Tactics gone wrong - Page 6

**The Reaper** · 10-07-2006, 08:32

[QUOTE=CoLawman]

Quote:

I'm not familiar with LEO in your part of the country but I can assure you that LE in my part of the country shoot once a month mandatory and qualify twice a year. Failing to qualify results in remedial training. Failure is not based on a percentage. If one round fails to strike home, it is a failure. I can also assure you that firearms training in this part of the country (Colorado, including Bailey) is not stress free. In fact all training includes stressors to induce excelerated heart rates, noise irritants, visual impairments, timed to include reloads etc.

Quite a few people have taken some cheap shots at Jeff Co SWAT in regards to their actions at Bailey. Those officers, like our SWAT team, trains 20 hours a month in addition to other department wide firearms monthly training. This does not include the extended training seminars they attend annually.

A friend of mine sent me an email shortly after this incident. He was the agent who spent those agonizing minutes with Emily's father outside that school house. He was with him when the shots rang out and he was with him when his daughter was brought out of the school. NOT ONCE did Emily's father say a disparaging word about LE. Not once have you heard anyone from that community complain about the actions of LE that day. In fact the media reports relayed just the opposite.

Contrary to misguided beliefs there are highly qualifed LE throughout this nation. Period.

422 officers have been killed in the line of duty in the last two years and 9 months. If one takes into consideration the actual attacks on officers during that time period, I would say that the relatively low ratio of officers killed is evidence of their qualifications.

Perhaps some of the critics could offer their opinion on "Active Shooter" training that is now part of annual training for LE. I can assure you that the "initial responders" have fired far more than two boxes of ammunition and are trained to enter and seek the shooter out. Interestingly enough the "Small Town Bailey officers" did exactly as they were trained to do and entered the school immediately and located the gunman and hostages, containing the area of threat and allowing the rest of the students to get out of the school. They did not wait outside the school for SWAT.

My my ...... and reading the rest of your post, disparaging LE. You must have gotten a speeding ticket! Your comments certainly reveal a bias. Maybe you should become a Sheriff and straighten all of us Barney Fifes out Andy!

I recently spent two years working with and training LEOs across the country. I have no hate or disrespect for LEOs. They do a tough job for in most cases, low wages. At the same time, we have to be realistic. Perhaps you are too close to the cause to do that.

Your experience may be valid in your jurisdiction. I respectfully suggest that it is not nationwide.

You take offense where none is intended. The fact is that in most cases, state requirements drive LE firearms training and qualification. Most departments I have worked with tend toward the low side of that requirement rather than the upper end. For example, as I understand it, NC (and the local departments) require only 12 rounds fired per year in low-light for night qualification. I consider that criminally negligent. As you so thoughtfully suggested, I do not live in Mayberry and cannot run for Sheriff there, but I can get a bus to Mt. Airy and be there in less than an hour.

I am sure that since Columbine, and other high profile cases in Colorado, LE there has received new focus and additional requirements for HR.

Here is a fact. NDD has described a requirement for a full mission profile assault on a linear target with discriminatating fires. I personally do not believe that any LE HR team in the nation, to include the FBI HRT, is up to that standard. The only units that are, do not write cites, run radar, investigate traffic accidents, intervene in domestic situations, bust dopers, sit in court, or any of the other mundane, but necessary things an LE does. They shoot, and practice HR everyday. Period. Probably more rounds in one day than most LEOs fire in a year. Again, that is not a comment on anyones' manliness, motivation, or dedication. It is budget and mission driven.

Take a look at the primary users of this board. Military members understand that comments about officers on a military board mean military officers. You know, LTs, Captains, Majors, that sort of thing. LEO means cops.

I am sorry that you took offense where none was intended. At the same time, I stand by my comments based on the number of departments and tac teams I have interacted with in the past two years from New Hampshire to Southern California.

If you have any more feedback, drop the attitude. It isn't professional.

APLP, you are coming across a little strong as well.

Books, I hear what you are saying, but again, we are not talking CQB, we are talking static defensive shooting. I am not a big fan of LTC Grossman. It looks to me like he took a short monograph with a simple thesis and has made a second career off it. Good on him. Some of his points are valid, but I think other thoughts of his are real stretches.

