I've written repeatedly about how much I appreciate police officers and deputy sheriffs who daily and nightly put their lives on the line for us, all over this country. And that is still true and will always be so. Too, I have written about law enforcement "leadership" and how it ~ no, let's personalize this ~ how they are failing us. Not all of them, but, yes, more than enough of them to pose a danger to us all. Yes, I know full well that they are permitted by law to fail us: we can't sue them for not protecting us as individuals. Personally, if I were hiring a police chief or sheriff, the first question I'd ask is this: Have you ever been an American, British, or Australian military officer or senior NCO in charge or command in any of the combat arms or military police disciplines, especially in combat? If I was asking you that question and your answer was No, but... I'd cut you off and politely show you the door, not giving a hoot in hell about your silly college education. You can catch up on why I feel this way by reading here and riiiight... here.
Here is a link to a story about where cops are in terms of preparing for a Mumbai-style swarm attack here in the US. Swarming engagements are characterized by multi-directional pulsing attacks usually made by a small number of crafty, highly-motivated shooters. They focus on limited objectives, have adequate weapons/ammo and comms and tactics created and rehearsed based on the lay of the land, location and structure of their targets and a high level of situational awareness. In the video, there's a police officer interviewing someone he describes as a thought leader on strategies and tactics related to responding to prolonged, multiple-location, multiple-cell, terrorist attacks. The thought leader opines: That [swarm attack] tactic is designed to get inside our decision cycle — our OODA loop — and it works. With modern communication technology they can have those multiple pulsing attacks — different locations and different groups. It’s more a unity-of-effort on their part than centralized command and control at the time. That’s something we’re going to have a hard time dealing with.
Why should a swarm attack get inside anybody's OODA loop?
Inaction might be expected of inbound officers who have not been trained properly or who are so timid ~ or otherwise somehow incapable ~ that they can't or won't move with courage and resolve. Such unqualified though sworn officers might have to stop and observe a particular situation, then orient themselves to the totality of circumstances, sort through all the options and make a decision and then finally act on that decision. That can take hours. But why can't law enforcement leaders make decisions in advance so that all the officers have to do is identify the person(s) posing the threat and then stop that threat?
It goes like this: Anyone can easily observe that terrorism is motivated by an evil, twisted supremacist ideology. All one has to do is read the truth instead of being confused by deliberate deception. Anyone can see that terrorists have declared war against all Americans, both here and abroad. These religious edicts are not concealed, nor are they vague or confusing. They are clear and unambiguous with innumerable attacks carried out by fatwa followers as they obey the sword verses in their so-called h-h-h-holy book. Anyone can see that the only thing lacking in any jihad-prone follower of the religion of submission is opportunity, and untold thousands of them are working full-time bringing that opportunity to pass, planning and practicing for a bloodbath, and many of the rest of them are complicit in their traitorous silence.
Based on all these easily discerned truths which needn't be explained to us by experts or "thought leaders"; anyone who is a reasonable man or woman can properly conclude that:
- If someone is in the middle of traffic shooting at passers-by, nobody tells the shooter to drop the gun and assume the position: first officer on the scene uses cover and concealment or just plain ol' suppressive fire to approach the shooter, preferably with a shotgun loaded with slugs and takes the shooter down with shots to COM. If someone catches a slug down-range, well, I guess it was their time to catch a round. Chances are they'll be okay.
- If someone lights a Molotov cocktail or traffic flare and prepares to toss it into a vehicle which is placed in a likely target location such as in a heavily-traveled tunnel or bridge or the parking basement of a major building, shoot that dirtbag in the head. And then make sure no fire started in the vehicle.
- If someone has a hostage, you shoot the terrorist even if it means you hit the hostage while doing it. Moreover, if terrorists ~ plural ~ have taken hostages and there is an assault on the terrorist positions, you shoot terrorists the second you see them, and don't slow down if you hit hostages ~ plural. If you're a cop and you haven't read this book, then I want you out of my city because you're a lazy, stupid clown.
- If you're making a check of the local mall and you hear a gunshot around the corner by the salon and when you round the corner see a man with his back turned to you but with an AK47 raised into a shooting position and aiming toward a group of screaming, fleeing customers, you do not say Halt, drop the gun and put your hands in the air. Advancing toward him ~ or her ~ you shoot that POS with no warning, preferably in the head with at least three rounds. Kneel before you shoot so the bullets are rising as they strike and explode his skull. Or hers.
