FBI Miami shootout: Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics

[FM12]

Jager: Tell us of the shoot outs you've been involved in, were they more of a SWAT environment like the FBI shoot-out currently discussed, or more of a one-on-one type scenario? Maybe even both, perhaps?

I'm anxious to find out where you train also, I might be interested to try some of their courses. LEO academy, private, like Gunsite, thunder Ranch, etc?

It's been a long time (1978) since I graduated the police academy, and could surely use some refresher training.

Thanks in advance, FM12

[Covert Mission]

For the record, I think the agents involved did nothing short of a phenomenal job.Jerry Dove got a center hit on Platt in a fraction of a second, from a distance of 30 feet while Platt was sliding across the hood of a car! Mcneill got two good hits to Mattix’ face and neck. Orrantia and Risner got hits on a moving target from a distance of almost 100 feet. Mireles got hits with the use of only one arm. All of this with the agents shooting from bright light into a dimly lit area and not on one-dimensional paper targets but on subjects that were shooting back!

I agree. I think there is one truth evident here: Mr. Murphy is often the first one through the door, or on the scene. This takedown/surveillance did not go according to plan, and the agents were behind the power curve, in no small part due to Platt & Matix already having decided they were going to kill rather than be arrested, and were well-prepared to do so. In the OODA loop, they were already one or two steps ahead of the FBI agents. That said, those agents fought so bravely under withering fire that I am in awe.

Better SOPs are a product of evolution and experience, and unfortunately sometimes good officers are killed in the process, before their mistakes or flawed tactics can be used to train others, so it seems. As Dave Armstrong says, you have to keep the context of the times in mind too. Ex: The CA Highway Patrol had the infamous Newhall shooting change their firearms training SOPs. One of the dead CHPs was found with his spent brass in his pocket. In the middle of a gunfight (using revos), he caught his empties and put them in his pocket. Why? Because that's what they did in practice, so the range would stay nice and neat. That was when the "do it in training the way you should do it for real" idea really took hold. Practice like you'd have to fight. Today, those Miami FBI agents would have probably been SWAT members, armed with ARs and MP5s, body armor on, better trained and ready to rock, etc.

This is not to talk about fault so much as to point out those little things that can screw up your world.

Exactly, Art. That's why you play the "what if" game, to try to anticipate what you would do if...

I'm just a lowly reserve deputy, but I always try to tell myself, on every traffic stop or seemingly innocent call, "This could be the one." As a Marine friend told me, "Always be polite, professional, but have a plan to kill everyone in front of you." Sounds extreme to a non-LEO or sheeple, but it could save your life. As Dave A says, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" but you'd better have some kind of a plan anyway, or better, A, B, C etc, and be able to switch pronto.

disclaimer: I'm no HSLD dude, in fact LSHD! Interesting topic though, and I've read about, discussed, and pondered it and other incidents a fair bit.

[Retired]

FM12,

I agree with you.

My police academy was in 1978. I remember seeing the FBI reenactment video that was distributed after the 1986 shooting, and I read Dr. Anderson's excellent forensic analysis. Since then I've also read most of the reports available online.

I've always had one strong opinion about this incident: The agents involved all were very brave men, willing to risks their lives to protect the public.

[FM12]

RETIRED: Yeah, 1978. 30 years ago, as of right now, as a matter of fact.

Geeze, if I had known I'd live this long I'd taken better care of myself and would have trained more!

Back then then, the main training we had on this was the Newhall incident. Scared the bejeebers out of me, but i STILL find myself shucking my empties into my hand when I shoot my revolvers.

Old habits do, indeed, die hard.

They were indeed brave men. Gunfights don't always go as planned, or even as we wish they would.

After watching the movie, I'm amazed no others died, and that no civilans were killed (as fa as I know).

God bless America, and those who keep her protected, here and abroad.

[Jager1]

It's been a long time (1978) since I graduated the police academy, and could surely use some refresher training.

Of that I have little doubt.

[Jager1]

...those agents fought so bravely under withering fire that I am in awe.

Exactly.

