The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 16, 2013, 09:32 PM   #26
Puddle
Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2013
Posts: 57
Quote:
I would suggest LTC David Grossman's On Killing(2009) & his other book: On Combat.
Great books. A little off-topic, but great reads if you want to really understand the psychology of combat. Some good statistics (that I can't quote since I don't have the book in front of me) about how many soldiers across various wars never fired their weapons even when involved in a combat situation.
Puddle is offline  
Old February 16, 2013, 10:33 PM   #27
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
SLA Marshal...

Yes, that topic is covered by Grossman in the book; On Killing.
SLA Marshal a high ranking US Army officer did in depth research about combat troops & how they conduct missions.
It puts a lot of topics into perspective re: military training, legal issues(UCMJ, treaties, rule of land warfare etc).
In many cases, real front line troops fired guns or killed enemy troops because they did not want to be looked at as cowards or to viewed as unreliable.
It's worth noting too, that due to extended DoD/service member study-R&D, the rates of fire in combat went from approx 15-20% to approx 90-95%(combat units in SE Asia, 1962-1975 era) over many years.

Training & conditioning(mindset, motivation) assisted greatly with these service members.
Grossman's writings about the types of kills; mechanical, distance & personal makes a lot of sense. It's a Oprah "aaa-hah" moment . Personal kills seem the most stressful & the root cause of the most mental health issues for the obvious reasons. It was interesting to read how the USMC combat veteran(SE Asia conflict) described Marines who would cut or cause injury to their own hands, when doing a sentry elimination method in low light.
Blood, gore, injury, trama, etc are all a direct part of personal kills.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 07:09 PM   #28
Balog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 259
It's a very good observation that the mission and thus the appropriate training for civilians (which includes cops) and the military are very different. However, it seems that more and more police and sheriff's departments are forgetting that fact, and training as though they were going to war. I'd say the increasingly militarized nature of LEO's training is a rather significant problem.
Balog is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 09:01 PM   #29
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
factors, intimidation; show of force-use of force....

The last post has merit but many citizens in the general public need to understand the reasons or factors behind why sworn LE officers dress or carry the weapons-equipment that they do.
It's complex & would take a long, detailed post on the forum but in short, sworn LE officers want to deal with threats or de-escalate events(calls for service) in the safest, fastest way possible.
Sworn LE also has a show of force incident much, much more than a use of force event.
LE officers are trained to enforce the law and are sworn to make arrests or protect the general public. They must select the weapons or equipment that will expedite that w/o risk to them, the subject(s), or bystanders/citizens nearby.
There is merit in intimidation(camo uniforms, facemasks, laser aimers, white/strobe lights, etc but that is more in-depth & meant for sworn LE officers/first responders.
I strongly disagree with a few gun writers or homeland security authorities who say sworn LE officers do not need military type patrol rifles or high-tech weapons. These first responders may need to deal with threats in remote areas or need to face high-stress, difficult use-of-force incidents.
The recent FBI/HRT op in rural AL with the armed subject holding a small child hostage is a good example.
When the FBI first started the elite HRT(described in the non fiction books; No Heroes & Cold Zero) they made the unit motto; "To Save Lives".

This is what US law enforcement & first responders must do.
Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 09:28 PM   #30
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,321
Having been in the Army (though never in combat) and been a LEO, I have been alarmed for some time about the way military thinking and military training have become part of LE trainng. There is a lot of difference and some of today's police, trained by military veterans, seem not to understand that.

In combat (see above), a soldier would rarely worry about what is behind his target. His mission is to take an area, to control ground. In many cases, that means to kill the enemy (not to wound him, or shoot off a hangnail, to kill him). That also means that in many/most cases, the soldier cannot and does not care what is behind the enemy or what happens to the bullets that miss or penetrate the enemy's body. He will use full auto fire or fire from a belt-fed MG to lay down suppressive fire. He will do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission.

But a police officer can't do that, or at least shouldn't. Every time there is an emergency, I see TV coverage of what seems like hundreds of police with AR-15 selective fire weapons, high capacity shotguns, submachine guns, and even grenade launchers. I simply don't believe that the police carrying those weapons are fully trained and skilled in their use. In a combat zone, it doesn't matter who gets killed - the military calls it collateral damage, sees it as unavoidable (which it probably is), and the fault of someone who should not have been there in the first place.

