Blackstone
Member
Keep in mind soldiers in a theatre of war will behave differently to police officers. I don't think the police do 'suppressive fire'?
Real Estate: Location, Location, Location. Bullets: Placement & Penetration
- Thread starter Fred Fuller
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Oh, sure they do. They may not be trained to do so per se, and it may not be policy, but they do it. There is a great example in this video of the shot cop turning to run and firing behind him in the direction of the shooter. This is suppressive fire done for the purpose of trying to make the shooter retreat behind cover while the officer gets himself to safety.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/09/3389013/video-depicts-wild-shootout-that.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/09/3389013/video-depicts-wild-shootout-that.html
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
they don't usually patrol in groups or call in airstrikes or artillery either. that one of the reasons conflating military experience with police work is unrealistic
ChCx2744
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,228
He says he and his squad killed "many" yet they were probably engaging the enemy with multiple people probably all armed with higher powered rifles, automatic squad weapons and explosives as opposed to pistols, as well as being heavily armored and having air support and artillery available with a single radio request. Fair comparison indeed 
easyg
Member
Yes, we had each other's backs, and no I did not patrol solo.
Carrying more ammo to try and compensate for stupid tactics is NOT a solution.
This cop decided to try and take on this bank robber solo.
And once the bank robber started shooting he continued in hot pursuit.
All of this could have gotten a lot innocent folks killed, and it could have gotten the cop himself killed, so the lesson he came away with is this: I need to carry more ammo.
Which is NOT the lesson he should have came away with.
He should have learned that sometimes you let the criminal go.
And sometimes you wait for backup.
Yes, if you want to call the M4 a "higher powered" rifle.
And yes, we do prefer overwhelming odds whenever possible.
Good tactics are nothing to be ashamed of....much smarted than trying to take on a threat one-on-one, which is just stupid if you have other options.
You've seen way too many movies.
"air support and artillery available with a single radio request"....the crap some folks believe constantly amazes me.
The bottom line is that carrying more ammo is NOT a solution for this cop.
He was never in danger because he didn't have enough ammo....he was in danger because he made some stupid decisions.
He should have let the bank robber go once the bank robber started shooting while zipping through traffic.
Pursuit at that point only endangered more innocent people.
And why?
Just to catch a bank robber.
Easy
Last edited:
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
so the lesson he came away with is this: I need to carry more ammo.
Which is NOT the lesson he should have came away with.
Soooooooo........
Can we start talking about the lessons he SHOULD have come away with now?
Which is NOT the lesson he should have came away with.
Soooooooo........
Can we start talking about the lessons he SHOULD have come away with now?
easyg
Member
Okay, again...
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Anything beside those you can think of?
Like, from reading the thread title of this thread perhaps? Or from the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=716997?
Like, from reading the thread title of this thread perhaps? Or from the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=716997?
easyg
Member
Well when he ran behind the car to reload, he could have just continued running for several blocks, thus getting away from the guy who was trying to kill him.
Sometimes a good run is better than a bad stand.
And once he was no longer in sight, the bank robber would have most likely stopped shooting up the neighborhood and disappeared as quickly and as quietly as possible.
Yeah, it would have been a huge blow to the cop's ego, but it would have probably been the smart thing to do.
Sometimes a good run is better than a bad stand.
And once he was no longer in sight, the bank robber would have most likely stopped shooting up the neighborhood and disappeared as quickly and as quietly as possible.
Yeah, it would have been a huge blow to the cop's ego, but it would have probably been the smart thing to do.
I have to agree with Easy. The department in my city can't even write you a traffic ticket without 2 squad cars carrying 2 officers each (4 police officers). In a city with 1 homicide every 10 years statistcaly speaking it may seem overzealous. Protocol is protocol I guess.
Lessons that should have been learned:
1. DON'T BE A HERO.
2. Banks are FDIC insured and will get the money back, hell it's printed like toilet paper.
Lessons that should have been learned:
1. DON'T BE A HERO.
2. Banks are FDIC insured and will get the money back, hell it's printed like toilet paper.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Anyone ever hear of trying to 'hide behind a wall of bullets?' The idea that it might have been 'suppressive fire' was mentioned earlier, but that's a little different concept in my mind.
Seems to me that the 'wall of bullets' approach was at least part of what was going on in both of the incidents I mentioned above. Anyone else here see that as a possible issue in both these cases, or is it just me?
I recall a remark directed to a student in a class from an instructor I won't name: "If you can't shoot good, shoot lots." Which is what brought the whole thread here about.
Seems to me that the 'wall of bullets' approach was at least part of what was going on in both of the incidents I mentioned above. Anyone else here see that as a possible issue in both these cases, or is it just me?