TR

Five-O · 10-07-2006, 10:08

Most agencies train the minimum amount of required hours necessary for qualification. Some agencies (depending on culture) actually look down on guys as "gun nuts" if shooting and tactics are practiced off duty. Thats reality. Another reality is that using a firearm is such a small part of LE work that many agents/officers/troopers think it will never happen to them. A friend/coworker of mine was one of those nay sayers to firearms training and tactics...never took it seriously. One night (Jan 17? 2005) he stopped two homicide suspects. Long story short.... after a very long vehicle pursuit followed by an even longer foot pursuit one suspect attempted to ambush Fran. Fran had six rounds of .357 fired at him at a range of <10 feet. Somehow they all missed...bad guy was shot twice....one in the arm (by Fran) and one in the foot by his back up. Fran is now one of the most tactically aware guys I work with and attempts to learn as much as possible. Most LEO's who care will take the time/money/effort to get in schools and train on off time to increase tactical skills and awareness because the reality is that most agencies unfortunately have other priorities.

CoLawman · 10-07-2006, 10:20

TR,

My apologies, previous post edited. I should never post after getting off of work........adrenalin intoxication.

PSM · 10-07-2006, 11:11

As to guns in the cockpit, they were there long before the FFDO program, prior to PSA 1771. I was “retired” before the flight crews were required to clear security, but prior to that I knew plenty of pilots (mostly WW2 through Vietnam era guys) who carried handguns in their flight bags despite the regs. It was kind of a “Don’t ask; don’t tell” policy.

Pat

APLP · 10-07-2006, 11:49

To all the Quite Professionals I apologize if I have seemed to challenge and disrespect NDD, it was not my intention to do so. I am a guest in this house and feel fortunate to be so.

I have been familiar with the armed pilot program since its inception. While every military or law enforcement organization has a certain percentage of folks who are less capable I believe those commercial pilots who serve as sworn federal officers are very capable to function competently within the scope of the flight deck and SOP’s. Of the thousands who currently serve the great majority are former military pilots who are very familiar with combat mindset and have no hesitation to accomplish their mission in defense of the cockpit. The armed pilot program mission statement is very focused on a specific operating environment under very specific ROE. There is no other source of manpower that can provide the capability to defend the flight deck as the armed pilot program currently does. Those on duty armed pilots serve the requirements of Homeland Security, not the immediate safety of the passengers.

With respect to the subject matter of arming qualified teachers, I fully support such a program. I think one day our country might very well be faced with the necessity to mimic some of the programs which arm citizens much as the Israelis do now. I am quite sure their schools are much safer from active shooter scenarios than ours. Criminals who pray on our school children are terrorists be they domestic or foreign and not worthy of the air they breathe. I don’t want my child hog tied and tortured before he is murdered because there was no chance of an immediate armed response to an active shooter. Train those who volunteer and qualify to a standard which meets or exceeds law enforcement agencies and let them carry.

**The Reaper** · 10-07-2006, 12:05

Glad to see that we can all get along now.

Since many teachers are only seasonally employed, I wonder whether it might make sense to send them to summer school for Basic Law Enforcement Training (618 hours here, IIRC, and offered across the state by community colleges, etc.) and make them sworn officers in an auxillary capacity. You could streamline the curriculum significantly for the skills they would need, and create a special schools officer category, if necessary.

That would remove the carry concerns and they would have the same training (if not experience) as the patrol officers. Those who were serious should be willing to participate.

Additional training and qualifications could be offered in subsequent summers.

The only added cost would be the training and some additional pay for a few months when the teacher is not normally working. An incentive pay could be provided for those who make it.

Positive side is that the SROs would have armed partners within the schools. They should at some point, train with the new officers, possibly in an FTO type capacity.

Thoughts?

TR

112thSOLCA · 10-07-2006, 13:13

TR – Sir
I will preference this post by saying that in the last two years I have read hundreds of your posts and usually agree 100% with everything you say. However, I find myself very much aligned with NDD on this topic.
In fact, I interpret your posts to be somewhat contradictory in nature.
If I understand you correctly you are trying to say shooting an undetermined number of bad guys running through the halls of a school with innocents all around is static defensive shooting. I believe NDD’s position would be it is in fact CQB.
Secondly, you point out that many law enforcement professionals (including the FBI HRT) in this country are not up to tactical standards. Yet you believe school teachers can be trained during their summer vacation to an adequate tactical standard. I understand we are talking about two different levels of standards but I would submit to you that they are closer together than you think when it comes to having the mindset, ability and fortitude to take decisive action.
I believe a more realistic solution is to educate all teachers in anti-terrorism techniques and employ dedicated professionals that are adequately trained and experienced to handle the counter-terrorism actions (anti-terrorism being everything you do to prevent being involved in an attack and counter-terrorism is everything done to defeat the attack once initiated).
I would guess putting one or two retired military or LEO professionals on staff at a local high school would cost no more than training and incentive paying select faculty members. In my opinion the overall level of security would be much better than anything you could produce from the educator side of the fence.

