Quite a few things stood out about this ballistic shield.  At NIJ Standard 0101.06 Level III, AMI states the MAS will stop (pistol and) rifle rounds to include:

• 7.62mm X 51 M80 NATO FMJ
• 5.56mm LeMas Urban Warfare
• 5.56mm M193 FMJ
• 6.8mm 110 gr OTM
• 30-06 M2 FMJ
• 7.62mm X 39 M43 Steel Core FMJ
• 12 Gauge High Velocity Slug
• (Armored Mobility notes–will not stop 5.56 M855 green tip)

The 15” X 38” Mobile Armored Shield does this at a weight of just 16 pounds!  Many shields on the market possess only Level IIIa capability at nearly double the weight.  The 18” X 38” MAS weighs 22 lbs.

AMI states that Dyneema UD-HB25, a high performance polyethylene fiber 15 times stronger than steel and by weight 40 times stronger than comparable aramid fibers, makes up the core of the MAS.  It is sheathed in a patented military ballistic grade jacket.

The MAS is designed for “tactical mobility,” and as such is narrow for maneuverability and portability.  To increase the coverage of protection, multiple Mobile Armored Shields can be overlapped together with their Lightweight Shield Connecting System.

Berritto said something like, “Watch this,” and threw a competitor’s heavy steel armor plate at a MAS.  Thunk!  It stuck to the front of the shield.  Magnetic.  Ahhhh.  You can “up armor” a police cruiser or other vehicle by affixing a MAS, or MAS’s, to the exterior.  Berritto said his shields stick like 100 mile-an-hour tape to a car.  AMI knows this because they did high speed, harsh condition driving tests to prove that they will.

In addition to the backside grab-handles, there are ballistic nylon loops with rubberized hand grips, two on each side, which make the MAS a field-expedient litter for moving wounded or serving as a backboard.  And the MAS actually floats for water rescue!

AMI products are Made in America.  A 15” X 38” Mobile Armored Shield starts at $2750, the larger 18” X 38” is $3300.  AMI also makes some very interesting lightweight Level III rifle plates.

I was impressed with the features and versatility of the Mobile Armored Shield.  We face escalating threats at work.  While many SWAT Teams have at least vest plates for rifle protection, the lion’s share of shields out there are only at Level IIIa.  I’d love to have a MAS in the trunk of my cruiser for street duty.

Randall is a twenty-four year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department.  He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective, and SWAT Team Leader.  He is currently the K9 Unit Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

The SWATSCOPE is a hand held tactical sniper periscope that extends 22 1/2″ above the operator and provides a safe view of hostile territory with a 4X to 9X zoom lens. The aluminum body of the scope is sheathed in 4 mil removable 3M CamoClad material that is flat black. The optics consist of high quality glass prisms and lenses.

Some kind of magic goes on inside the angled tubes of this SWATSCOPE that keeps the image viewed through the eyepiece at the proper upright orientation to the user, no matter how the unit is rotated! It can even be turned 90 degrees to look around a corner and be viewed normally without adjustment. This makes for canting one’s head or trying to decipher a sideways image unnecessary.

As for other features, there is a belt or utility hook on the left side of the unit to temporarily free up the user’s hands when necessary. The SWATSCOPE can be fitted to a tripod or monopod by using the threaded mount in the handle.

The upper prism is protected by anodized aluminum guards, which are threaded for an optional anti reflection device. There is an attachment point for a flashlight or IR illuminator on the head. The basic SWATSCOPE comes equipped with an aluminum hard case and a black MOLLE compatible soft nylon carry case.

Weighing 20.6 oz, the scope is 17.62″ retracted and 28.125″ fully extended. Its field of view is 9.5 degrees at 4X and 5.0 degrees at 9X. The MSRP for the basic kit is only $349.00.

An upgraded scout sniper periscope kit has all the same features of the basic kit with the additions of desert camo 3M covering, tan soft case, a PVS-14 adapter clamp, and included anti reflection device. The upgraded kit has an MSRP of $600.00.

I tested out both the basic and upgraded units at the SHOT Show floor. It provided very stable imagery over the booth dividers. Long range viewing was very clear, as you could see through doorways between three large conference areas. I was even able to snap a few images at the eyepiece with my digital camera.

This isn’t your grade school version of the two mirrors and a milk carton periscope. The SWATSCOPE has an NSN and is used by the Military, federal agencies, and law enforcement. With its rotating image and zoom power, it is, in my opinion, a very nice covert surveillance tool.