I recall a remark directed to a student in a class from an instructor I won't name: "If you can't shoot good, shoot lots." Which is what brought the whole thread here about.
easyg
Member
Yeah Fred, I have heard that said before.
And it's probably a very old bit of "wisdom".
Maybe folks on the old frontier weren't that concerned about hitting innocent bystanders...
But a cop in...let's say Manhattan....that advice probably isn't going to work.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
"Wall of bullets"? I heard that at Thunder Ranch. Nobody ever defined it very well other than shooting a LOT, sort of like with the Dalton Smith smooth where Andrea Rebello was killed.
Maybe I am missing something. How is "wall of bullets" different than suppressive fire? "Hiding behind a wall of bullets" sounds really cool, but logically it is a concept that obviously does not work since there is no wall and because bullets are so tiny that you can obviously see a person them unless you are able to fire in a volume several times that of a Vulcan gun. The "wall" notion also implies coverage of a large area with the bullets, to form a "wall" as it were, which is not really the hallmark of aimed or controlled fire and does indeed sound a lot more like suppressive fire.
Maybe "wall of bullets" is the ballistic counterpart to "carpet bombing"?
Still, if the distinction is being made between it and suppressive fire, I am not sure the difference is relevant from the sense of the lack of control and the scary end results of bystanders being harmed.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
How is "wall of bullets" different than suppressive fire?
Suppressive fire is delivered into a general area without a specific target actually in view, with the intent of forcing the opposition to keep their heads down, thereby limiting their return fire.
As far as I know, trainer Clint Smith is responsible for the "wall of bullets" idea. Supposedly he is quoted, "Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it's gonna be empty." (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/quotations-of-clint-smith) I don't believe that notion is always applied the way Smith would have it used, because (though I haven't trained with him personally) I've heard him advocate the importance of hitting what you shoot at.
The 'wall of bullets' notion as some people apply it is IMHO as much a talisman as 'I have a gun, therefore nothing bad can happen to me.' I can see the appeal of the notion that an outgoing stream of fire might be a comfort to some people in some situations.
Do I think that's what happened with this officer, or the one in NY? I don't know. Could it be a possibility? Perhaps, not necessarily.
Either way, the point here IS NOT to dissect the actions officers involved in these incidents with an idea of 'placing blame' or 'finding fault.' The point of this analytical exercise, and essentially everything we do here, is to ultimately inform OUR OWN mindsets and enhance our own skillsets. Yes, it is certainly navel-gazing. But both of the incidents these officers were involved in were on the far end of the bell curve in terms of worst case scenarios. If we do not examine and analyze the worst of what life has thrown at others, how well are we preparing ourselves to cope with whatever might come our way?
Suppressive fire is delivered into a general area without a specific target actually in view, with the intent of forcing the opposition to keep their heads down, thereby limiting their return fire.
As far as I know, trainer Clint Smith is responsible for the "wall of bullets" idea. Supposedly he is quoted, "Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it's gonna be empty." (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/quotations-of-clint-smith) I don't believe that notion is always applied the way Smith would have it used, because (though I haven't trained with him personally) I've heard him advocate the importance of hitting what you shoot at.
The 'wall of bullets' notion as some people apply it is IMHO as much a talisman as 'I have a gun, therefore nothing bad can happen to me.' I can see the appeal of the notion that an outgoing stream of fire might be a comfort to some people in some situations.
Do I think that's what happened with this officer, or the one in NY? I don't know. Could it be a possibility? Perhaps, not necessarily.
Either way, the point here IS NOT to dissect the actions officers involved in these incidents with an idea of 'placing blame' or 'finding fault.' The point of this analytical exercise, and essentially everything we do here, is to ultimately inform OUR OWN mindsets and enhance our own skillsets. Yes, it is certainly navel-gazing. But both of the incidents these officers were involved in were on the far end of the bell curve in terms of worst case scenarios. If we do not examine and analyze the worst of what life has thrown at others, how well are we preparing ourselves to cope with whatever might come our way?
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
is there a police dept in the world that would "run away from a guy who is shooting at them". to let the guy go out in the world? i mean in real life.
that doesn't work that well with police car chases. once the boys learn that if they floor it the cops back off they will. its the kinda idea i'm used to hearing from college kids
that doesn't work that well with police car chases. once the boys learn that if they floor it the cops back off they will. its the kinda idea i'm used to hearing from college kids
easyg
Member
It happens all the time. Only the police and the military don't call it "running away"....they call it "retreating to a better defensive position".
Obviously it depends upon the situation.
Say you have a person who rolls through a stop sign, and a cop hits the lights and siren but the guy doesn't stop.
So now the chase begins.
The cop speeds up, so the perp speeds up.