That takes two links out of the chain, like so: I observe someone committing a terrorist act ~ or just something that is clearly a deadly criminal act ~ therefore I act to stop that person immediately using all the firepower I brought with me. In other words: I see a terrorist therefore I shoot the terrorist. I don't negotiate. I don't chat. I don't skitter back to my unit and wait for back-up. I don't try to shoot him in the leg. I don't let him take a hostage into a building. I shoot that fucker where he or she stands. Why is that so hard to decide? Because it steps outside the "civilized" rules by which "enlightened" western leaders think we must play. In their "evolved" view ~ which comes from listening to lame, leftist, pussy, never-been-in-a-fight-in-my-entire-life-and-don't-want-to-be-in-one college professors ~ getting punched in the face is to be answered by apologizing for being in the way of the bad-guy fist.
In every town in which a terrorist attack might conceivably be committed, those in charge of protecting the people need to make several decisions in advance, before a bad-guy of any stripe pulls a trigger or a grenade pin: If they do this, we do that... immediately, automatically. Yes, I understand that individual situations determine tactics, but there must be principles in place and in force and accepted as SOP by every single sworn street officer or deputy before the attack. The fact that Officer Smith was 75# overweight, has not qualified with his duty pistol or the shotgun for the last four years and has repeatedly intimated to colleagues that he has no intention of ever drawing his sidearm so why bother to train or qualify and that his former friends have noticed some of these changes in his life and behavior must not be part of the "situation" that leads him to do what he will or will not do.
Get it? Every officer must be fully and honestly committed to the mission, capable and willing to carry out the pre-determined measures and tactics required for victory. There can be no other way, or people will die.
To demonstrate how far law enforcement might be behind the power curve on this vital issue, allow me to parse the article linked to above, text of article in blue, my response italicized: Don’s essentially describing a leaderless effort. Hmmm, where have I recently heard about a leaderless effort that has involved a significant police response? Terrorists are not leaderless OWS dirtbags. Their leader is Muhammad. And even if that were not true; as you can read here, the LeT in Mumbai were receiving orders and encouragement from Pakistani ISI through their "Army of the Pure" brothers back in Pakistan. They were not leaderless. A leader motivates and gives commands in order to reach a specific objective. Muhammad and the Qur'an are exquisitely clear on what are the motivators and objectives of "the brothers" and "sisters". How can Don be called a thought leader when he can't discern what is so easily seen? Were he to see this, he'd be able to take those two links out of his OODA chain, too.
The article continues: On the very day Don and I sat down for the above video interview (September 18th), protestors in the now-infamous “Occupy” movement had held control of Zuccotti Park for fewer than 24 hours. On that day, practically no one outside of Manhattan knew who they were or what they were up to. Since then, the phenomenon has gone global, and has maximized the very communications technology about which Don and I spoke that sunny Sunday in Virginia two months ago. We need to do some serious thinking about how we’re going to monitor (and manage a response) to Twitter-based tactical movements by the opposition, whether they are peaceful, First Amendment protesters or radical terrorists bent on destruction. That's easy, Don. With great speed, courage, and resolve; you outrun their comms. You have decisions in place before things go south so there is no delay, no lip-biting, no hand-wringing, no brow-wrinkling... only lightning quick, unexpected, audacious attack attack attack. This is war. Stop taking your lessons from what worked once upon a time. Stop setting policy based on lies you don't have the guts to disbelieve and bury.
“You may be the first to arrive,” [...} “In Mumbai these terrorists engaged and outgunned the first responders. Even if multiple attacks were launched first responders will have a different perspective. You will have to prepare yourself to meet challenges in one incident at a time. Your concern will be one hallway, one room, one gunman or more, who lie in front of you to the left of you, to the right of you, above you, below you, or even behind you. You will have to make the decision to contact or contain. This is bullshit. If cops do this, any and every active shooter a/o hostage situation will turn into another Beslan ~ hundreds of unnecessarily dead innocents. Your decision may require you to risk your life to save lives." WTF? You haven't made this decision already? They why are you a cop in the first place? So you can drive fast cars, carry a gun and fuck with people?
