Eric Haney on Schools as Targets

I agree with what is being stated here as far as putting team(s) together to handle such a threat/takeover. While I don't agree with the idea or proposal to "miltarize" the Police here in this country, I, on the other hand, will never agree to have the military act as Law Enforcement and/or a SWAT Team in my little corner of the world. The military has no business in civllian affairs in this country unless the incident takes place on a base, fort, camp, or port.

TS, I bleed red blood and took an oath to defend the Constitution of this great nation just like you did. We have a wall in DC to prove it and new names get added every year because of that oath and for dying for dying for people who most of the time we don't even know. We are not perfect and neither are you when it comes to handling these types of attacks. 9/11 convinced us all of that. I agree we need better training and allot "shorter leash". We also need better equipment. Maybe down the road it will happen via grants, new laws, and/or directives from the State or Federal government. Unfortunately another incident may have to happen to get the ball rolling. Columbine will still be studied for years to come because of what happened there. Out of that came the "active shooter(s)" model for response. Although not a perfect way of doing things we are still going to have the first four officers to arrive on scene going in and confronting him/her/them. Suicide? Probably. But even in the best of situations "intel" about who, what, where, and how will be sketchy at best from students and teachers running past you crying and screaming hysterically. This is our training.

Bottom line is I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by MAB32

Bottom line is I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Disagree all you like the bottom line is the LEO’s are not trained or equipped to take on terrorists. Hollywood, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Columbine have already proved (beyond a doubt) the Fed, State and local LEO capabilities. We’re not talking crack-heads or armed robbers, we’re talking terrorists that have but one motivation, to kill.
Let me throw out a phrase the LEO’s do not use, “acceptable losses”. Tell me that the LEO’s will enter a situation knowing they will/might take 10-30% losses? Not a chance.
I never questioned any LEO’s patriotism, I know you guys bleed red and I sleep well knowing you guys (and gals) are on duty 24/7. My point was the military can and will be ordered into a situation where there will be military losses. Civilian LEO’s can quit and walk away at anytime. Don’t tell me that Joe LEO is ready to “close with” twenty- forty AK carrying, bomb wearing, crazed terrorists on the command of his local police chief, that dog ain’t going to hunt.

Disagree all you like, just pray it never happens on US soil with a jimmy carter type in office.

Before you continue may I divert your attention to the paragraphs below, please take a minute to peruse them. This is a sample of what Special Forces soldiers are trained in and prepared to execute on command. (My comments are not derived from staying at a Holiday Inn or reading books on terrorism, I’ve spent a few years working in this field….)




http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/ct.php

“Counterterrorism (CT). These are operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism. SOF's role and additive capability is to conduct offensive measures within DOD's overall combatting terrorism efforts. SOF conduct CT missions as special operations by covert, clandestine, or low visibility means. SOF's activities within CT include, but are not limited to, intelligence operations, attacks against terrorist networks and infrastructures, hostage rescue, recovery of sensitive material from terrorist organizations, and non-kinetic activities aimed at the ideologies or motivations that spawn terrorism:
Intelligence Operations. These are operations to collect, exploit, and report information on terrorist organizations, personnel, assets, and/or activities. SOF have the capability to conduct these operations in an overt, covert, and/or clandestine manner.
Network and Infrastructure Attacks. These are operations that involve preemptive strikes against terrorist organizations with the objective of destroying, disorganizing, or disarming terrorist organizations before they can strike targets of national interest.
Hostage or Sensitive Materiel Recovery. These are operations conducted to rescue hostages and/or recover sensitive materiel from terrorist control, requiring capabilities not normally found in conventional military units. The safety of the hostages and preventing destruction of the sensitive materiel are essential mission requirements.
Non-Kinetic Activities. These are actions that are focused on defeating the ideologies or motivations that spawn terrorism by non-kinetic means. These could include, but are not limited to, PSYOP, IO, CA operations, UW and/or FID.”

[JGarcia]

If armed terrorists are on US soil, I think it could be qualified as a military strike on US soil. That being the case, the DOD is the owner of those targets. I wouldnt even imagine that posse comitatus applies. You wouldnt roll out the local SWAT team when BMP's are rolling down the street. If billy bob has a knife on his mamas throat, while his kids watch, thats a job for swat. If 3 guys hold up in a school with machine guns and explosives, that should be a military target.

But without a doubt, when you have what you had in Russia, combatants with RPG's, machine guns, and explosives, there is no room in that for police, except for perimeter security to keep civilians away.

For a long time the police in the US have had aspirations of being more like the military, and as TS metioned earlier, without success. Wearing a Kpot and weilding an M4 does not an operator make.

I read a book a few years back, I think it was called "Killology" by a LTC. So and So. He described police as Sheep Dogs, and the military as Wolves.