But what happens when a hundred cops, armed with SMGs and AR-15's and grenades charge into a school to arrest a 10-year old who pointed his finger at another kid and said "pow". A nice peaceful situation, or a mass slaughter, with cops shooting at other cops and kids caught in the middle?

Yes, we do have crime in the U.S. And some of it is gun crime. But are the police arming to stop a stickup at the corner 7-11 with thousands of rounds of machinegun fire? Or are they buying all that expensive military hardware just to have fun on the range? Or are they planning for the day someone in power says he or she wants to disarm the American people and doesn't care what it takes to do it?

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 09:56 PM   #31
OEF-Vet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Backwoods, PA
Posts: 284
James K

I guessing it's been a while since you were in the military but the post "Hearts and Minds" ROE (Rules Of Engagement) had us doing a whole lot different than the Hollywood shoot em up picture you paint.
__________________
Jim

"If a man does his best, what else is there?"
- General George S. Patton Jr
OEF-Vet is online now  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:45 PM   #32
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Grossman's books...

As LTC Grossman(who as stated was a Airborne Ranger & a PhD in mental health services) wrote, training doctrine, the military law/UCMJ & the education level/skill sets of combat troops changed dramatically from WWI(SLA Marshal's era) to today's OIF/OEF/SW Asia combat missions.
TRADOC or the US Army Training & Doctrine Command & the JAG(US Army Judge Advocate Generals office) must dictate how troops are conditioned/trained & what ROEs/SOPs work best.

The SE Asia Mai-Lai incident & the post-WWII Nurmberg court trials were a part of it too.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:20 AM   #33
Balog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 259
ClydeFrog: I strongly disagree that LEO's should be involved in intimidating and showing force to their fellow civilians. Serve and protect, not rule and intimidate. The introduction of military tactics into law enforcement is highly dangerous and generally uncalled for.
Balog is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:34 AM   #34
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
I disagree....

I understand your point but....
There are times & conditions when intimidation or as the US armed forces & intel agencies call them; "psy-ops" can be a good plan or be of value.

Years ago, the Chicago IL police would issue officers thick black leather jackets. They mandated the uniform item & encouraged it's use for several reasons; the leather material could keep the cops warm & toasty on long shifts in the Windy City but they also made officers look "bigger" or "tougher". Leather may also protect the officer from burns/flames, that is why WWII air crews wore them.
The use of lasers & some strobe light features get + results too. They allow LE officers to get compliance or to distort(distract) the subject(s).
Many sworn LE officers & narcotics detectives do warrant services or drug raids wearing Nomex hoods or masks. It conceals the identity, protects the face & head from fire/drug residue & may scare the bad guys.
The DEA's elite CLET unit wore masks/helmets.
CF
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 02:02 AM   #35
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,177
Interesting conversation on civilian vs military training.

Are people who aren't LE actually telling LE how they should do their job? It sounds like you guys assume your average LEO terrorizes the public on a regular basis. Are you guys joking? You want LE to do their job with their handguns alone when in the field the criminals have AK-47's and Saiga shotguns? You're saying their shouldn't be "intimidation factor" involved to someone who is trying to kill you? Who's killed others? What kind of yellow bellied talk is that? Lets throw cupcakes with bright colored frosting while we're at it. And just purposely be at a disadvantage. Because apparently it makes the public feel better when officers are killed in the line of duty.

What do you think the purpose is? I can't believe someone on this forum. Let alone a fellow gun owner is actually the one to say this. I could have sworn this wasn't a pottery barn forum or basket weaving.

It's a preventative measure. Key to winning a gun fight besides proper training, being enough gun and back up. If the assailant(s) crap themselves, then surrender. That's a good day. Why should we cater to the feelings of criminals and people to cater to the criminals feelings? We'll see how liberal you are when you're under fire, not even. When you're so much as just faced with that danger.

Ridiculous.
Constantine is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 05:41 AM   #36
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Finish the fight....

Massad Ayoob wrote a great LE item in a gun magazine about 4/5 years ago where he makes the same point.
As a armed professional, you can't be risk adverse. Ayoob discussed a retired AK State Trooper who taught a sworn LE class called; Finish The Fight!
It's more & more common for some LE officers to be scared or more concerned about lawsuits than to do their jobs properly.
I think it's a selection/recruitment/supervision issue in 2013 but there are other factors.