Respectfully
112thSOLCA

kgoerz · 10-07-2006, 14:44

My kids go to a small private school (Grades 3-12) close to where I live. One of the Teachers is a gun enthusiast. He put me through my Concealed Carry Course. He runs a class every month. He is very competent with a Hand Gun. I don't think this man takes a dump in his own house without carrying. I rest very easy during the day knowing that my kids have an adult like this in their School. Note.... I never said I know that he is carrying in School.

**Peregrino** · 10-07-2006, 15:41

Time to stick my oar in the water. NDD (& allies) - I hate to pile on (not really, stationary targets are easier to hit

) but I think you're letting the current "it's for the children" vogue affect your normally impeccable judgement. Hundreds of thousands of lawful citizens carry concealed every day - without incident, wherever it's allowed. Violent crime statistics in areas with concealed carry statutes are decreasing, precisely because the criminals don't know who might shoot them. Unfortunately - in my personal opinion, federal and local laws make school zones (and the surrounding areas) perfect hunting grounds for deranged individuals seeking defenseless prey. Standard target rich environment with extremely low risk and a very high probability of success. I (and apparently a few others here) think that should change. That's why I asked the earlier rhetorical question about terrorist violence in Israeli schools. The answer is - not nearly what anybody would expect given the violence/unrest in the region. I'll have to Google the incident to get more details but I'll bet the death toll was mitigated by an active, armed defense of the students.

Lecture Mode (All that risk analysis, threat management, statistics & probabilities, and simple economics training really is handy sometimes.) The gunman in the Pennsylvania shooting picked his victims precisely because they were perfect victims - incapable of resisting. Predators do that. Current risk analysis clearly shows that the US threat is still "crazies". That usually means one or two gunmen with a lunatic/apocalyptic adgenda. Criminals don't target schools - no profit motive, and crusaders (on the order of Beslan) haven't gotten here yet. God help us when that happens. Until it does, let's concentrate on the most realistic threat - and the most cost effective method to do something/anything to address it. That threat is the deranged gunman/gunmen, usually 1-3 in number. The more lunatics involved, the more likely it is to be discovered and disrupted by law enforcement during the planning stages so more gunmen is an unlikely scenario.

The quickest, cheapest way to address the threat is to allow responsible citizens to carry weapons on school grounds. (NOTE: I did not say competent or qualified. By the time acceptable definitions of those two terms got out of committee we would already be facing multiple Beslans right here at home.) The current CCW programs already establish a legally defensible method of determining responsible. No it is not a perfect system. Nothing manmade is. It does serve society's perceived needs. I like TR's suggestion of sending volunteers to "summer school" but I don't want to make it the requirement because then - again - nothing would get done while the experts argued curriculum. Besides, heretical as this may sound - we all know performance in training is not always an accurate predictor of performance in combat. Our hypothetical armed teacher is not expected to conduct CQB against the 3rd Chechen Horde.

Let's try some role reversal. Take away your professional training, personal experience, teammates with similar qualifications, explosive breaching, distraction devices, body armor, etc. - in other words reduce yourself to the level of the historical "school shooter" model. Now tell me you would be comfortable busting through a classroom door against a known armed threat (in an unknown location) probably shooting from a kneeling supported position in "desk defilade". We are all familiar with what happens to the "target" in the fatal funnel when the defender can fire from cover. Personally, I would move on to an easier target. In today's classrooms that's 25+ lives potentially saved. I ascribe to Robert Heinlein's philosophy: "An armed society is a polite society." I also think it's a safer society too. Just look at the crime stats for Dodge City during the heyday of the cattle drives.

Is allowing responsible citizens (not just teachers, staff, and SROs) to carry on school grounds a perfect solution? No. Does a perfect solution exist? I don't think so. Is it better that what we have now? I think so. Does the issue merit discussion? Certainly. At least the liveliness of our discussion says most of us are passionate about the issue one way or the other. Personally, I think the children would probably be safer in a locked-down classroom with an armed teacher than they are every day in the average mall parking lot.

