Always look up.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiUHEWz0oCs

That's Rob Higgens from Muzzle Front, LLC.

He's a local instructor in CT. Nasty bastard to have hunting for you in force on force. He got me last month just like those guys.
He takes "death from above" to heart.
So don't forget. Always look up.

[David Armstrong]

Yep. When I was with an OPFOR team that was one of our favorite tactics. Get something on the ground to keep the attention of the squad while a couple of guys up on trees just blew them apart. Worked every time.

I particularly liked the way he used the 3rd officer for shielding.

[Surf]

I know that I had some video's out there, but IMO that is just a part of some topics that should not be shown.

[TGS]

In MOUT, we were taught to check the ceiling.....but it was the last place you would check. You had to check your primary area first, as that's what is most likely to get you killed. Thus, I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this situation. One of the problems I have with instructors going all Solid Snake on people is that I never understood how it was suppose to be beneficial to the student's tactics other than completely disorienting them for the time being and causing them to work through a different situation of what they don't know is going on....it's not like you can actually expect a person to see 360*, in all vertical angles, at the same time. In other words, I feel that instructors who do this stuff, if they had it done to them, will still get caught with their ass hanging out just like their students would; there's only so much a human can actually do.

ETA: My frustration I had experienced with such was the same as in convoy training, and the instructors scolding us for not seeing the IED simulator they had planted behind a tree, around the corner, completely hidden from sight with no traces. "Why didn't you get suspicious about the pile of logs it was under? Uhh, I don't know....because there's piles of kittening logs every kitten where. We're in a forest." I had the same sort of frustration with instructors turning MOUT into a monkey gym. Maybe it was our inability to learn, maybe we had shit instructors. I dunno. It just seemed like there wasn't anything to actually learn, or anything to actually do about it (http://terminallance.com/2011/02/25/terminal-lance-108-disturbing-revelations/).

Commentary from Surf, F2S, tpd223, Sean M, and SouthNarc or other experienced urban tactics instructors most welcome.

[MD7305]

That brings new meaning to 540 degrees of coverage.

[SouthNarc]

It doesn't appear to me that you can catch that dead space from the exterior without penetrating the room. You might get it by going reverse prone and pieing on a diagonal upward and since the scenario is active shooter you're not gonna' pie that precisely because of the speed tradeoff. Personally I don't think most would pie that precisely unless they knew a ninja was lurking in the rafters. And then....why not just shoot him through the wall?

I don't have anything else to gauge the vid clip on other than what is shown but personally it looks like a Kobiyashi Maru to me and of questionable training value.

[joshs]

I don't have anything else to gauge the vid clip on other than what is shown but personally it looks like a Kobiyashi Maru to me and of questionable training value.

This was my first thought as well. If someone had caught a glimpse of him while entering, it looked like the angle would have very likely led to a sim round to the groin, which I assume would have been accompanied by a fall from about seven feet.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'll come right out and say the guy, if he is an instructor for what looks like an active-shooter training evolution, is a douche-bag.

Every scenario should have a learning objective, and the scenario should be as realistic as possible. In this case the scenario looks to be what so many FoF scenarios turn in to, an "I gotcha!" dick measuring contest so that ambush guy can regale people with his bad assery afterwards.

I'll point out that he also appeared to have inexperienced students and the Sim helmets helping create an upward blind spot in their peripheral vision.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I'll come right out and say the guy, if he is an instructor for what looks like an active-shooter training evolution, is a douche-bag.



Rob is anything but a douche-bag.

I'll ask him what the scenario and what the lesson being taught was, but having taken training from him, he's just not the kind of person to waste student's training time or money, or score points from on inexperienced people just to do it.

[Odin Bravo One]

In MOUT, we were taught to check the ceiling.....but it was the last place you would check. You had to check your primary area first, as that's what is most likely to get you killed. Thus, I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this situation. One of the problems I have with instructors going all Solid Snake on people is that I never understood how it was suppose to be beneficial to the student's tactics other than completely disorienting them for the time being and causing them to work through a different situation of what they don't know is going on....it's not like you can actually expect a person to see 360*, in all vertical angles, at the same time. In other words, I feel that instructors who do this stuff, if they had it done to them, will still get caught with their ass hanging out just like their students would; there's only so much a human can actually do.