[skibum]

On Killing... LTC Grossman's web site is www.killology.com

LTC Grossman describes aggressive sociopaths (whether gang-bangers, Middle-Eastern tyrants, video game-addicted shut-ins, religeous zealots or what have you) as wolves hunting the sheep, and LE/Mil as sheepdogs protecting the flock.

As a Marine turned LE, I have to agree with the Team Sergeant about the mindset of cops vs military. Cops really like to talk about "civilians don't do this, civilians don't understand that," but almost universally have no conception the true difference between military and civilians.
A great majority think a 300 yard center mass rifle hit with iron sights is something magical.
Colonel Grossman may or may not rightfully include LE in the calssification of "warriors," but I'd have to add that a great many of them(us) are under-trained, under-motivated and over-paid. NDD may recall a reply I made to his thread on SocNet with a similar subject matter. My department did away with physical standards before I joined... as civil servants, some (or the FOP lawyers) argued that if you weren't going to physically train your force, you could not require physical fitness standards.

Razor knows, my department is the one that dealt with the Columbine H.S. shootings. He's heard my <ahem> strong views on the subject, but on an open forum, I'll just say that for the last two years, our active shooter response training (bearing the grandiose, military ninja warrior name of "RAID" for Rapid And Immediate Deployment) has consisted of four hours of training PER YEAR, of walk-through hallway and room clearing practice (not to be confused with drills or exercises or, God forbid, training). No shooting on the move at small moving targets. No precision shooting (HA! As if). No force-on-force with simmunitions or even paintballs. No IED recognition. No secondary device awareness/avoidance.

Four hours.

Is that 'nuff said on the warrior mindset/mentality of LE? (I know, I know, this is anecdotal and a single sample... but wouldn't you think we would want to be prepared to handle things better next time if a similar situation arose?)

HOWEVER (you knew there had to be a "However," didn't you?), Colonel Grossman argues (convincingly I think) that LE patrol HAS to be the responders... it takes our SWAT Team a minimum of 45 minutes to muster on an emergency call out. My rough estimate is it would take about 90 minutes for a dedicated SMU from the 10th SFG (assuming purely for the sake of discussion that there was such an SMU), with an element continually on standby, to reach Columbine. The shooting was over in 20 minutes. How long would it take for this military force to reach Cheyenne? Albuquerque?

A Beslam-type school hostage-taking? Heck, yeah, send in the first string, and I don't mean FBI's HRT.

But for a fire team of Mujahideen running through the halls of Elementary School, USA, the best (not perfect) solution is to gun them down like the rabid dogs they are (or "wolves," if you will) ASAP. Can LE do that at our current state of mindset, tactics, skill? I doubt it, and it will be a steep, horrific learning curve when we're caught - and we will be - with our trousers down. (recognize that "mindset, tactics, skill, etc," Razor?)

Believe me, I don't think for a second that LE is capable of conducting counter-terrorist operations, for a whole host of reasons that go beyond civil servant mindset vs warrior mindset, but the differences in mindset is the biggest stumbling block by far. If we experience school shootings of the type the Isrealis suffered in the mid-to-late 20th century, we're going to have to learn to immediately flood the area with gunfighters (of whatever flavor) and accept some casualties. I happen to think we're at war, or anyway Islam's at war with us, and the less time spent in the denial stage the better.

I've been wrong before, though

[Razor]

Good post, skibum. However, having seen you shoot (albeit on a relatively static range) I don't think you have much to worry about in the 'lack of training' department.

The biggest difference that I have seen between Mil and LEO mindset (from an outsider's view of LEO, mind you) is captured in the seemingly popular LEO logo '1*'.

[NousDefionsDoc]

How so on the logo Razor?

[Razor]

As was explained to me once, it's a play on the phrase "One Ass to Risk", and serves as a reminder to LE officers that they are putting their life on the line everytime they leave the station. Therefore, they should consider the danger before taking actions that could get them killed. *

While soldiers and their leaders need to be aware of the dangers involved in a mission and mitigate those within their sphere of control, mission completion comes first. You may not want to assault the well defended machine gun bunker, but if its standing between you and the OBJ with no way around it, by God you do what you have to to get the job done.

* Note: this was how it was explained to me by a cop buddy, so if other LEOs have a different interpretation of the logo, please feel free to educate me on your point of view.

[Team Sergeant]

Great post Skibum…. I concur with most of what you said and totally agree with your statement;

“ a fire team of Mujahideen running through the halls of Elementary School, USA, the best (not perfect) solution is to gun them down like the rabid dogs they are (or "wolves," if you will) ASAP”
Every police dept can have an “Emergency Shooting Response Plan”. That needs to be in place with every police department throughout the United States.

Unlike SGM Haney I don’t think teaching LEO’s “how to kill” is the answer. It would not come off well with the other 99% of their everyday line of work. You would end up with a very aggressive police force and one the “people” would not want “protecting” them.

