FBI Miami shootout: Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics

[M1911]

Why did he put his gun on the seat? Why was it not either in his hand or in his holster?

He was the driver, so that's why it wasn't in his hand. It isn't clear to me why he took it it out and placed it between the seats. I suspect it was because he wasn't confident in the speed of his draw, so he thought it would be faster.

[bdcochran]

The FBI agents are not trained to be combat shooters. Forget the rah rah stuff protrayed in the officially sanctioned movies. They are also not beat officers. They are largely annonymous civil servants. Until recently, the specialties were catching draft dodgers and breaking up interstate car theft rings. They excelled at that.

Can you shoot in low light, on the run, while starting and continuing to stand or going to the ground? Do you personally practice shooting your firearm from point blank range to 100 yards. I do. The FBI agent doesn't. It doesn't make me better, just tells you that the exposure isn't there.

I sit in the back of a black and white. A decision is made to accelerate and confront an unknown situation in Lot A of the LAX parking lot. I jam my pistol in the gap beween the seat back and the seat because "I know". Why do you expect that an FBI agent would "know" that the car is going to go through gyrations and he might lose the gun on the seat next to him. He hasn't had the exposure.

If you took the ranges in the actual gun fight and shot for the base of the throat instead of center mass, if you were trained to shoot an exposed arm or leg or hand instead of center mass, then you would be ok whether you were shooting a .38 special, 10mm or .45acp. round.

I am not knocking the agents who were in the fight. You are only as good as your training.

A few years ago, I visited with a friend who was in charge of an FBI unit. I asked him to demonstrate how he could draw his unloaded Glock with his weak hand and engage in a simulation that his strong side arm was injured. He couldn't figure it out. Ditto for how to rack an 870 with an arm shot and disabled. If you don't have the exposure in training, it is too late in the field to learn. Brave guys, poor training. For those few reading this posting, ask yourselves how you could handle racking an 870 or drawing a Glock with the weak hand. Then understand, that the FBI agent does NOT learn this in training.

[Smokin Joe]

oo oo oo I know.

ask yourselves how you could handle racking an 870 or drawing a Glock with the weak hand

the 870, you hold the pump and shake the gun up and down..

as for the glock, from my shoulder holster Id just use the other hand and undo the snap and pull it out and spin it around.

if it is on the duty holser with triple rentention like I have, oh it'll take a whole while.... also IWb at 4o, man thats quite a reach..

[David Armstrong]

Ditto for how to rack an 870 with an arm shot and disabled. If you don't have the exposure in training, it is too late in the field to learn.

And yet Agent Morales did just that. These guys were well trained. At least two were on the local FBI version of a SWAT team, and agents at the time got a fair amount of training in comparison to others in LE. But again (broken record time) you have to keep all this in the context of the times. The officers were as well-trained as most in LE at the time, and that training was/is sufficient for most situations. They hit that once in a lifetime exception situation.

[Denny Hansen]

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!

Monday morning quarterback this all you want, but ask yourself truthfully if you could have done better in the real world; not from an easy chair in front of a keyboard.

Denny

[Smokin Joe]

Always be prepared is the boy scout saying... They knew suspects were armed and dangerous...

[Doug.38PR]

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!

Monday morning quarterback this all you want, but ask yourself truthfully if you could have done better in the real world; not from an easy chair in front of a keyboard.

Mr. Hansen
What you say is true. THAT IS PHENOMENAL. Those men in that immediate situation after the trash hit the fan handled themselves well with what they had. (they did come out on top afterall) I certainly won't say I could have done better.
But that isn't the point of this thread. After the shooting, the first thing the experts said "they need a better handgun" (10mm or .40S&W). The point of this thread is planning. What could these men (or more to the point the supervisor of these men) have done to better plan for this or avoid what did happen? They knew these men were cold blooded heavily armed murderers. They went into a long gun fight with handguns. They didn't cooperate or even notify the local police of what they were doing. Hence the title of this thread, "Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics."

[Bob F.]

Haven't read all the post so maybe I missed it: but IIRC one of the agents emptied his weapon and shot up his reloads, had to go to the car trunk for more ammo. THEN he thought "front sight", stopped BG with head shot and also admitted that he'd WAY miscalculated the range, which shouldn't be a big deal under 50yds, IMHO.

BOb

[Denny Hansen]

Doug,
Denny works for me. Mr. Hansen was my dad.

Part of the title of this thread pertains to tactics, and that's what a lot of people (some who have apparently not researched the incident much) have talked about.