ETA: My frustration I had experienced with such was the same as in convoy training, and the instructors scolding us for not seeing the IED simulator they had planted behind a tree, around the corner, completely hidden from sight with no traces. "Why didn't you get suspicious about the pile of logs it was under? Uhh, I don't know....because there's piles of kittening logs every kitten where. We're in a forest." I had the same sort of frustration with instructors turning MOUT into a monkey gym. Maybe it was our inability to learn, maybe we had shit instructors. I dunno. It just seemed like there wasn't anything to actually learn, or anything to actually do about it (http://terminallance.com/2011/02/25/terminal-lance-108-disturbing-revelations/).

Commentary from Surf, F2S, tpd223, Sean M, and SouthNarc or other experienced urban tactics instructors most welcome.

I can set up a "mud suck" scenario any number of ways, and make it so the end is result is nothing short of catastrophic every time, regardless of who the audience is.

But is it realistic?

There are basic tactics, that when used properly, will mitigate a good deal of risk found in CQC and urban fighting. That is where my curriculum is focused. I focus on the majority of situations, and the most likely course of action taken by an opposing force. Certainly planning and training for contingencies, and the unexpected is important, and it also has a place in the program I run. But training for the lowest probability, or highest of the highly unlikely scenarios is not the primary focus. I actually go ahead and skip over that 1/2% altogether. I am a firm believer in the "3 R's" when it comes to providing training. Realistic, Relevant, and based on Recent/Real events.

I do not like to waste any training time or dollars whether as a student or instructor. I have limited of amounts of both in either role. So for me to focus on "mud sucking" scenarios, or those that are so unlikely that less than one in a million people ever experience anything remotely close to it is what I would consider to be a waste of my time, and a waste of my "students" time. Certainly the value of training is not measured in time spent doing it, but in knowledge and experience gained in the process. If all a trainee knows or experiences is repeated failures based on unrealistic and highly unlikely and improbable situations, then the training was an epic failure. And I blame the trainer, and/or training cadre. If the people I am training fail to meet the training objectives, then I am the one at fault.

It is an unfortunate reality that much of standard military training is usually about ego, checking the box, and proper count of expended ordnance than on actually preparing people for the realities of combat. I do my best to go the other direction. I am also fortunate that my trainees can and do train themselves the majority of the time. I limit my involvement instructing to a few general observations, then walk away and let them fine tune their game.

As for the scene on video, there is very little to go off of, and without hearing any of the lecture, class, scenario, etc., it is difficult to make any sort of real assessment and the perspective from which it takes place.

But at a glance, from the outside looking in, and only going off what I can see in the video..............it seemed as though our "bad guy" knew what our "officers" were going to do with their three man team, and the tactics they were going to employ. He knew to drop down after the 2nd guy entered, and was clearly expecting the 3rd officer to be facing the other direction, etc. I'd lay dollars to peso's if he dropped down after the 2 man, not knowing there was a 3/4 man making entry, and an entire stack hut hut hutting down the hallway , the outcome would have been drastically different. In which case, I have to question the training objective for this particular scenario.

[Chuck Haggard]

Rob is anything but a douche-bag.
.

I don't know the guy, and he not be a douche, but his stunt in the video is douche-ish.

It is also a scenario safety problem. I can think of a couple of alternate ways that stunt ends with severe head trauma instead of a cool guy "gotcha" moment.



I strongly agree with Sean M's assessment.

[ToddG]

FOF is about testing tactics and about testing decision-making under stress.

So the first question you must ask whenever watching a FOF scenario is simple: what is being tested?

It is a hallmark of proper FOF training that you only test what has been taught. In other words, full-fledged FOFs scenarios are not the way you introduce a subject. "Bad guys may hide spider-like above a door" is fair game if previous lessons, lectures, and dry run exercises have covered it. But if you spend hours or days telling guys to enter a room and perform tasks A, B, and C it's -- to stick with the thread's favorite term -- douchey to throw problem D into the mix and essentially punish the students for doing exactly what you taught them.

Back on the old Tactics-L list in the 90's there was a guy who, in addition to being a self-declared world class gunsmith and claiming to have arrested over 10,000 people as a bounty hunter also fancied himself an all around studly firearms instructor. He did a lot of FOF training. One of his favorite scenarios took place in a barn he had access to. Lone students were told they had to clear the barn. They'd open the barn door, step inside, and Dane would open up on them with an MP-5 from the rafters. The only lesson anyone learns from that is don't open the barn door.

It doesn't take a good FOF instructor or role players to create an assassination scenario. "You're standing in line at the grocery store buying your **BAM** shot in the back of the head. You're dead. You suck. Pay me for more classes to learn how to avoid this problem."