ClydeFrog
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 07:18 PM   #37
Balog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 259
Constantine: that's a pretty silly mischaracterization of what's been said.
Balog is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 03:32 AM   #38
restlessnomad
Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Location: Midwest
Posts: 71
delete

Last edited by restlessnomad; February 20, 2013 at 04:23 AM.
restlessnomad is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 08:26 AM   #39
Murdock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2008
Location: Down East Maine
Posts: 431
My brother was a career SWAT cop in a large southern city. At the same time I was career military, and we used to compare notes quite a bit.

I have no issue with cops intimidating bad guys. Use of "command voice" or even pointing a weapon at a miscreant can serve that purpose. It makes little difference to me if they play dress-up with combat utilities and state-of-the-art weaponry if it helps them to achieve that aim, and improves their chances of coming home at the end of their shifts. If they want to get a really scary rubber vampire mask to frighten bad guys into quitting I guess that would be OK too.

At the same time I did have to jerk my brother's chain a bit when I found out his team had been practicing SPIE (special purpose insertion & extraction) rigging at a military base. (This is guys in a harness dangling on a line below a helicopter so that they can be inserted in a restricted area like a ridge line or some other place too tight for a helicopter to land. Think Peter Pan zipping overt the tree tops). I mean, why? I suspect it was just adventure training for them, and probably didn't cost their department much if the Army was footing the bill for the helo.

We're gonna be in trouble if the average cop on the corner is in full combat gear 24/7, as in other nations. Otherwise, let them use what they really feel they need when the time calls for it.
__________________
The United States Marine Corps: Providing the enemies of America the opportunity to die for their countries since 1775. Semper fi.
Murdock is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 11:44 AM   #40
Balog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 259
The military and police forces should have radically different mission profiles. One kills people and breaks things, the other is a public servant who keeps the peace. The huge overlap we're starting to see is deeply, deeply troubling. It's distressing how many folks seem comfortable with our nation turning into a militarized police state simply because they think they'll never be the target of those forces.
Balog is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 07:05 PM   #41
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Sharon Pratt Kelly...

In the 1990s, when I lived in central-NOVA(VA), I heard of a major politico wanting to station or deploy uniformed Washington DC National Guard troops in HMMWVs(hummers) WITH weapons to fend off drug gangs & armed thugs.
Was it Newt Gingretch(the US Speaker of the House)? No. Rush Limbaugh? No.

It was the Washington DC Mayor(an elected official) Sharon Pratt Kelly!
Many US citizens do not understand the PCA or Posse Commitatice Act(check spelling). These US laws were set up to prevent excessive military actions or LE in CONUS or the Continnental United States. These were valid, IMO to prevent the country from becoming a armed camp or a police state but in the post-9/11/2001 world, military tactics, weapons & uniforms are now more common.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 09:03 PM   #42
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
Clyde Frog. I do not want to get into a debate about Posse Comitatus (ditto on spelling) as this is not the subject of the thread. It is, however, my understanding that the Act does not apply to National Guard troops as long as they are under State or in this case DC control. Once they are federalized then the Act would apply.

The major difference between Military and Local Law enforcement is in my opinion MIND SET.

The military is designed to break things and inflict the most damage possible to achieve a goal. I think it is best described by the Infantry Mission statement. "To close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver." Prior to the McNamara era it read "To close with and kill the enemy....".

The standard LEO motto is "To Protect and Serve". To me this motto means that as a law enforcement Officer I am to protect people and property at almost all cost. That is why we have negotiators who spend hours and days trying to peaceably resolve a situation. That is why we were so incensed by the conduct of the Akron OH police officer.

These are opposing positions. By adopting military tactics and training, the LEO will tend to lose the Protect and serve mind set. The recent shooting of two vehicles by LEOs during the recent manhunt shows what happens when the Military mind set embeds it's self into the Law enforcement community.

Sort of a shoot first and sort it out later as opposed to an evaluate the situation and get everyone out alive.

The military mind set first started in the SWAT movement. These units were designed and intended to resolve situations as a last resort. The members of these teams developed an ethos and swagger which less qualified officers started to emulate.

Managers further further contributed to the problem by employing these shock troops in situations which did not require their specialized training. After all you can't have a group of highly trained/paid officers setting around waiting for something to happen. They started using them in situations which did not indicate a need for the hard corp tactics.