[Perldog007]

We all make mistakes, it's what you do afterwards that counts.

Lack of fortitude was not a problem to my understanding.

The FBI revamped the gear and the tactics. I can find no reason to fault them in this incident.

[Para Bellum]

better placement.

...and don't fight assault rifles with handguns.
- Get a rifle and a vest yourself, or
- call SWAT, or
- flee.

[Covert Mission]

Para,

Of course, that old cliche couldn't be more true about bringing a long gun to a long gun fight.

"Is that a club in your pants leg or a sawed off gauge?" So, it's Mr. Glock with me most of the time.

[David Armstrong]

And as a result, the agents got their backsides handed to them on a platter where a bit of common sense and humility (by not pursuing and attempting an immediate stop) might have offered more favorable odds.

Again, that is great hindsight, so it is easy to say. BUt at the time the agents had to make a decsion based on what they felt was best. Do you really think any of the agents thought "wow, we're big bad and macho, so lets do something that probably won't work just so we can get shot up!"?
No. Just like lots of officers they did what they thought was best to preserve the safety of the community. Letting the BGs go would not have been an option for me, particularly given the superiority in numbers for LE.

They "changed their goals"? Is that criminal justice degree lingo for "They overreached and got the stuffing knocked out of them?"

No. That is cop talk for reacting and responding to changes in situations.

To claim some clandestine knowledge and offering "trust me, I've seen the reports" as some type of moral authority as to which questions have been sufficiently answered and criticisms addressed is condescending and disingenuous at best.

Nobody has said anything about clandestine knowledge or "trust me." What has been offered is that when one knows the whole story, when one has taken the time to look at all the information, one gets a better perspective of what went on and why. If you consider suggesting people get all the information they can about a subject is condescending, so be it.

[Jager1]

"wow, we're big bad and macho, so lets do something that probably won't work just so we can get shot up!"?

No. Actually, I believe they thought the suspects would be easily overcome or would simply roll over. I've stated as much. They DID get shot up (as a result) and "changing goals" proved to be a pretty poor decision, no matter how you measure it.

And that's why, folks, that the Miami Shootout became one of the most talked about incidents in LE history in the last fifty years.

Because the agents made all the right decisions to benefit citizens in the community and bad decision making on their part played no part whatsoever.

I have to wonder whatever happened to those early debriefing reports that clearly pointed out the numerous personal foibles and tactical mistakes made by the FBI that day? (From Night Watch)

[David Armstrong]

They DID get shot up (as a result) and "changing goals" proved to be a pretty poor decision, no matter how you measure it.

True, if you measure it with that 20-20 hindsight. I guess you can disregard that it is the same decision that virtually any other officer at that time, given that same situation, would have made.

Because the agents made all the right decisions to benefit citizens in the community and bad decision making on their part played no part whatsoever.

Yes, they did what they did to reduce the danger to the community. It was a good decision given the information available to them, the situation as it was known at the time, and the alternatives available at the time. It was a good decision that would have been decided the same way by hundreds of thousands of officers at that time. Maybe it can be considered a bad decision from the perspective of the Monday morning quarterback, but it's easy to make those decisions on Monday morning.

Quoted from FM12:
Jager: Tell us of the shoot outs you've been involved in, were they more of a SWAT environment like the FBI shoot-out currently discussed, or more of a one-on-one type scenario? Maybe even both, perhaps?

[obxned]

It is tactics - no guns can overcome some of the brain-dead things that were done. A mega-death ray gun that is lost on the floor of a vehicle is no better than a pea shooter.

The whole thing screams 'situational awareness' and preparedness.

[jabotinsky]

Interesting thread, intelligent posts on both sides. The OP asked if the problem was ballistics or tactics. When some folks say tactics, they're taking heat from other posters, some apparently ex-LE, who say that we shouldn't second-guess or Monday morning quarterback the tactics used because the agents are heroes and those who haven't been in the line of fire don't have the right to raise such issues. Interesting little dynamic. My take is that mindset played a bigger role than equipment in this tragic event. But we still live with the repercussions. To admit relying on 22lr or 9mm ammo for SD in these forums is to court ex-communication.