In this case, as Sean points out, it seems that the instructor specifically and purposely took advantage of a known weak point in the students' tactics that is incredibly situational. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps for all we know he and the students had just been discussing their 3-man room approach. The instructor said "That can be really dangerous," the students said, "No way man it's the boss," and the instructor said, "OK, let me show you what I'm talking about."

The problem with setting up a BG/RP in some kind of bizarre location is that you're skewing students' tactics towards the highly unlikely instead of the likely. There are a bunch of places a person could hide in most offices, classrooms, etc. It's not as easy as walking through the door and scanning along an arc. The time you take to look up and behind you for Spider-Man could be the time it takes someone hiding behind a file cabinet to step out and open fire. Think about it this way: You can only be looking in one direction at a time. Should you attention be on likely danger points, or far-fetched danger points? Sure, you might have bad luck and find yourself up against the guy who crawls along ceilings. That would suck. It's almost enough to make you think room clearing can be dangerous, I guess.

I'm also not really crazy about YouTube videos demonstrating how to overcome standard police active shooter tactics.

[ST911]

Back on the old Tactics-L list in the 90's there was a guy who, in addition to being a self-declared world class gunsmith and claiming to have arrested over 10,000 people as a bounty hunter also fancied himself an all around studly firearms instructor. He did a lot of FOF training. One of his favorite scenarios took place in a barn he had access to. Lone students were told they had to clear the barn. They'd open the barn door, step inside, and Dane would open up on them with an MP-5 from the rafters. The only lesson anyone learns from that is don't open the barn door.

Lol... I vaguely recall that discussion, and many more like it.

Vertical techniques have value. Like you all note though, must be taught, realistic, and be an appropriate exercise for the instructional point. I wonder how many of those guys will now be inclined to look up and behind them as they move into rooms rather than into their area of responsibility.

[Kevin B.]

I wonder how many of those guys will now be inclined to look up and behind them as they move into rooms rather than into their area of responsibility.

Which, if everyone's interpretation of the video clip is correct, is the bigger issue.

[Coyotesfan97]

You've trained those three guys to look up and high on entry instead of clearing there areas of responsibility. I'd like to see how that works when a LSDD goes off underneath you and you catch the focus of it.

Whatever credibility he had with those three guys is done. If he does that to the whole class than they'll remember that more than what he was supposed to be teaching.

It looked like they were running three man cells and it looks like the third man watches the rear as the first two clear. You just taught him to do door checks instead of keeping an eye down the hall.

It's been my experience Dbags who consistently do "gotcha" events tend to catch a lot of sim rounds. Sometimes concentrated volleys of sim rounds...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

I'd just like to point out (again) that we don't know the exact context of the exercise.

There is video of me floating around somewhere shooting a gun bent over backwards, between my legs. I'm sure there is video or photos of me shooting a gun holding it upside down. Out of context, they're farcical. At the time, with proper explanation, they were making a point.

If this was simply run as a regular FOF exercise, I agree with the criticisms and voiced many of them myself earlier.

But just to spitball a possible chain of events that led to this as a reasonable demonstration:

Cop in class says, "We have top secret active shooter tactics."

Instructor says, "You think Chris Dorner new those secret tactics?"

Cop says, "Sure, but what could he really do even if he knows our tactics. Our 3-man room clearing system is foolproof."

Instructor says, "O RLY?"

[Odin Bravo One]

As for the scene on video, there is very little to go off of, and without hearing any of the lecture, class, scenario, etc., it is difficult to make any sort of real assessment and the perspective from which it takes place.

[ToddG]

Sean -- agreed 100%!

[Surf]

I'm also not really crazy about YouTube videos demonstrating how to overcome standard police active shooter tactics.This was also the point of my first post. This could definitely be a light bulb moment, but for the wrong people. I know the flood may already be out there but I am still not a fan of these types of video's for public consumption. Especially when put out by a company / organization training the good guys.

[Lomshek]

I can set up a "mud suck" scenario any number of ways, and make it so the end is result is nothing short of catastrophic every time, regardless of who the audience is.

But is it realistic?

Certainly planning and training for contingencies, and the unexpected is important, and it also has a place in the program I run. But training for the lowest probability, or highest of the highly unlikely scenarios is not the primary focus. I actually go ahead and skip over that 1/2% altogether. I am a firm believer in the "3 R's" when it comes to providing training. Realistic, Relevant, and based on Recent/Real events.