Faster and faster they go.
They now are both driving at dangerous speeds and both are putting the lives of other innocent drivers at risk.
Why shouldn't the cop break off pursuit?
Is it really worth possibly getting someone killed just to catch someone for a minor traffic violation?
No, it's not.
The cop should get the tag number and break off pursuit.
If the cops can catch the bad guys without risking killing innocent folks, then they should go for it.
But sometimes it's just not worth the collateral damage.
Trying to compare a single police officer to a full platoon of soldiers, and then say that the soldiers have some huge advantage over a 'lone cop on the beat' doesn't work. It's a matter of scale. A lone cop on the beat getting jumped by 4 guys is in a world of hurt. An infantry platoon getting ambushed by a unit three times their size with heavy weapons and resupply is also in a world of hurt. They both may or may not be able to call in backup and have it show up right away.
To assume an Infantry platoon is invincible is fallacy. They are awesome, but even they know their limits. They will call for backup, and all too often, medevac as well, which adds to the pain. Guess what? There are times when a platoon of soldiers is outgunned. That's usually not found out until AFTER some jacked up stuff happened, and now they are trying to get some wounded taken care of as well as deal with the fact there there is a larger element out there trying to overrun them and put them on liveleak or something. The military will retrograde and call in backup if they have to. Just like police will.
There are indeed places in the US where you won't even get the ticket you're going to get until there is at least one or two more cruisers backing up the officer that pulled you over. That's just for a traffic stop. If a police officer finds himself in over his head because of 5 or 6 unexpected gangbangers with illegal automatic AK's, he's gonna call for backup, if he can. Until then, more ammo would of course help, because until backup gets there, you need to survive, but if he thinks he gonna play Audie Murphy and take them out, then he's misguided. Well intentioned though. I'm sure many soldiers, current and former, can recall behavior like that from some individual in the military as well. Then that same criticizm is brought up, hopefully to that individual's face, if they are lucky. Or around the mess hall with the others if that person wasn't lucky.
There is such a thing at target fixation. You can get so focused on trying to engage the bad guy(s), that you don't realize that maybe you should not continue the way you are going. That happens. There is also freaking out. Even suppressive fire is controlled. If someone empties a 30 round magazine into the wrong vehicle because they freaked out, and didn't actually bother to ID what it was they were shooting, they need to be ready to answer for that. Soldiers certainly have to. I would think police would have to as well.
Using suppressive fire isn't always an option for the military either. It's not just shoot the heck out of everything and walk away before the smoke clears. Our soldiers and marines very often are just as hamstrung as police, depending upon their situation. It may not make sense, and seeing some kid in kevlar holding a S.A.W, it just doesn't seem possible, but it's true. They have to deal with some BS rules. Especially now :banghead:
Making assumptions about cops and soldiers doesn't work, especially if you've never done it. And there is no black and white when it comes to this stuff. People are different, their skills are different. Guess what? Some people are really good at that stuff, and can keep it together, and are really good shots and yada yada. And some are not quite so 'gifted' at that stuff. That's just the way it is. And guess what else, even the good ones can have bad days and mess up. We are talking about outliers here, where the planning, and backup and all that, goes right out the window, and you get caught with your pants down. It happens all the time. Will you be super accurate, will you mess up? We're human. The answers to those questions will always be yes and no. I do think that if you are cop or a soldier, and you don't at least 'wargame' those things, and try to train to deal with those 'outlier' situations, then you are kidding yourself. It reminds me of the soldier that 'only joined for the college money' and then are mad because they are getting deployed to a combat zone. Really? Maybe they should have read the enlistment contract a little more carefully.
Lessons can be learned from all. Many people have good tricks. Other people can learn those tricks, and add them to their own bag of tricks. Then you have a bigger bag of tricks that you can pull from. Ain't that cool?
Things like extra ammo and backup can certainly hedge your bets, but you have to know how to use both, or it does no good.
To assume an Infantry platoon is invincible is fallacy. They are awesome
, but even they know their limits. They will call for backup, and all too often, medevac as well, which adds to the pain. Guess what? There are times when a platoon of soldiers is outgunned. That's usually not found out until AFTER some jacked up stuff happened, and now they are trying to get some wounded taken care of as well as deal with the fact there there is a larger element out there trying to overrun them and put them on liveleak or something. The military will retrograde and call in backup if they have to. Just like police will. There are indeed places in the US where you won't even get the ticket you're going to get until there is at least one or two more cruisers backing up the officer that pulled you over. That's just for a traffic stop. If a police officer finds himself in over his head because of 5 or 6 unexpected gangbangers with illegal automatic AK's, he's gonna call for backup, if he can. Until then, more ammo would of course help, because until backup gets there, you need to survive, but if he thinks he gonna play Audie Murphy and take them out, then he's misguided. Well intentioned though. I'm sure many soldiers, current and former, can recall behavior like that from some individual in the military as well. Then that same criticizm is brought up, hopefully to that individual's face, if they are lucky. Or around the mess hall with the others if that person wasn't lucky.