Peregrino

**The Reaper** · 10-07-2006, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112thSOLCA

TR – Sir
I will preference this post by saying that in the last two years I have read hundreds of your posts and usually agree 100% with everything you say. However, I find myself very much aligned with NDD on this topic.
In fact, I interpret your posts to be somewhat contradictory in nature.
If I understand you correctly you are trying to say shooting an undetermined number of bad guys running through the halls of a school with innocents all around is static defensive shooting. I believe NDD’s position would be it is in fact CQB.
Secondly, you point out that many law enforcement professionals (including the FBI HRT) in this country are not up to tactical standards. Yet you believe school teachers can be trained during their summer vacation to an adequate tactical standard. I understand we are talking about two different levels of standards but I would submit to you that they are closer together than you think when it comes to having the mindset, ability and fortitude to take decisive action.
I believe a more realistic solution is to educate all teachers in anti-terrorism techniques and employ dedicated professionals that are adequately trained and experienced to handle the counter-terrorism actions (anti-terrorism being everything you do to prevent being involved in an attack and counter-terrorism is everything done to defeat the attack once initiated).
I would guess putting one or two retired military or LEO professionals on staff at a local high school would cost no more than training and incentive paying select faculty members. In my opinion the overall level of security would be much better than anything you could produce from the educator side of the fence.

Respectfully
112thSOLCA

112th:

I believe that this is the fourth or fifith time I have said that the teacher with the gun stays in the classroom. Perhaps I am not speaking English here. Good thing Peregrino said the same thing again.

The assaults/raids I have seen conducted by the HRT have not been sterling successes. On the other hand, they are the premier HR team for CONUS employment, if you can wait for them to arrive. In an active shooter scenario, it should be over in minutes, an hour tops, which is well before they will marshal and get to the scene. The local LEOs (or, if in an urban area with short response times, the local SWAT unit) will likely have to execute an in-extremis assault, which they are largely unprepared for, but the odds beat doing nothing particularly when I again reiterate, they are likely going up against a HS punk or loser, not Rambo or a jihadi squad. Again, I believe that a properly trained teacher can secure a weapon, open a locked container, make the weapon ready, and hold a classroom against such opposition.

I am not sure where your kids go to school and what your teachers are like, but I suspect that at least a couple can be found at every school around here who would be willing and competent to take up this challenge.

Agree that an unknown number of citizens and faculty are armed on the school grounds in violation of the law every day, and I have not seen any of them losing their minds (or guns) and killing kids wantonly.

Thanks Peregrino for posting a better explanation of my points than I have apparently been able to produce.

TR

kgoerz · 10-07-2006, 17:27

I know many Schools don't require teachers to go thru the same security as the Students when entering the Building. I am sure many Teachers, especially High School are already carrying. Not out of fear of a shooting spree but mostly fear of the Gang Bangers. Like TS said it would be better to make it legal and put them thru training. Instead we probably have untrained teachers carrying instead.

CoLawman · 10-07-2006, 20:46

Okay I am going to try to wade in again.

Best option is cops in every school, however........

1. It is my experience that most SRO's are LE looking for an easy assignment. This certainly rules out your best LE's.
2. Even though most high schools already have SRO's, this past month has pointed to the need for every school to have an SRO. Unless you increase the mill levy to fund these positions, it ain't going to happen. I am not going to count my city's schools, but it seems to be in excess of 30. that is alot of money!
3. One SRO cannot cover an entire school effectively.

Second option of arming teachers has some benefits.

1. Much less expensive to pay for firearms, initial training and monthly qualification for willing teachers.

2. The X facter is bad guy has no idea how many guns are in the school and who has one.......Ms. Silly, Ed the custodian, school nurse, or perhaps Bubba the wrestling coach. In fact a school could have no volunteers willing to be armed, yet bad guy would have no way of knowing. Unless the Teacher's Union advertised it, not so far fetched.

3. The X factor is tougher to deal with by a badguy .

jasonglh · 10-07-2006, 21:49

Way out of my lane but as a taxpayer about to plunk down a great deal of change to my yearly county property taxes here are my .02

My county has a school nurse for all 14 schools and is I think the only county in the state so far to do that. If you can afford to pay an RN to dole out Ritalin you can damn well afford 1 decent armed guard or cop in each school. My county school tax rate is 0.547 and I have seen some of the crap they decide to spend that on like paying a Superintendent like he is running Hewlett Packard. Maybe one of theses days parents in KY will care as much about school security as they do athletics but I doubt that.

JMI · 10-08-2006, 00:25

I think it is a damn shame that we are at the point in this country where we are discussing arming grade shcool and high school teachers.

uboat509 · 10-08-2006, 00:54

First of all let me say that I agree with NDD 100%. I think that people here are ignoring two important issues in this debate. The first is the extreme rarity of this type of incident. How many of these have we had versus how many schools there are? The second issue is the schools where many of these incidents have taken place. Even if they were alowed to carry firearms, how many would have in a place like Columbine or Baily or West Nickel? These were all places where people felt safe.

SFC W