I don’t have al the answers, but my plan for a few “Domestic Counter-terrorist units is better than the SGM’s in my opinion.

TS

[skibum]

"1*" = "one asterisk" = "one ass to risk"

I'm sure you didn't need me to explain that, though, NDD.

[skibum]

Two years ago, my department made a feeble effort to get everyone "IC 200" trained (It's a part of the ICS - Incident Command System, pioneered by wildfire agencies but based on the military model of a command staff)... we spent 4 - 6 hours bitching (not me, of course, being a new guy I professionally kept my big mouth shut) and listening to a guy who didn't really understand it himself try to "teach" it to us. We were doing it to "get on with this Homeland Security stuff" as one Lieutenant explained it.

Having gone through the training a year earlier as the training officer for the water rescue team where I live, I wondered why it took two days of solid, knowledgeable instruction to seasoned, motivated rescuers, and only half a day to cops who don't know (or care to) the difference between ABCs and AEDs.

Now I know.

I'm sure that, if asked, someone on the staff here will say we have an Emergency Shooting Response Plan, and may even be able to come up with something that sounds reasonable (not doable... two different critters in LE), but if you ask one of the rank and file, you'll get a blank stare. That's a long-winded way to say that, yes, every department needs to have one, but don't.

Of course, I may be tarring all of LE with the same brush; one of my Sgts agrees with me that we are way behind when it comes to training, and says that other metro agencies do better. But, Jesus Christ, there are cops and staff here that will have to live the rest of their lives with what they did (or failed to do) at Columbine! The whole blame/ lawsuit/ risk/ career jeopardy avoidance keeps us from learning from our mistakes. I can only hope that others are smarter.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Razor

As was explained to me once, it's a play on the phrase "One Ass to Risk", and serves as a reminder to LE officers that they are putting their life on the line everytime they leave the station. Therefore, they should consider the danger before taking actions that could get them killed. *

While soldiers and their leaders need to be aware of the dangers involved in a mission and mitigate those within their sphere of control, mission completion comes first. You may not want to assault the well defended machine gun bunker, but if its standing between you and the OBJ with no way around it, by God you do what you have to to get the job done.

* Note: this was how it was explained to me by a cop buddy, so if other LEOs have a different interpretation of the logo, please feel free to educate me on your point of view.

Ah so. I knew of the logo, wasn't sure of the relationship to the topic. Thanks for claifying. I'm not sure I agree, but it doesn't really matter. Another example on those lines would be the "no pursuit" rules for high speed chases? I can imagine the response if I was told to "Break it off, we'll get him another day." LOL.

I think the main point is each organization is different and very little good can come from crossing lines. IMO, the military doesn't do a good job when we are asked to police either. I have first hand knowledge of that little tidbit.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Ah so. I knew of the logo, wasn't sure of the relationship to the topic. Thanks for claifying. I'm not sure I agree, but it doesn't really matter. Another example on those lines would be the "no pursuit" rules for high speed chases? I can imagine the response if I was told to "Break it off, we'll get him another day." LOL.

I think the main point is each organization is different and very little good can come from crossing lines. IMO, the military doesn't do a good job when we are asked to police either. I have first hand knowledge of that little tidbit.

That's exactly what happened to us..."Doc and Rat, you guys stand down"! Meanwhile we have five fuckin guys stranded downtown Baghdad and we are the only two that know where they are at!

"Fuck this...we are going back in to get these guys."

The QRF were being led by LEO. Guess what? We had to slow down three times for them to keep up!

The mindset between the military and LEO are totally different! No slam on the LEO community!

Here is something to think about though...
-When an LEO kills an individual...they automatically get admin leave, counseling and taken off the street for a period of time.

-When the military must seek and destroy(kill)...we get up next day to do it all over again.

Gotta cook, I'll write more later...

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Ah so. I knew of the logo, wasn't sure of the relationship to the topic. Thanks for claifying. I'm not sure I agree, but it doesn't really matter. Another example on those lines would be the "no pursuit" rules for high speed chases? I can imagine the response if I was told to "Break it off, we'll get him another day." LOL.

I think the main point is each organization is different and very little good can come from crossing lines. IMO, the military doesn't do a good job when we are asked to police either. I have first hand knowledge of that little tidbit.

So True, So True. Soliders are good at fighting and killing, not policing and "protecting the peace" where as cops are good at the opposite. In my little neck of the woods we have had 3 very serious situations in the past 2 months.

1st was a barricaded subject holding his girlfriend hostage (This guy just got out of prision, his conviction was for homicide on his BROTHER). Luckly the guys on scene were very good negotiators and talked the guy out (lucky for us that is).