In regards to a better handgun caliber:
We need to keep in mind that the bad guys were driving a vintage Monte Carlo, and almost three decades ago cars were not the cheap sheet metal found in automobiles currently. By modern standards that Monte Carlo was a tank. No handgun round can be expected to get through glass and steel and reliably reach a target inside a vehicle. I have my doubts that the .223 and 9mm rounds out of ARs and MP5s carried by other agents that day, though not at scene of the incident, would have fared much better.

What could they have done differently? IMO very little. The agents were running a rolling surveilance when "made" by Platt and Mattix. The bad guys actions forced the agents to take action at that time for fear of letting them get into a more heavily poplulated area where the chance of innocent bystanders getting injured or possiblly ending up in hostage situation. In short, Platt and Mattix forced the agents hand, and the agents responded as good as they could under less than ideal conditions.

Denny

[AR15FAN]

I think people are too fixated on the tool, rather then the art of using it. A great photographer can make beautiful images with a simple camera while an amateur makes bad ones with the most advanced system. Its the operator, not the tool. This thread is looking for answers in places they don't exist. BTW, Hi Denny.

[njtrigger]

Why didnt they call for backup when they realized a situation existed?

In my neighborhood, when I call the police, they show up within a very short time. I would say less then 3 minutes In the Miami area, Im certain that if a law enforcement agent called for backup there would be at least 10 cars converging on the scene.

I wasnt there and dont know the cirumstances. However, I do know that when one calls the police in most urban areas, they will show up within a few minutes.

Also, the destructive effects of a rifle are well known. If they knew they were going to face rifle toting bad guys, why did they not have the right gear accessible. If it was in the back seat or in the trunk, then thats unacceptable. Any soldier out of basic training knows that there is only one place for your rifle or pistol and thats always within an arm's reach away. A weapon that is locked in the trunk is just as good as having no weapon at all.

So its clear to me that they were not well prepared and believed they could face the situation themselves when back-up units were clearly warranted.

[ISP2605]

Why didnt they call for backup when they realized a situation existed?

They did call for assistance before the stop and the shooting started. By the time the assistance got there it was all over. 3 minutes is a very very long time in a shooting.

[Doug.38PR]

Doug,
Denny works for me. Mr. Hansen was my dad.

Where I come from, when you have been told someone's full name, you call them by their last name until you know them or unless they tell you otherwise. (in short, I wasn't thinking of you as an "old man" just a jesture of respect) ('course what does it matter on the internet since most of us ID each other as Bob, Joe, Doug with a number or nickname attached.)
That being said since Denny works for you, Denny it is.

In regards to a better handgun caliber:
We need to keep in mind that the bad guys were driving a vintage Monte Carlo, and almost three decades ago cars were not the cheap sheet metal found in automobiles currently. By modern standards that Monte Carlo was a tank. No handgun round can be expected to get through glass and steel and reliably reach a target inside a vehicle. I have my doubts that the .223 and 9mm rounds out of ARs and MP5s carried by other agents that day, though not at scene of the incident, would have fared much better.

Denny,
Well that's true, cars back then were not the fragile plastic "environmentally friendly" toys they are today. Still I argue that 1) metal in cars made 30-50 years prior to that were even heavier and stronger than the Monte Carlo or any other 80s era car. I've read of a story back in the 1950s where two secret service agents were in a gun fight with a gang of counterfieters firing on the agents from their car. One agent was using a snub nose .38 spl. standard 158 gr LRN. He soon realized that his bullets were not penetrating the auto body and hitting his target. HOWEVER, his brother in arms near him at the same distance who was using a standard issue 4 inch .38 special shooting the same ammunition DID penetrate the auto body and kill the gunman. The agent with the snubbie later, after being reassigned to protect the President of the United States, went all the way up and bought a four inch .357 magnum revolver (nothing but the best to protect the president). I have heard it said that .38 Special standard did fail to penetrate auto bodies from service guns as far back as the late 60s (one story I heard said a car looked like it had been dented up in a hail storm) I have also have heard it said that the pressure of standard .38 special rounds has been quitely downgraded over the decades. I think a .38 Spl.+P 158 gr round (which some say is equal to or greater than standard 38 spl. 158 gr LRN from 30-40 years ago.) would penetrate an auto body of the 1980s.
2) As far as the .223 round and 9mm rifles go, if a .38 special is capable (with strong enough ammo) of penetrating cars from 50 years ago I would think a high powered rifle or carbine would be able to do the same to an average car from the 80s. 3) The gunman's.223 Ruger Mini14 was pretty effective against the FBI agents that had him outnumbered as they took cover behind their cars.