[JollyRoger]

OK back to the original issue: I doubt a different handgun caliber would have made a big difference, except possibly when McNeil was shooting through the front windshield of the bad guys' car before he got hit, he might have had a slightly better chance of tagging Platt with a different caliber that would have punched throught the windshield better-may or may not have made a difference as Platt continued on with a fatal wound later in the fight.

Tactics were actually pretty sound, with agents using cover appropriately, etc. A couple of notable exceptions were the ramming the car initially, which the agents were not trained to do, and Dove and Grogan dropping their guard momentarily when Platt was charging them from out of their immediate view.

Equipment played a big part here, largely due to Bureau policies which were sound 99% of the time. Nevertheless, a couple rifles for the good guys might have radically changed the results. An eyeglasses strap which would have prevented Grogan from losing his glasses might have made a big difference, as it would have put him in the fight and he was an excellent marksman. More ammo, as Dove had expended all his rounds at the time he was killed. Autos vs. revolvers: McNeil was attempting to reload his revolver when he was hit through his vest by Platt's rifle - a quicker reload might have made a difference.

[David Armstrong]

When some folks say tactics, they're taking heat from other posters, some apparently ex-LE, who say that we shouldn't second-guess or Monday morning quarterback the tactics used because the agents are heroes and those who haven't been in the line of fire don't have the right to raise such issues.

I think the heat is not directed at those who suggest that better tactics could have been used. IMO the heat is directed at those who suggest the tactics and choices of action were chosen for other than legitimate reasons on the part of the agents, or suggestions that the agents were somehow making bad decisions that others in their spot would not have taken. Again, given the information available to them at the time, the training given at the time, the state of law enforcement at the time, it is apparent the tactics were normal, acceptable, and expected. That they didn't work out as expected does not make the tactics bad.

[Jager1]

When some folks say tactics, they're taking heat from other posters, some apparently ex-LE, who say that we shouldn't second-guess or Monday morning quarterback the tactics used because the agents are heroes and those who haven't been in the line of fire don't have the right to raise such issues. Interesting little dynamic.

Yes, it is. Similar elitist mindset that contributed to the debacle in the first place would be my guess.

[nemoaz]

I guess you can disregard that it is the same decision that virtually any other officer at that time, given that same situation, would have made.

I don't get this argument. I don't know of many people that would have left the station without at least a shotgun. (I know rifles weren't common then, but the WERE available to the Miami FBI agents and the two SWAT Agent could have brought the MP5's or other longarm and high threat body armor that was probably in their locker or in the other appropriate place they kept that stuff.). I think you'd have to admit that carrying their shotguns in the trunk was suspect. I don't know many people that would not at least have had their body armor in the sedan, rather than in the trunk. Finally, I don't know anyone who would have confronted known violent suspects who were parading their long arms by getting in front of the suspect vehicle and attempting to box it. True, tactics have changed now. But not that much.

Because the agents made all the right decisions to benefit citizens in the community and bad decision making on their part played no part whatsoever. Yes, they did what they did to reduce the danger to the community. It was a good decision given the information available to them, the situation as it was known at the time, and the alternatives available at the time. It was a good decision that would have been decided the same way by hundreds of thousands of officers at that time. Maybe it can be considered a bad decision from the perspective of the Monday morning quarterback, but it's easy to make those decisions on Monday morning.

Not following you here. I know they were concerned about public safety, but they already had allowed the vehicle to enter a residential area before they initiated the "Felony Stop". They knew or at least had a good idea that the guys used military tactics and semiauto high capacity rifles. They knew the bad guys didn't mind shooting people. Just letting the vehicle continue until the cavalry arrived was an option. I know their heart was in the right place, and there's no doubt they just wanted to get the bad guys into custody... but I'm don't think they processed the information well even under the circumstances.

I know that sometimes, you just go. The first guy is never wrong. And you have to make the best of a bad situation. However, I'm sure the surviving bureau guys would agree that they could have done things differently. And everyone who wears a badge and gun for a living has made lackadaisical mistakes.

