?

Sometimes, deaf, your lack of knowledge about some of these things is downright embarrassing. And no, as a general rule, you are not SEARCHING for an active shooter. You know roughly where the shooter is and are moving as rapidly as feasible to get to him and engage him.
Trying to discuss police work and tactics with you is like trying to discuss sex with a virgin.
But here, let's see what others in LE or the military have said to you previously in reference to this same issue:
"Suarez says you're wrong. Ayoob says you're wrong. Armstrong says you're wrong. All identifiable guys with known backgrounds. Multiple guys with real-world experience (Spade, Foster, Rex, more) who're more anonymous but still in the trenches say you're wrong."
"I don't see the quick peek as a generally viable technique for the active shooter."
"In an active shooter scenario, a quick peek around the corner to assess the situation is a wasted time. "
"The problem with drawing tactical anecdotes from IDPA is that few of us will ever be attacked by cardboard. I have nothing against gun games. I think they are fun and serve a good purpose, but in this instance, as others have said, Take the ground and hold it. "
"IMO, you're extrapolating a drill into a situation where it really doesn't fit very well. I don't see the quick peek as any real advantage in your scenario. I do see huge problems with it. "
"Quick peek is set up for a methodical search of a structure that may or may not be occupied by a bad guy. If you respond to a scene and hear gunshots, quick peeking your way to the shooter is gonna result in a lot of shot up people. I don't think NTOA is teaching that either and there is a reason for that - wrong tactic for the wrong time."
"Quick Peek is inappropriate for use in an active shooter response. You understand that active shooter response is *exactly* an "aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible", right?"
"Other areas where you're showing severe lack of knowldege---such as the thread where you wrongly commented on SWAT's active shooter SOPs---show that you're not prepared to advocate tactics in this area."
"After a while it gets tiring listing to Deaf, whom as far as I know has no military or police experience and has never been in what the bureaucracy likes to refer to nowadays as a 'critical incident', pontificate on the right way to do this or that with regards to tactics."
"When I 1st landed (here), Deaf's post would have made a lot of sense. Today, a post like that, and his continued vacillation in this thread is a clear indication that a lot of where he is coming from has no basis nor foundation in the real world."
"In an active shooter situation, as much as I hate clearing rooms alone, or even in a pair, I would rather pie a corner, or do a dynamic entry (being a moving target with a gun is better than a popup target) and dominate the room, not peek in and announce "here i am!" to a possible shooter, and thus be either ventilated through the wall, or as I came in after, since no single peek will let you see a entire room. "
None of those statements are from me, deaf, but they are all from BTDT guys responding to you advocating the QP for going in after an active shooter. So it's not just David, or just in David's mind, it is from a whole lot of folks who have played this game for real.

[Capt. Charlie]

C'mon guys. There's nothing wrong with a good, old fashioned debate, so long as it remains impersonal and civil.

This one's starting to loose those qualities. Step back, count to ten, and tone it down.... please!

[Deaf Smith]

Yes david you are searching. To know roughly where they are does not mean you know what room, or even floor they are on. In fact in many of the actual Active Shooter attacks across the country the police did not know where they were in some very large buildings. What is more you know neither their numbers nor dispositions or weapons, so yes you have to search to find them in many cases. The larger the area, as I showed above with pictures of actual buildings where Active Shooters did kill many, show that very fact.

Suarez said in his part of the thread to 'never say never' to, didn't mention that, did you david? Ayoob says it's a recon method, and so do I. You may very well have to recon to find out approxamatly where the Active Shooter is david. Especially if you go in alone as many have suggested such as Farnam and Haggard:

Single Officer Response in Active Shooter Events By Sgt. Chuck Haggard
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/featu...featureID=3593

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/23Apr09.html

IDPA? Now where in this thread, or in the Active Shooter thread at GT have I mentioned IPDA? No, you mentioned it david, not I.

I have been to several schools that taught tactics, among other things. I've teamed up with others to form entry teams as part of the classes and we practiced the very entry maneuvers used by LEO entry teams (yes groucho walk, grasping the person in front of you and the one at the end by the belt, etc..., peeling off on rooms, etc...) And yes, the ones teaching the classes were LEOs.

None of this is rocket science david. It's not LEO only patent-pending top secret. It’s the same tactics anyone would use to stop an Active Shooter. Or do you even know really what an Active Shooter is, david? You can’t spend all day pieing every room and door in the case of an AC. Every second means someone else is dead so speed is important to. It is not the same as a raid on a drug den where you know the layout, the possible number of actors, and the time to set up a team to enter when least expected.

Big difference david.

[David Armstrong]

I have been to several schools that taught tactics, among other things.

Yeah, we know, you read a book, you saw an article, you took a class. Yet overwhelmingly it seems those who do this stuff for real say you are wrong. I think that says it all. It's not just David, it's all those other guys.

IDPA? Now where in this thread, or in the Active Shooter thread at GT have I mentioned IPDA? No, you mentioned it david, not I.

Actually, I quoted somebody else who mentioned it in response to you, and yes, you did mention it. Post #1: "At the 2008 IDPA Nationals they had a stage, ..."

Or do you even know really what an Active Shooter is, david?

Yes. Apparently you don't, however, as was pointed out in the other thread and is rather obvious given some of your responses here in this thread talking about searching, doing recon, etc.

Every second means someone else is dead so speed is important to.

Yep, that is why you don't waste time searching, you hunt down the BG and engage him.

Big difference david.

Yes, deaf, it is a big difference. I know the difference from actual experience instead of reading about it. I've done drug raids and I've gone after shooters. Perhaps you would care to tell us about one of the drug raids you led, or one of the times you went into a building after a guy that was shooting at folks? Oh, wait, never mind---you've never done any of that kind of stuff!

[David Armstrong]

Especially if you go in alone as many have suggested such as Farnam and Haggard:

Didn't see anything there from John regarding specific technique, but there was a general "move fast because it will all be over quickly" context, which seems to negate peeking. However, SGT. Haggard was a bit more direct:
"Since response to an active-shooter incident is a race, a race between the responder(s) stopping the shooter and the shooter racking up a greater and greater body count, I strongly advocate that officers should move to contact as quickly as possible, and by themselves if need be, to expedite stopping the shooter from killing more victims."
Note "move as quickly as possible", which tends to negate peeking around things. In discussing an active shooter response of his own, he says: "I bolted up the steps, pistol in hand, moving as fast as I thought I could engage." Not walked up, not snuck up, but BOLTED up steps, moving as fast as he could while still leaving enough control to engage. Looks like another "don't waste time peeking" advocate. In fact, how does he describe his movement toward scene? "I pushed hard and fast, "pieing" the door as I went, hoping to get a slice of the shooter and to open fire as soon as I had a piece of him available to shoot."
Strangely enough, I didn't see him discuss the benefits of the quick peek, or the need to pie every window, or doing a search, and so on. Could be that those who do this sort of stuff regularly just don't understand it the way someone who once went to a school that taught tactics, among other things.

[Deaf Smith]

I've done drug raids and I've gone after shooters.

Are these one of the ones you 'participated' in that made you a 'gunfighter', like you mentioned to Talon on Glocktalk?

[David Armstrong]

Oh my, are you trying to make this a personal fight, deaf? I believe if you will look at that thread that I made no claims about participating in any particular events or claiming to be a gunfighter. Of course that has nothing to do with the proper tactics for going after an active shooter, so any chance you will try to stay on the topic?

[pax]

Looks like this one is done now.

Closed.

pax