[News Shooter]

Was why they didn't call for PD backup. Way back in the 70's in Tucson the FBI guys had TPD on their radios and I remember many times hearing an agent calling TPD for a stop or SWAT situation

[njtrigger]

Here are the facts of the Miami shootout that no one ever seems to mention.

The criminals were better trained and armed then the FBI agents. The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention and their tactics were superior to that of the agents.

The agents, on the other hand, were ill-prepared. They lost control of their weapons and violated a simple rule that we all know. That rule is not to bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Someone said that the agents had shotguns in the trunk or the backseat, but the criminals didnt have their weapons in the trunk.

The way they stopped the criminals was very questionable. They did not have any backup and were stopping persons who were known to be armed and dangerous. Before stopping the perps, they should have had an army of the local police department in tow. Stopping two guys who were known to carry magnums and rifles (with military experience) without backup is questionable. I dont know of any police department that would stop such a crew without at least 25 other assisting officers and SWAT. The FBI agents thought that their small group with pistols would be enough to fend off two armed guys with rifles.

So instead of blaming the agents, they pushed the blame on the bullet. When you look back through military history, there have been plenty of soldiers who took several rounds before being killed. In fact, some of these soldiers even put up a good fight despite multiple gunshot wounds and won medals of honor.

This was the same concept here.

The FBI should have come forward to say that it was their tactics that was at fault and not have readily pushed the fault on the bullet. Im aware that people died and it was indeed a tragedy. However, we need to vent the truth to prevent future tragedies. It was not the bullet that messed up, it was the agents.

[David Armstrong]

The agents, on the other hand, were ill-prepared.

No, the agents were as well-prepared as any other LE officers would have been at that time in history.

The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention

Again not quite correct. One BG was immediately disabled and unable to operate during almost the entire firefight.

That rule is not to bring a pistol to a rifle fight.

You assume that anyone knew or anticipated a fight of any type. This was a low-key surveillance operation, without any anticipations of a fight.

The way they stopped the criminals was very questionable.

But also pretty much unavoidable. The BGs figured out they had been made, and that changed the dynamics entirely. The choice was either make a less-than-perfect felony stop or let the BGs out of the box to go where the setup could have been far worse.

Before stopping the perps, they should have had an army of the local police department in tow.

Could, should, would. The local police are not going to give the FBI (or anyone else) an army to follow them around when there is no action anticipated.

I dont know of any police department that would stop such a crew without at least 25 other assisting officers and SWAT.

I'm not aware of any police department that will assign 25 officers and a SWAT team to drive around in a pack hoping they will find a BG.

However, we need to vent the truth to prevent future tragedies. It was not the bullet that messed up, it was the agents.

No, the agents were victims of the time and the situation. So far everything you have suggested they should have done literally could not have been done. The agents made a call in response to a fast-developing situation. They did pretty good considering the facts.

[Sarge]

I have looked at this thing upside down, sideways, etc and read Anderson's lengthy and detailed dissection of the event several times. The only thing I too from it was this- if each agent had a slug-loaded pump shotgun in hand when they exited their vehicles, along with 10-15 spares in a pouch or pockets, I do believe they would have solved this problem a lot quicker, and with less (or no) loss of life on the LE side.

That's the lesson I took from this. I already knew that on rare occasions, both people and animals are almost impervious to hits from respectable handguns. It's a shame whenever good officers are killed in the line of duty. It's also a shame if we don't try to learn soimething from it.

[Deaf Smith]

Basicly one should learn this from the shootout:

a) When you are after high risk felons, load for bear (they didn't.) This includes bullet proof vest as well as long arms.

b) If you have bad eye sight, but an excellent shot, make sure there is no way to loose your glasses!

c) It's better to have lots of ammo and not need than to have to little ammo and need it.. bad.

d) If all you have is a revolver, carry two!

I really don't care about the feds upgunning from 9mm to 10mm to .40S&W. It's ho-hum. The failure was not the weapons, but the handling of the situation (but, like david said, for that time period that was done alot.) Hopefully the learning curve has kicked in and when they get an alert for a high risk situation, they prepare for that.

[Jager1]

No, the agents were as well-prepared as any other LE officers would have been at that time in history.

Wrong. The FBI had much better firearms available to agents, considering the objective of the surveillance, that were not used. You don’t send 50 agents to Florida specifically to locate 2 males known to be heavily armed with semi-automatic long arms and that have a propensity for violence and conduct an operation (even a surveillance) armed only with revolvers, 9mm’s and one shotgun. A bad choice was made by whomever was in charge of this operation both in planning and equipment.