This vest is build specifically for the officer or operator who needs to take aboard a large payload of shotgun shells. Previously, I told you how I felt about the police shotgun in today’s patrol environment and it was favorable.

A shotgun is also a valuable tool in a SWAT situation. The shotgun is undoubtedly the most devastating close quarter weapon that can be wielded by a team member. In some agencies, the shotgun is employed to facilitate door breaching.

Using purpose-specific frangible shotgun rounds, an officer can quickly shoot out door hinges or locks to gain entry to a structure. This is a high liability pursuit with much training and practice mandatory.

Both the patrolman and the tactical officer will find comfort in having a staggering 56 rounds of shotgun power available in an Uncle Mike’s Shot Gunner’s Vest.

This load-bearing vest is made from high quality nylon. Its key features are four large flapped pockets, which have individual elastic loops for shotgun shells. Each pocket can hold up to 14 rounds.

The pocket covers are held down with Velcro and have a small removable colored tab that can be affixed. The tabs come in red and yellow and are intended to identify lethal and less lethal rounds, respectively. More on this in a moment.

There are padded non-skid panels at each shoulder to grab the butt of a long gun. Two utility pockets ride above the shotgun bomb bays. The back of the vest supports a drag handle and full MOLLE webbing.

The Shot Gunner’s Vest is hydration bladder compatible and the vest will fit a 72” girth. A generous amount of buckles and straps assist the center zipper in providing a good fit.

I covered the virtues of a bail-out vest in a previous article, and this Shot Gunner’s Vest can be a boon to those who do not have access to a long rifle. If I had to charge into a man-with-a-gun call armed with the standard 870, this vest would give me the extra rounds necessary to stay in the fight.

Though not that commonly seen, a third use for a vest of this type would be for a gasman, or grenadier, to carry 12 ga. OC or CS ferret rounds. We have used these types of gas-delivering munitions from perimeter positions into rooms or vehicles on SWAT calls.

My thought on the red and yellow tabs: I do not feel that less lethal impact and lethal ammunition should be mixed, ever. End of story. An officer issued a less lethal shotgun should not even have a standard shotgun or its shells in his car. There are too many opportunities for an accident or negligence in this configuration.

I can see a patrol officer using the tabs to mark pouches for buckshot and slugs, however. A breacher or gasman might also tab the pockets between breaching rounds, gas rounds, and standard ammunition, too, so this function is not all bad.

Since I have a load-bearing vest outfitted for my duty AR-15, I loaned this Uncle Mike’s shotgun vest to another officer for a long-term test. I’ll check back with you to let you know what he filled it with. He seemed thrilled when he first examined it, so I’m betting he likes it.

Randall is a twenty-four year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department. He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective, and SWAT Team Leader. He is currently the K9 Unit Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

A negotiator from the Pasco County (FL) Sheriff’s Office was able to make contact with a barricaded gunman through Facebook.  It seems the subject was holed up in a backyard shed with a handgun and a computer.  The negotiator was not able to establish contact via phone, but learned the man had a Facebook account.  So, he sent a friend request to the gunman.

The subject accepted the friend request, and entered into chat with the negotiator.  Eventually, the man came out and was taken into custody without injury.

Good thinking on the negotiator’s part to use all of the options available to him to resolve the incident peacefully.  More information at the St. Petersburg Times.

By the way, you can connect with BlueSheepdog on Facebook as well.

Several years ago, while I was still a Team Leader in SWAT, our commander found some unspent funds at the end of a fiscal year. Since the money would go back into the municipality’s general fund, we were urged to purchase any needed equipment.

We had borrowed a neighboring city’s remote pole-mounted camera on a few operations. The consensus of the TL’s and ATL’s was that buying our own would be a good use of the financial windfall.

Borrowing the other agency’s camera usually involved a time delay and the commandeering of one of their operators. Delays can be critical during an in-progress incident. In addition, issues can arise when intermixing operators from different teams.

We bought a Tactical Electronics pole camera that has a wireless monitor. We felt this increased officer safety by splitting the responsibilities of handling the pole camera and viewing the monitor between two officers, instead of one.

The camera handler can better focus on his or her surroundings while manipulating the pole. The monitor viewer can be in a safe, or safer, location either nearby or hundreds of feet away, communicating by voice or radio.

The unit we purchased has black and white and color infrared camera heads, so no visible light is needed. The camera can be deployed stealthily in total darkness.

Upon receiving the camera, each officer on the team was given familiarity training in setting up the system and using it as both the camera handler and monitor viewer. The officers were also trained as lethal cover for the camera handler.