“Above all, this will be a fight of the patrol officer in the first minutes of the attack. This type of matter is going to be settled in the first 20 minutes and it’s going to be affected by patrol. It won't be "settled", but the outcome will be decided in the first 5 minutes, whether the event takes 5 minutes, hours, or days. The event may still be ongoing, but by responding well and quickly, the severity of the attack can be seriously mitigated.” How does the chief of an 18-man police force in a "village" south of Chicago come up with that number, "first 20 minutes"? The Olympia Fields PD site is here. Their mission statement: "... every member of the Olympia Fields Police Dept. is to seek and find ways to promote, preserve and deliver a feeling of security, safety and quality services to all members of the community".
To seek... a feeling? Huh? You mean they haven't figured this shit out yet? They don't know now? Hey, Chief, guess what: it's first and foremost your responsibility, your freakin' job to "seek and find ways..." and make sure your guys get it, believe in it, obey it and perform it when the metal hits the meat.
[...] “I know this: If an attack like the one at Mumbai strikes [is committed in] a U.S. community, ordinary police officers will run to the sound of the gunfire. No, some of them will not show up, choosing to be disciplined or fired later for their willing and witting failure. Those officers will use whatever they are issued — or can scrounge — and will fight to the best of their ability. And, in so responding, many of those officers will die. We owe those officers as much practical training and equipment as we can muster, to enhance their effectiveness ... and survival. They will go, with or without preparation.” Some of them will go, some of them will cower, and some of them will crouch behind cars because "leadership" doesn't want to issue any orders that will fuck up their personal golden parachutes.
Could a Mumbai-style attack happen in Seattle or San Diego, Miami or Manhattan? You bet it could. Are American law enforcers preparing for the coming swarm? I [bleeping] hope so. I fucking hope so. There I said it for him. He's so worried about getting criticized for throwing an F-bomb, what will he be worried about when he's indexed and moving to the sound of the guns?
Stay safe, my brothers and sisters. If the parting motto in LE is now an admonition to stay safe, what does that signify?
Read his woeful, cowardly story here and here. The story here explains that the Big Z ordered his men to stand down for "about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers".
And Chief Z and the city atty are bald-faced liars for trying to ram this lie down the throats of the people of B'ton.
I've gone this far, I might as well go all the way. If you looked at the video at the link above, Don Alwes, who I remind you is a thought leader on strategies and tactics related to responding to prolonged, multiple-location, multiple-cell, terrorist attacks, is on his way to being the size of some of the police officers and deputies depicted below. How can he be taken seriously when he's forfeited his right to get into the fight by being unfit? One major principle of leadership is, say it with me: Lead by example. So, cops are supposed to look at Alwes, a leader, and follow him. Why? In the first place, he's not thinking outside his freaking OODA loop, and that means he can't think ~ or hasn't yet ~ of possible ways to beat shooters in a Mumbai-type scenario. And that means until he does something more than wander around in his loop, he's not worthy of being followed. I checked his background to the extent that it's available online and he has no military training or experience so basically he's just another "husky" guy with about a quarter century of police work under his belt... and a whole lot more.
Don's an instructor for the National Tactical Officers Association, which is basically a consulting firm made up of former cops. I checked their website to get a little feel for their qualifications but, to my surprise ~ see here ~ it only talks about the history of SWAT. Looks like NTOA was put together in 2010. So, here's the deal: NTOA does training for SWAT teams around the country, but no police department is obliged in any way to take their training, no matter how good that training might or might not be. Understand, I don't have anything personal against any of these guys, but I do object to one of them permitting himself to be interviewed and tagged as a thought leader. Please. If he can't come up with anything better than what he said in the clip, he doesn't know a tap-dance from taqiyyah. The NTOA doesn't need thought leaders who get stuck in OODA loops that a 19 year old Infantryman can navigate in about a half a second.
Fat and dumb... hands do not get stuck into pockets.
Wanna read the qualifications of the NTOA Chief Executive Officer straight from their website? Here goes: NTOA welcomes Mark Lomax as its new Executive Director. Mr. Lomax brings us a unique set of qualifications, with an exceptional blend of law enforcement, training and academic experience. A retired major with the Pennsylvania State Police, Mr. Lomax subsequently served as training manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and then as a program manager for the United Nations Mission in Liberia. He has conducted strategic planning and management consultations for small and mid-sized businesses, and has prior experience in the non-profit arena, having served as chairman of the Anti-Violence Partnership of Philadelphia. Mr. Lomax holds master’s degrees in both Higher Education and Business Administration.