Again not quite correct. One BG was immediately disabled and unable to operate during almost the entire firefight.

What does that have to do with weapon retention? Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled? We’re talking about the time period leading up to the moment the first shot was fired. That is where the agents made noticeable blunders.

You assume that anyone knew or anticipated a fight of any type. This was a low-key surveillance operation, without any anticipations of a fight.

Again, the FBI sent 50 agents to Florida specifically for this operation. The description of the perpetrators they were attempting to locate and their M.O. was well known by the agents. If the agents didn’t anticipate a fight, as you claim, then what does that say about their decision to engage the suspects, known to have just a little bit of a fight in them? Ignorant bliss? If you are conducting a surveillance – you don’t go crashing in like a bull in a China shop because you just realized the heavily armed suspects “made” you are attempting to flee. With no commo with local PD, what other outcome could there have possibly been? The agents made a strategic blunder from the outset and a horrific series of tactical blunders in being forced to engage.

But also pretty much unavoidable. The BGs figured out they had been made, and that changed the dynamics entirely. The choice was either make a less-than-perfect felony stop or let the BGs out of the box to go where the setup could have been far worse.

How could it have been any worse than it turned out? Pretty much the worst "getting your ass shot off by the bad guys" episode in the Bureaus history is somehow preferable to allowing the suspects to move off while trying to maintain contact from a distance to allow BU units to converge or breaking off contact altogether and hoping for a better chance another day?

It was absolutely avoidable. It was a surveillance operation, yet no accommodations were made for the very likely contingency that the suspects might identify the agents following them? No thought was given to what might happen if the suspects opted to flee or fight? It was the agents insistence upon engaging once they realized their stealth posture had been compromised that got them shot up.

Could, should, would. The local police are not going to give the FBI (or anyone else) an army to follow them around when there is no action anticipated.

That is precisely what the FBI should have done. Coordinate with local LE to ensure that either they, or the FBI had a team rolling at all times to back up the surveillance officers. Under no circumstances should the surveillance officers have attempted a head-on confrontation with these suspects. Or they should have been more heavily armed. There HAD to be action anticipated. Read up on Platt and Mattix's criminal activities leading up to this shootout.

I'm not aware of any police department that will assign 25 officers and a SWAT team to drive around in a pack hoping they will find a BG.

I’m not aware of any police department or agency that prefers to have several of their officers slaughtered, either. The point is that a TEAM should have, at a minimum, been on call – with the surveillance team under strict orders to not engage.

No, the agents were victims of the time and the situation. So far everything you have suggested they should have done literally could not have been done. The agents made a call in response to a fast-developing situation. They did pretty good considering the facts.

The agents were victims of poor management, planning and decision making in the field. What they should have done was not engage the suspects in such a brazen fashion being armed so lightly in an uncoordinated and impromptu assault methodology. Others have alluded to a mindset or mentality on the part of the agents that was deficient also. I agree that this at least partially contributed to their inability to effectively engage suspects they chose to confront head-on. The facts are that when you have this many agents dead or shot to hell, somebody on the planning end screwed the pooch.

They did pretty lousy, up against one man with a semi-automatic rifle confined to an area of less than 50 feet.

[David Armstrong]

Wrong. The FBI had much better firearms available to agents, considering the objective of the surveillance, that were not used.

Nonsense. The Feds have always had lots of neat toys to play with, but usually they are left in the safe. The FBI agents, as stated, were armed as was typical for officers on surveillance or usual street duty--handguns and shotguns. Some agents did apparently have subguns, but were doing surveillance in another part of town.

What does that have to do with weapon retention?

It has everything to do with: "The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention." Hard to be in full control of your weapons when you are unconscious during most of the incident.

Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled?

Why? Do you think it was an issue?

Again, the FBI sent 50 agents to Florida specifically for this operation.

Yep, and Florida is a pretty big place. In this particular place there were 14 agents covering a 60 block urban area.

then what does that say about their decision to engage the suspects,

Sigh. For about the umpteenth time, the agents didn't go out planning to engage the suspects, they were made by the suspects and that changed the dynamics significantly. The agents were out looking for potential hit sites and with the intentions of tailing the BGs back to their home. Actually encountering them was a bit of a surprise at that time, and one they were trying to work with. In fact, contrary to what some here have claimed, the agents on the scene were trying to get some help from marked units to conduct the takedown. The BGs pushed the situation too fast.

The agents made a strategic blunder from the outset and a horrific series of tactical blunders in being forced to engage.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how much it seems to disagree with the facts.

