PDA

View Full Version : Unknown v. Known Room Entries



F-Trooper05
08-27-2012, 12:00 AM
A good read for .mil and LEO's...


http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/OSWG/UnknownvsKnownRoomEntries.pdf

Al T.
08-27-2012, 08:35 AM
Interesting. Looking at it in reverse, seems that lateral movement decreases the chance of the mover getting hit. That seems to validate the side step advocated by Tom Givens and others. And it may mean that we as armed civilians need to work on moving targets more.

Dropkick
08-27-2012, 10:05 AM
*Sigh* If only the world was filled with corner feed rooms with no furniture to use as concealment. :(

Hopefully this study is can be used to help the "on-site decision making" process and not the "off-site doctrine making" process.

Failure2Stop
08-27-2012, 11:16 AM
That paper leaves out a whole lot of stuff as it pertains to those entering the room.
It does reinforce a pretty common discovery though: interior work is dangerous.
Side-step: one or two steps to the side do nothing. The guy moving laterally is moving at least a few feet, and needs to be moving at a pretty decent pace to be a difficult target.
Overall, it reads like someone that is not well versed in enclosure clearing trying to find data to support those that already know the results.

Kevin B.
08-27-2012, 08:54 PM
That paper leaves out a whole lot of stuff as it pertains to those entering the room.

Exactly my thoughts when I read it.

Odin Bravo One
08-28-2012, 12:05 AM
Huh?!

TCinVA
08-28-2012, 06:54 AM
"Active shooter" training for law enforcement is often...well...sub-optimal. Few officers will have the opportunity to get information from people like F2S or Sean. Often the "training" is a cobbled-together affair based on what a couple of the "gun guys" got out of their last class with whomever. This is partially a result of limited resources...and partially a result of ignorance. There's more excellent quality training out there than ever, but it's difficult to shake some systems out of the "not invented here" syndrome.

...so with all that said, the deficiencies of the presented paper don't really come as a shock.

Odin Bravo One
08-28-2012, 12:52 PM
I am all for any sort of research and training that will help the good guys finish vertical and with no more perforations than they started with. However, this paper is solely looking at one very limited aspect of clearing a room, and without defining (or even recognizing) the non-quantifiable variations to the scenario. It fails to address many of the more important aspects of such an undertaking, and focuses solely on three tactics, specifically how one particular officer and an untrained assailant respond to a canned scenario with too many control measures to make the data useful.

Dagga Boy
08-28-2012, 01:46 PM
Ditto on the "huh"........and I've done literally thousands upon thousands of these for real. There are so many different variables involved that it is nearly impossible to do a "scientific" study. Every interior and search is a different animal with consistent danger zones. "walking walls" in an an office building is way different in ghetto type housing with shit all over the place.......often with actual fecal matter "shit" (which may look more like what Paul Howe is talking about). House keeping is not a big priority in typical criminal locations.

The key is to teach officers proper threat evaluation and engagement techniques. The use of architecture and working angles in their favor, the appropriate use of lighting and lighting techniques, proper movement, proper threat prioritization, and this list goes on. Additionally, it depends on who you are working with. With my beat partner who I shot with every night after work for years, we would do entries with #1 goes left, #2 goes right corners in on almost every entry........because we trusted each other. With unknowns, it may be #1 picks the threat, # 2 takes the read, and you need some seperation to read your #1. There is no particular "science" to this, it is more experienced based. Those with minimal training and experience have serious issues. I have seen teams with techniques I don't like do well because they practice a lot. I advocate techniques that are fairly simple because without dedicated daily CQB training, complex stuff goes to hell quickly in the real world. Some teams like criss cross entries. I hated them for patrol guys because they got constantly screwed up by variables so I prefered to use same side entries. Again, different tools for different problems.

I also hate training with cop role players playing cop "gotcha" games. Role players don't often act like crooks. I remember my guys wanting to use some jacked up entry technique that was based on protecting their long guns from gun grabs by suspects waiting inside the door to grab them (and was unsafe as hell by violating two of our basic safety rules to execute). The three letter fed agency teaching this crap had obviously had limited time in dealing with real crooks, and lots of time doing tactical masturbation with role players. I asked my guys if in the thousands of high risk entries that had done had they every had some asshole standing inside the door trying to wrestle their long gun away.....the answer was "no". Real crooks know that if you grab some SWAT guys gun for real that seven guys are going to come in that room and have an excuse to execute your ass........a lot. Real crooks hide if unarmed, and ambush if armed, and usually from ground level (which is why I HATE having a gun in front of my face). Others will use a hostage, including themselves as a diversion or barrier. They will use environmentally based concealment techniques to prevent you from finding them. This is very complex stuff and is regional as well. Clearing a barrio or ghetto housing is different with differently motivated crooks than what our troops face overseas. West Coast poor folks housing is different than other Metro poor folk housing (tend to be lower and more spread out rather than high rise apartments). How I clear a nice home on a alarm call or possible intruder call may pace and work different than clearing a small little dump. Again, some hard and fast rules will apply, but you need to adapt.