I do not like to waste any training time or dollars whether as a student or instructor. I have limited of amounts of both in either role. So for me to focus on "mud sucking" scenarios, or those that are so unlikely that less than one in a million people ever experience anything remotely close to it is what I would consider to be a waste of my time, and a waste of my "students" time.

I was a role player in local active shooter training that devolved to the kind of mud suck Sean alludes to.

After the basics of room clearing were explained and hallway advancing was demonstrated a supervisor (not the lead instructor - a problem in it's own right) began trying to trip up the cops. He'd have some of us role players lay on the floor as if we were unconscious then shoot at the cops as they came in hoping to trick them.

At one point a deputy did everything right headshooting a bad guy who was holding a hostage as soon as he had a clear shot and was rebuked because the hostage might have been the real bad guy forcing a real hostage to use an empty gun and act like a bad guy as a diversion. :confused:

When it was all over I felt for the cops who were really trying to improve.

[ToddG]

At one point a deputy did everything right headshooting a bad guy who was holding a hostage as soon as he had a clear shot and was rebuked because the hostage might have been the real bad guy forcing a real hostage to use an empty gun and act like a bad guy as a diversion. :confused:

Just... wow.

[JodyH]

At one point a deputy did everything right headshooting a bad guy who was holding a hostage as soon as he had a clear shot and was rebuked because the hostage might have been the real bad guy forcing a real hostage to use an empty gun and act like a bad guy as a diversion.
mind = blown

[Chuck Haggard]

At one point a deputy did everything right headshooting a bad guy who was holding a hostage as soon as he had a clear shot and was rebuked because the hostage might have been the real bad guy forcing a real hostage to use an empty gun and act like a bad guy as a diversion.


In a near perfect world that "supervisor" would be fired for that BS alone, and barred for life from any LE job. Ever. Total and complete fail of leadership.


I'll throw out another area where I think the scenario went to the douche end of the scale. Fine, pull the stunt, talk about it with the students, but then you post in on You Tube? The point for that is what?

True, I do not know the context of the scenario in the video, but I strongly suspect what happened by watching it. I have seen such shenanigans far too often in the LE world.


The ambush scenario during an active-shooter incident is often brought up, a real issue with that line of thinking being if a guy is waiting in ambush be is no longer an active-shooter. I have studied this at length for a number of year and I have yet to find a single real world ambush scenario in one of these events.

In case anyone is wondering what my extreme interest in active-shooters stems from;
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

[Lomshek]

Just... wow.

Yeah...

It was one of those awkward moments where I knew all the parties involved enough that I was there but did not have any credibility since I'm just some guy who rides bicycles. I kept my pie hole shut and finished the day.

Almost better was a "storm the auditorium and free the hostages" scenario when the good guys started taking cover behind the seated hostages as they advanced into the room and exchanged airsoft shots with us. As a not very mean roll player I (afterwards) realized I was holding off on taking shots that might hit a hostage my police adversaries were hiding behind.

There were some tactics discussed as "the only way to do it" that I won't mention openly but they sure conflicted with how my non-cop understanding of every active shooter I've read about happens.

I'd love to get enough cred with the departments to help them bring a pro trainer in so they can learn some more useful tactics.

[David Armstrong]

from Todd:
FOF is about testing tactics and about testing decision-making under stress.

So the first question you must ask whenever watching a FOF scenario is simple: what is being tested?

It is a hallmark of proper FOF training that you only test what has been taught.
Exactly. Going back to my OPFOR stuff, we went high specifically as a part of "just because you see a problem in one area doesn't mean the whole squad forgets about THEIR areas of observation and control." But that was part of the leson, to drill on the idea of individual areas of control and take care of your area, not worry about your buddies areas.

[Dagga Boy]

I'll come right out and say the guy, if he is an instructor for what looks like an active-shooter training evolution, is a douche-bag.

Every scenario should have a learning objective, and the scenario should be as realistic as possible. In this case the scenario looks to be what so many FoF scenarios turn in to, an "I gotcha!" dick measuring contest so that ambush guy can regale people with his bad assery afterwards.

I'll point out that he also appeared to have inexperienced students and the Sim helmets helping create an upward blind spot in their peripheral vision.

Ditto on this, and why I put VERY limited credence into "lessons learned" or "proof" from FoF scenarios, especially those in which I do not know the how they were set up and who set them up. The only things taught to those officers was to question their entry tactics for what they are most likely to face and to start looking for things that are very unlikely to happen. Setting students up for failure is really easy in FoF. Good FoF instruction will teach students how to win, and is actually much harder.