I've never seen it reported, but I wonder how many of those guys had ever done a traffic stop or slapped handcuffs on a subject. A few decades ago, the Bureau didn't value LE experience the way they do today.

None of my comments should be construed to diminish their status as heroes one bit. They still managed to kill two well-armed and well-trained criminals without civilian casualties. And I doubt that most of the guys criticizing here could even qualify on a stress course, but that just goes with the territory. LE gets intense scrutiny. The Bureau gets the worst of all.

[Covert Mission]

A few decades ago, the Bureau didn't value LE experience the way they do today.

I've heard that. As I've re-imagined what I might have done with a life in LE had I taken the another road, I would have done 3-5 yrs with a major agency like LAPD to get some intense street experience, before going to FBI or the like. I remember meeting an FBI agent at one of their LA task force outposts, and he was geared up! Tac belt, 3 mags, flashlight, cuffs, full size gun, on all the time while in the office. In fact he wore it all the time. An ex street cop, he sneered at colleagues who took their paddle holsters off and put them in the drawer while in the office. As I recall, an FBI office had been assaulted by an armed crazy and shot up not too long before, and many agents had been caught unarmed. He said, "That will never happen to me."

[Spade Cooley]

I believe they had a false impression that bad guys lay down and surrender when they hear the words, "FBI". These guys wanted a fight and had the artillery to get it done. Pistols against rifles is no match. Back in the days of Ness, they had good sense. The same thing happened in LA in the North Hollywood Bank Robbery. Now the LAPD is equiped with a lot more rifles.

[David Armstrong]

I don't get this argument. I don't know of many people that would have left the station without at least a shotgun.

They had some shotguns, and at least one was used.

I think you'd have to admit that carrying their shotguns in the trunk was suspect.

No, not at all. Trunk carry was quite common, particularly in unmarked vehicles.

I don't know many people that would not at least have had their body armor in the sedan, rather than in the trunk.

Again, differerent times and different ideas. At the time of the shootout, I would hazard a guess that less than 1/2 the cops in the US even had body armor at the time, and only a very small percentage wore it regularly or kept it handy.

Finally, I don't know anyone who would have confronted known violent suspects who were parading their long arms by getting in front of the suspect vehicle and attempting to box it.

I'm not sure who you know and what they do. Boxing is still used today as a tactic to prevent violent suspects from getting away, and in this incident it was deliberately chosen based on what the agents thought would reduce the danger to the public.

Just letting the vehicle continue until the cavalry arrived was an option.

Yes, there were lots of options. They could have let the badguys go on until the badguys found a location that was even more dangerous to the public and put the agents in more danger. That was an option.

However, I'm sure the surviving bureau guys would agree that they could have done things differently.

Everybody agrees they could have done things differently. The question is whether what they did was appropriate given the time, the situation, the circumstances, the knowledge, etc.

I've never seen it reported, but I wonder how many of those guys had ever done a traffic stop or slapped handcuffs on a subject.

Given the background of the agents, I'd think they were quite familiar with standard LE practices. In fact, that is what I keep saying--they did what virtually any LEO of thta time would have done in that situation.

[jabotinsky]

The OP wanted to know if the incident pointed to a need to change tactics or calibers. Whether or not they were the norm at the FBI at the time is irrelevant...we're not trying to fault the agents for their actions. Clearly the FBI felt some weapons issues needed to be addressed and clearly they felt tactics needed to be reassessed. That takes nothing away from the diligence or bravery of the agents. But it surprises me that discussions about tactical lesson from the shootout evoke such defensiveness from some of my esteemed forum members. Let's just say the agents did the very best that could be expected of them given the historic time frame and agency norms. Now, can we talk about what happened and what we can learn without being sent up on charges of treason?

[Capt. Charlie]

Even the best of threads has a life span, and this one's approaching geriatric. We're going 'round and 'round the mulberry bush here folks, and I think just about every facet of it's been covered.

Time to put it to bed, methinks, but not without thanks to y'all for keeping this pretty civil, for the most part.

RIP.