If you are conducting a surveillance – you don’t go crashing in like a bull in a China shop because you just realized the heavily armed suspects “made” you are attempting to flee.

I'd agree. But as that scenartio has nothing in comon with what happened here, I fail to see its relevance.

How could it have been any worse than it turned out?

The BGs could have escaped, there could have been civilians injured, more agents could have been killed, etc.

Pretty much the worst "getting your ass shot off by the bad guys" episode in the Bureaus history is somehow preferable to allowing the suspects to move off while trying to maintain contact from a distance to allow BU units to converge or breaking off contact altogether and hoping for a better chance another day?

Your ability to 2nd guess after the fact and perform the Monday morning quarterback drill are duly noted.

That is precisely what the FBI should have done.

Again, could-would-should. The reality is that stuff didn't happen then and wouldn't happen now given the same situation.

What they should have done was not engage the suspects in such a brazen fashion being armed so lightly in an uncoordinated and impromptu assault methodology.

Again, it might be nice if your accusations and claims had some relationship to reality. The agents were not lightly armed FOR THE TIME. The assault was not uncoordinated or impromptu, it was done in a coordinted manner at a time the agents thought was best in that situation.

They did pretty lousy, up against one man with a semi-automatic rifle confined to an area of less than 50 feet.

Let's see now...they got several hits on that man, some fairly early in the fight, which were fatal. They did this in an environment with lots of cover and concealement, obscured by a fair amount of smoke, lots of dust, and a huge difference in light levels. All while being shot at. And the area included much more than a 50 foot limit. Perhaps you could have done better. Maybe you will share with us your experience in similar situations?

[K.J.]

Better tactics. When possible wear body armor, have shotguns, and learn how to make a felony car stop.

Having said that, it's been noted that they were originally not out to engage and were trying to get help from marked units. Things happen; situation tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

But would Platt have gone down sooner if his wounds had been inflicted by a 10mm? No one can say, but I doubt it.

[Rifleman 173]

When police officers review the Miami Shootout, most learn that shot placement, the RIGHT (bigger bore size, millimeter and caliber) firearms, communications, forethought and tactics come together as equals. If any one of the items is not right, then police officers die. Same thing applies to civilian shooting incidents too. All too often, police officers and FBI agents are mandated by their agency's in-house rules as to what they CAN and CAN NOT carry on their persons or in their cars. I suspect that the FBI agents in Miami were also so limited to just their duty weapons in spite of what they were trying to do: arrest a pair of armed robbers. In some cases, if you're caught carrying "an unauthorized weapon" then you can be suspended or fired. Most state police agencies and federal agencies are so by-the-book that I wouldn't be surprised if they even have a section that requires the officer to only use very certain names for their newborn children. One agency I knew of even had a VERY specific way to answer the telephone. I've always thought that what killed the FBI agents that day in Miami was NOT something that they did but, instead, something in their agency's local, regional or national rule book forced them into a shootout without the firearms that they really needed. Sort of like the North Hollywood Shootout. Prior to that incident the field cops were NOT allowed to carry rifles, especially scoped ones, in their squad cars. Now they can but look at what it took to force the change to be made...

[Mannlicher]

if its in wikipedia, its probably wrong. My Brother in Law was a Special Agent in Miami at the time. He knew all the guys involved, and had worked the case. His take is much different than most of what has been presented.

[Night Watch]

I wasn't going to post; but, it is interesting to see how history can be selectively rewritten and modified to suit the popular opinions and mental prejudice of the day.

I've got a simple read on this: Platt and Matix were mentally, emotionally, AND physically better prepared to get into a gunfight that day. Those FBI agents involved were - for a variety of different reasons - attempting to go into action from, 'well behind the curve'.

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? (And, like Mannlicher, some of my closest friends are or have been FBI agents.)

If we're going to make a constructive contribution to keeping lawmen alive in combat, then, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a better way to go than attempting to resort to popular myth and fictitious adulation. Neither sentiment nor rationale are going to do anyone any good in an after-action analysis of this sort.

It wasn't their equipment; and it wasn't the caliber(s) they used. Those agents were, simply, outfought by an intellectually superior, and more determined foe who used better offensive tactics and a stronger mental/emotional attitude against them - OK!







That's as much as I'm going to say. I've spent many hours reviewing this gun battle; and, with my considered opinion stated, anyone else who's interested is welcome to complete his own examination and draw whatever conclusions he might prefer. You've, now, heard mine.

[kgpcr]

I know this wont sit well but the 9mm is a piss poor personal defense round. Its fine in a multiple hit weapon ie a sub machine gun but not as a primary weapon.