This guy is a Sergeant? Somebody has put him in charge of something!
Where are the parts about how many hostage situations Lomax successfully negotiated a/o how many SWAT teams he's trained and commanded and led into this or that many barricaded gunmen or active shooter situations? There are none.
Looking at this problem from a slightly different angle, take a look here, and be sure to look at the video clip therein. My point begins making itself at 1:02, when we see that the leader, Chief John Miller, is telling us all what a baaaaaad boy one of his men was for throwing a few F-bombs around, when all the world can see Miller is a pretty bad example himself, but in a much more important segment of example...ness...ing. He's a fat, out of shape puss and with his ... that's a pet peeve of mine... aversion to profanity, has more business teaching Sunday school than he does leading warriors. The BPD mission statement reads: ... is committed to providing the city with progressive, reliable and citizen-oriented police service in the most professional and timely manner possible. This is the kind of progressive, pussy, PC leader that is going to get people killed in a terrorist situation, cops and civilians.
Okay, okay, I know I gotta wrap this up sometime but, today I'm reading about this little Muslim scumbag who felt quite sure that the best way to draw attention to his lovely religion was to kill some cops, so between 0130-0300 he starts lighting up the cozy village of Gadsden, Alabama. Been there. To Gadsden. Just bein' clear. Anyway, he shot out store windows and for about 90 minutes this guy either strolled through a slumbering residential district all on his own before the cops got there, or once the cops did show up, they let him keep on wandering through the neighborhood ~ at least 6 blocks ~ hoping they could calm him down and not have to shoot him. Reading the article, I tend to think they let him wander around shooting until they thought they'd calmed down the lad.
Got that? They let this guy meander through several city blocks of sleepy neighborhood hoping they could talk him out of that gun he had. Really?
Remember that little dude up at the top of this post? That's the Gadsden shooter, Luis Ibarra-Hernandez, not an OWS dipshit. As the story here tells you, the cops were not so worried about the mayhem little Luis could have inflicted by skipping merrily into any one of many many houses in the area and commencing to shoot the crap out of as many of the locals as he could as they were about following the rules they learned on the shooting range once a year:
- They avoided shooting each other. Nice.
- Rather than audaciously going after the shooter to close the distance with the enemy and stop him with close-in fire, they didn't fire at all, lest one of their bullets accidentally hit a slumbering Gadsdenite. This "safety consciousness" ignored the fact that the shooter himself could have been accidentally killing an innocent villager with each and every shot he fired... permitted to do so by cops who would not and did not shoot because they were worried about wounding even one.
Google: Dwight Baptist Church, Gadsden, Alabama and look at the map.
The shooter was in a neighborhood, not an empty industrial park. He was shooting at windows to draw in the police. But there were people in the houses all around. At any moment he could have done a left or a right and been inside a nice rambler to terrorize and destroy as many families ~ ones loved by somebody ~ until Gadsden PD decided to man up.
- Cops didn't know if he was trying to draw them into an ambush, more shooters. They let the enemy choose the spot of the battle, something which should never be done. GPD could have chosen the battle ground at any time.
- Cops didn't know if the shooter was going to put up a fight and then fake surrender when he had enough cops around him and then detonate a bomb to kill them all
- Cops didn't know if the shooter would kill them all with a bomb and then kill even more people ~ second responders ~ with a secondary device when they screamed up to the bloody scene to help save lives
So, they got lucky this time. Luis was just another dipshit amateur wannabe terrorist who couldn't find his butt with both hands. Sure. Keep telling yourself that, chief.
Okay, let's wrap up. It's clear here that police brass is capable of learning lessons. I guess. But, I wonder if they will ever get these truths:
- Lots of people knew your lessons learned before you wasted time, money, energy and reputation on your song and dance drills
- Lots of "civilians" are in better physical shape and know more about battle tactics than do you and your exalted SWAT guys and NTOA consultants
- Lots of these "civilians" that you think need to be herded into buses and evacuated when the first Mumbai-like shots ring out would actually be quite willing to go on the attack with you and your guys ~ maybe even lead some of your dummies since about 95% of your guys don't know jack about urban warfare
- If you and your men and women can't pass an Army PT test, you have no business running around with guns telling warriors what to do in a shooting situation. You may have the legal authority, but you don't have the moral right.
C'mon, Chief. You know you want to ...