There is such a thing at target fixation. You can get so focused on trying to engage the bad guy(s), that you don't realize that maybe you should not continue the way you are going. That happens. There is also freaking out. Even suppressive fire is controlled. If someone empties a 30 round magazine into the wrong vehicle because they freaked out, and didn't actually bother to ID what it was they were shooting, they need to be ready to answer for that. Soldiers certainly have to. I would think police would have to as well.
Using suppressive fire isn't always an option for the military either. It's not just shoot the heck out of everything and walk away before the smoke clears. Our soldiers and marines very often are just as hamstrung as police, depending upon their situation. It may not make sense, and seeing some kid in kevlar holding a S.A.W, it just doesn't seem possible, but it's true. They have to deal with some BS rules. Especially now :banghead:
Making assumptions about cops and soldiers doesn't work, especially if you've never done it. And there is no black and white when it comes to this stuff. People are different, their skills are different. Guess what? Some people are really good at that stuff, and can keep it together, and are really good shots and yada yada. And some are not quite so 'gifted' at that stuff. That's just the way it is. And guess what else, even the good ones can have bad days and mess up. We are talking about outliers here, where the planning, and backup and all that, goes right out the window, and you get caught with your pants down. It happens all the time. Will you be super accurate, will you mess up? We're human. The answers to those questions will always be yes and no. I do think that if you are cop or a soldier, and you don't at least 'wargame' those things, and try to train to deal with those 'outlier' situations, then you are kidding yourself. It reminds me of the soldier that 'only joined for the college money' and then are mad because they are getting deployed to a combat zone. Really? Maybe they should have read the enlistment contract a little more carefully.
Lessons can be learned from all. Many people have good tricks. Other people can learn those tricks, and add them to their own bag of tricks. Then you have a bigger bag of tricks that you can pull from. Ain't that cool?
Things like extra ammo and backup can certainly hedge your bets, but you have to know how to use both, or it does no good.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
It happens all the time.
then it should be easy to name that dept
you know the one where running away from a bank robber who opened fire on a cop and letting him run loose is a good idea
i'll wait
then it should be easy to name that dept
you know the one where running away from a bank robber who opened fire on a cop and letting him run loose is a good idea
i'll wait
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
Is it really worth possibly getting someone killed just to catch someone for a minor traffic violation?
thats where the rub lies. till you catch em you don't know why they are really running. lots of real bad guys caught by traffic stops. and lots of near misses. ever hear of polly klass?
might be before your time
thats where the rub lies. till you catch em you don't know why they are really running. lots of real bad guys caught by traffic stops. and lots of near misses. ever hear of polly klass?
might be before your time
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
One more time, folks - assessing law enforcement or military use of force, or much of anything else along those lines, is beyond the scope of ST&T. Keep comments focused on topics relevant to armed citizens, please...
leadcounsel
member
According to the GAO in 2011, we expend 250,000 rounds per insurgent killed in Iraq!
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/
Now, I understand that combat involves suppressive full auto fire that cops don't typically employ... but I'd say a 50% hit ratio in combat (given the stress, movement, cover and concealment, and distances, is simply outstanding.
Having said that, I'd say carrying more ammo is prudent if you carry a gun, and particularly if you wear a uniform.
Situational awareness and training is key too.
That sitaution with the guy with the AK in Ohio was shocking. But reacting quickly and getting behind cover is the key to survival. Terrible situation, but you've got to bail out of the front of the car, get low, and move to the rear behind the wheels/axel. Then shoot under to hit is feet.
People should understand that moving targets are harder to hit, so do stay still. Watch their flanks. And understand the difference between cover and concealment for normal things.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/
Now, I understand that combat involves suppressive full auto fire that cops don't typically employ... but I'd say a 50% hit ratio in combat (given the stress, movement, cover and concealment, and distances, is simply outstanding.
Having said that, I'd say carrying more ammo is prudent if you carry a gun, and particularly if you wear a uniform.
Situational awareness and training is key too.
That sitaution with the guy with the AK in Ohio was shocking. But reacting quickly and getting behind cover is the key to survival. Terrible situation, but you've got to bail out of the front of the car, get low, and move to the rear behind the wheels/axel. Then shoot under to hit is feet.
People should understand that moving targets are harder to hit, so do stay still. Watch their flanks. And understand the difference between cover and concealment for normal things.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