2nd went out as a "Domestic in Progress Shots Fired" it turned out to be a Double homicide, an individual killed his girlfriend and her daughter at point blank range with a 30/30. He takes off into the woods, the local PD SWAT team is called out. They track him (well better yet they walk in the direction our Tactical Tracker told them to go) While the Patrol and Tactical Tracker sit back (b/c our admin said so). They make contact with the guy in the woods, at night, and he ends up killing himself.

3rd was just the other night it goes out as a "Domestic in progress with shots fired." 5 patrol Deputies arrive on scene and they start approaching the house when they hear a shot to the right of there position, they back away from the house and start moving towards the sound of were the shot was fired. They see the guy (he's about 35 yards away) He's order to drop the gun...blah, blah, blah, he points his 30-06 at them. 3 Deputies shoot, 2 shotguns (2 buckshot, and 1 got a second round off which was a Slug) 1 pistol is fired. ZERO hits. The guy makes it back into the house. 2 other Deputies who were on scene had AR-15's (they did not fire). Long story short they call the local PD SWAT team out set up a perimeter, and 3 hours later he surrendors.

Here is the scariest part this last situation my good friend who was on scene said, "Ya, it was pretty scary as soon as I got there, because they had just shot at him, he fled, and it took us a pretty long time to set up a parimeter." My response, "Why didn't the guys close ground on him and neutralize him?" His response, "Don't know we haven't gotten debriefed yet." This was 4 days after the shooting.

Lessons learned.
1. All subjects had rifles
2. All subjects had fired shots (either during or prior to Patrol arriving)
3. No one closed with the Bad Guy and Neutralized him!

What has been done with the lessoned learned?
NOT A DAMN THING!!!

This mentality is why I completely agree with having the 1st String (and it isn't an LEO team) should be called in to deal with hostages situations!

I think we (as a nation) should take a stance of "If you take a Hostage, we are calling you a terrorist and dealing with you as such!"

Just my .02 cents


Edit: Cause I can't spell or fully proof read

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yeah Joe, I pretty much sucked at LEOing in Panama after JC.

"Who did it?" "Juan." "Well, let's go kick his ass."

I don't have the patience to listen to everybody's side of the story.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by skibum

HOWEVER (you knew there had to be a "However," didn't you?), Colonel Grossman argues (convincingly I think) that LE patrol HAS to be the responders... it takes our SWAT Team a minimum of 45 minutes to muster on an emergency call out. My rough estimate is it would take about 90 minutes for a dedicated SMU from the 10th SFG (assuming purely for the sake of discussion that there was such an SMU), with an element continually on standby, to reach Columbine. The shooting was over in 20 minutes. How long would it take for this military force to reach Cheyenne? Albuquerque?

A Beslam-type school hostage-taking? Heck, yeah, send in the first string, and I don't mean FBI's HRT.

But for a fire team of Mujahideen running through the halls of Elementary School, USA, the best (not perfect) solution is to gun them down like the rabid dogs they are (or "wolves," if you will) ASAP. Can LE do that at our current state of mindset, tactics, skill? I doubt it, and it will be a steep, horrific learning curve when we're caught - and we will be - with our trousers down. (recognize that "mindset, tactics, skill, etc," Razor?)

skibum:

Great post.

You have the facts, I am merely operating off my external observations. I would just add that I will always wonder why the SRO at Columbine exchanged only a few shots before withdrawing to let the scumbags go on their killing spree. I do not have the details, but I have always felt (as a soldier) that if I am the only thing between bad guys with guns and the kids, you will find me dead or having run out of ammo. That is your job, and you owe it to the kids.

Finally, I would point out that 20 minutes after the shooting started, the teacher who bled out was still alive and the kids with him were begging for help. This is unsat, IMHO. The SRO calls in the report and shoots untill he is unable to return fire. If he is still able, he reports and controls the initial reponders till somone better equipped to be in charge shows up. The SRO needs a weapons locker with at least a shotgun and a patrol carbine, and all patrol units should be outfitted the same, raid vests, helmets, masks, and comms packages. You give me 2-4 guys to pull perimeter security and as soon as two more show up, we are stacking up and going in.

I cannot believe that with all of the money being spent on homeland security, and with ammo and training as cheap as it is (certainly cheaper than litigation), that your department has not instituted mandatory CQB training with a crawl, walk, run scenario, culminating in a force on force Sims drill. That would at least ID the non-hackers and give the rest some confidence in their equipment and training.

TS is right, we understand that this (or North Hollywood, etc.) are very rare incidents and you probably do a lot more domestic violence, sexual assaults, and larcenies than full on shootouts.

If the situation lasts till we can get there, a dedicated military unit is the best option. Prior to that you must have an in extremis force to do what they have to and BPT immediately assault if the sit goes bad. That is where the Russians failed as well.

Thanks for sharing.

TR