The attitude then started to permeate entire departments as wannabee SWATS started applying the hard attitudes to all situations. This attitude is causing a further isolation of the Officers and the public they are sworn to serve and protect.
ltc444 is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 10:16 PM   #43
MikeG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2002
Location: Pueblo West Colorado
Posts: 212
Quote:
Sorry, amigo, I never did get an answer - Ruger revolvers were never military issue that I know of, but we had four.
I think Navy Investigative Service and some Army units used Rugers.
MikeG is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 11:00 PM   #44
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,753
NIS used 38 snubs when I was in - don't ask me how I had an interview with NIS while in A School... I wasn't in trouble, though. Probably they were from the same thinking that gave us Remington 1100s and a clay pigeon thrower on the flight deck - a former captain wanted them!
Intimidation is what you want to do to a specific person in LE, to get THAT guy to stop what he's doing RIGHT NOW. This is what we do behind the wire as well, and it works. What I don't want to see is LEOs trying to intimidate those who have done nothing wrong, are obeying the law and require no interaction with the law.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 11:31 PM   #45
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Team America...

I didn't know it was a debate here, .

Some of the forum posts remind me of the comedy film; Team America, World Police; www.imdb.com. To think it will go to that level in the grand ole US of A is a bit of a stretch.

As for the use of Rugers by the US armed forces, I recall as a teen(mid 1980s) reading a cool book about the US military & the uniforms, units & firearms of SE Asia. The USAF security police; SPs, & the other troops used a few Ruger Security-Six & Speed Six .38spl duty revolvers. S&W had many milspec contracts but Ruger had a small amt too.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 03:40 AM   #46
sfmedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2012
Location: Currently Erbil, Iraq
Posts: 106
James K

Reading some of the responses to your post I want to add my $00.02 on this. One of my jobs in a previous life was to train LE with tactics from our side of the fence. (CQB / Hostage rescue / Aircraft assaults / and head of state protection etc.) these were primarily to USDOS / USSS / some large departments.

Having said that..,. I do share the same concerns that you seem to have. The militarism of LE. It seems that every police chief and county sheriff wants a military capability these days. a LOT of problems are being resolved with No Knock warrants and tactical entries that could be accomplished at a lower level of operational tempo.

It used to be that the number one overiding goal was to resolve the mission with no loss of life on EITHER side with minimum damage to property.

a lot of LE are constantly treading a fine line when their "special" teams are lining up on a door with the principles of surprise, speed, and violence of actions driving the entry.

I did a report on the Branch Davidian Fiasco - perfect case in point. - they could have just as easily picked up Koresh earlier when he was in town - but they didn't. The county sheriff had been at the compound several times and served warrants - no problem. (the only legitimate issue on the ATF warrant was a tax issue).

BUT the director wanted to play swat and use all his toys and show off his tactical prowess and it resulted in a fiasco.
sfmedic is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 06:09 AM   #47
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Same thing at Ruby Ridge. At one point, prior to the siege, a surveillance unit had broken down. Randy Weaver pulled over by the car to ask if the guys needed assistance.

They could easily have made an arrest at that time, and I would be amazed if they didn't have other opportunities to make an arrest in the middle of nowhere.

Instead, they laid a siege, and killed a dog, a teenager, and the mother of an infant (as she was holding the infant).

Edit: The irony of this is that, at least for the last many years, the military makes serious attempts to go after targets when they are not near potential collateral damage. If the military is more cautious about harming innocents than LE are, that's unnerving in itself.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 08:00 AM   #48
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
HRT/USMS-SOG...

The woman with a baby was also armed, .
That little tidbit should be in the Ruby Ridge incident story too.
The non fiction books; Cold Zero & No Heroes help explain the events.

FWIW; the SOG Marshals, BORTAC(the spec ops of the US Border Patrol), HRT, & DEA CLET are not perfect but they have conducted 100s of ops w/o any incident.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 09:48 AM   #49
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,753
Clyde, in all the retelling of that incident, I have never heard Vicki Weaver was armed, not once, and that she was holding her baby while on the other side of a kitchen door. Perhaps you can link to official testimony of that item of information somewhere?
As to the Rugers being from Vietnam, could be - the ship did have a 'Nam ribbon on the bridge wing.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 11:17 AM   #50
Balog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 259
ClydeFrog: you're defending the murder of Vicki Weaver now? Really?
Balog is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15459 seconds with 7 queries