|
I haven't read the entire thread - but on this last page at least I haven't seen any points made about wearing a protective vest.
It seems common sense now that a task force patrolling, doing a stakeout or rolling stake out would be wearing bullet resistant clothing.
When I look at the equipment that was stored in the trunks of cars, I ask myself - in what scenario where they expecting to deploy that stuff?
I try to figure out what assumptions they must have made that would cause them to decide not to wear the vests.
They thought Platt & Matix would surrender?
They thought the suspects could be killed easily with the amout of firepower they thought they cumulatively possesed ?
They thought there would be a situation where the suspects would be "holed up" in some location and the agents could surround them and they would have time to don vests?
They didn't really think that they'd come across Platt & Matix that day?
If you start with the thought that they were going after criminals that were armed and dangerous with the intent to confront them - capture or kill them that day - their actions only make sense to me if there some underylying assumptions like I've listed. (maybe that phrase "armed and dangerous" became cliché for them?)
Some of the people have listed changes to the way we think about situations which I also think is critical - like the thought that "SOONER OR LATTER THE WORST POSSIBLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WILL OCCUR"
No one ever created a decision tree, forecasting or worst case analysis.
Even an unsophisticated analysis would have turned up a possibility that Platt & Matirx might initiate a shootout - that would have been enough to put those vests on before starting their engines that morning.
|