[Dropkick]

At one point a deputy did everything right headshooting a bad guy who was holding a hostage as soon as he had a clear shot and was rebuked because the hostage might have been the real bad guy forcing a real hostage to use an empty gun and act like a bad guy as a diversion. :confused:



mind = blown

Literally and figuratively, I might add.
:p

[TCinVA]

At one point a deputy did everything right headshooting a bad guy who was holding a hostage as soon as he had a clear shot and was rebuked because the hostage might have been the real bad guy forcing a real hostage to use an empty gun and act like a bad guy as a diversion. :confused:


That's happened more than once among local LE FOF training, too.

As mentioned before in this thread, FOF training in the hands of a dummy turns into no-win scenarios. At best that's useless...at worst, it introduces hesitation in precisely the situation where it's the worst idea imaginable.

[Coyotesfan97]

Yeah...

It was one of those awkward moments where I knew all the parties involved enough that I was there but did not have any credibility since I'm just some guy who rides bicycles. I kept my pie hole shut and finished the day.

Almost better was a "storm the auditorium and free the hostages" scenario when the good guys started taking cover behind the seated hostages as they advanced into the room and exchanged airsoft shots with us. As a not very mean roll player I (afterwards) realized I was holding off on taking shots that might hit a hostage my police adversaries were hiding behind.

There were some tactics discussed as "the only way to do it" that I won't mention openly but they sure conflicted with how my non-cop understanding of every active shooter I've read about happens.

I'd love to get enough cred with the departments to help them bring a pro trainer in so they can learn some more useful tactics.

I'm guessing the priority of life was never discussed. The way it sounds they'd never heard of it.

1. Hostages
2. Citizens
3. Police
4. Suspects

I can't imagine the debrief my old team would have given on tactics like that. Well yeah I can because it would be brutal!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nephrology]

Can't say the instructor's credentials are doing him a lot of favors...

http://muzzlefront.com/muzzle-front/

"Robert began his formal training as a gunsmith in 2003 just outside of Hartford, Connecticut where he apprenticed in antique firearm restoration and quickly moved into customizing various pistol and AR platforms. He furthered his education while working for various manufacturers and dealers, where Robert combined his abundant skills as an instructor with his passion for firearms. Robert has been called upon to present expert testimony in court cases involving detailed analysis of weapons’ function as well as various aftermarket modifications made to Class III firearms. As a direct result of Robert’s work with numerous firearms and training companies across the nation, he brings professionalism and the expertise of a certified instructor to Muzzle Front"

I don't have any reason to think he is a bad person or anything - in fact he might be a great instructor of certain things - but from the video and my uneducated perspective it seems like active shooter drills are not one of them. Perhaps he did not recognize the lane of traffic appropriate for his vehicle, as it were...

[Dr. No]

Can't say the instructor's credentials are doing him a lot of favors...

http://muzzlefront.com/muzzle-front/

"Robert began his formal training as a gunsmith in 2003 just outside of Hartford, Connecticut where he apprenticed in antique firearm restoration and quickly moved into customizing various pistol and AR platforms. He furthered his education while working for various manufacturers and dealers, where Robert combined his abundant skills as an instructor with his passion for firearms. Robert has been called upon to present expert testimony in court cases involving detailed analysis of weapons’ function as well as various aftermarket modifications made to Class III firearms. As a direct result of Robert’s work with numerous firearms and training companies across the nation, he brings professionalism and the expertise of a certified instructor to Muzzle Front"

I don't have any reason to think he is a bad person or anything - in fact he might be a great instructor of certain things - but from the video and my uneducated perspective it seems like active shooter drills are not one of them. Perhaps he did not recognize the lane of traffic appropriate for his vehicle, as it were...

Yet another example of people who have no business teaching LE anything running their suck and getting paid for it. (In reference to the company, not Nephrology) ... Check out the other instructors. Looks like they were all chums at the gunsmithing school together.

I sincerely hope there isn't a real agency basing their tactics on these courses. A defense attorney will have a field day over a lot of dead kids.

[Nephrology]

(In reference to the company, not Nephrology)

Haha, don't worry, I am much more likely to teach anatomy and physiology or immunology than I am to teach anything about firearms, beyond the basics of gun safety and marksmanship in informal settings to friends and family...

[Dr. No]

Haha, don't worry, I am much more likely to teach anatomy and physiology or immunology than I am to teach anything about firearms, beyond the basics of gun safety and marksmanship in informal settings to friends and family...

I just wanted to be clear. :)