We found it takes patience and clear communication between the camera handler and monitor viewer to make this system effective and efficient for search work.

A pole-mounted camera is usually utilized in attic spaces, but it can also be employed to search drop ceilings, basement entryways, stairwells, under-house crawl spaces, underground drainage systems, and similar hiding areas.

Key to using a pole camera in a residence is acknowledging that ceilings and walls are concealment, not cover. We try to protect the camera handler with 360 degree fire support. In this way, any incoming fire will be met with vigorous outgoing fire.

Officers also train to utilize ballistic shields in conjunction with the pole camera system. This takes a bit of practice. As with any high-risk search work, it is all about minimizing threat angles.

A month after the murder of two St. Petersburg, FL police officers by a suspect in an attic, we had two different calls which began with similar circumstances.

In one situation, a subject with felony warrants, and a firearms arrest history, climbed into his apartment attic when a bail bondsman knocked on his door.

On-duty SWAT members were activated and I acted as the on-scene incident commander. Once the situation was fully contained and the building evacuated, we dictated the pace of our response by officer safety standards. In other words, we slowed things down.

Initial attempts to communicate with the suspect by a negotiator went unanswered. The apartment building’s attic space lacked firewalls, so the suspect could drop down into any of the eight top-floor units.

When we had adequate coverage, we deployed the camera into his attic access. The suspect was not immediately seen. The monitor viewer gave methodical instructions to the camera handler and a systematic sweep was done.

The suspect had concealed himself in the fiberglass ceiling insulation, but a very small part of him was just barely visible. The suspect was verbally challenged. He did not reply.

The monitor viewer shouted out the suspect’s exact location in relation to the attic access. We know where you are! He immediately surrendered.

Two weeks later, one of our K9′s tracked a hit and run suspect to his duplex’s door. I had trailed the dog team on the track. Both the K9 handler and I heard the guy trying to get up into his attic. He actually crashed down on the first attempt.

Although the investigation indicated the suspect may not have made it into the attic space, there was a successful resolution after we followed our established tactical doctrine and used the pole camera.

The purchase of our pole camera system was accomplished by articulating the necessity of the unit from an officer safety standpoint to our chain of command and elected officials. The camera was used in the field only after SWAT team members were fully trained and scenarios were practiced.

If your department does not have a pole-mounted camera system, develop a partnership with a neighboring agency that does. It can be an invaluable tool. Stay safe.

(Before any Internet trolls emerge, I am not critiquing the incident in St. Pete. I have either worked with or known at least four of the officers in the shoot-out itself, to include one of the deceased and the wounded federal agent. I have also reviewed the State Attorney’s factual investigation of incident. The officers acted professionally, with extreme bravery, and in accordance with policy and procedure on that day.)

Randall is a twenty-four year veteran officer of a mid-size Florida police department. He served as a SWAT team officer for over 21 years, to include 12 years as a Team Leader. He is currently the K9 Unit Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

The system uses a ballistic helmet shell with a “trauma liner” that is designed to reduce incidents of traumatic brain injury (TBI) from explosions.  Revision states the helmet shell is also 20% lighter than competitors while offering an increased level of ballistic protection.

According to Revision, both the visor and mandible guard offer impact and ballistic protection while remaining easy to put on and take off.  The visor is considered to offer flawless optical clarity and is compatible with night vision gear.  It is also scratch resistant (it better be!)

Revision states the helmet and system is one-hand adjustable and is extremely stable with night vision equipment attached.

The Batlskin was obviously designed for the military, but it also can fit the needs of a SWAT team.  Getting shot in the face is just as devastating in a hostage rescue attempt as it is in the Hindu Kush mountains.

The Morphix Chameleon is a chemical detection unit that is worn on the forearm or attached by Velcro to the uniform of a first responder.  The purpose of the kit is to provide an officer, firefighter, or soldier with immediate visual identification of the presence of hazardous gases.

A passive detector, the Chameleon has ten windows, called cassettes, which change color when exposed to certain chemicals.  The Chameleon can be configured for Clan-Meth Lab, Chemical Suicide, or Haz-Mat detection by simply changing the cassettes.

The kit is easy for an operator to use.  Once strapped on, the officer needs only to glance at it to be alerted.  The cassette windows start out a single color.  If a cassette changes to two colors, it has been exposed to the toxic chemical.

No power source is required.  The cassettes have chemically reactive strips inside that remind me of “litmus paper” from junior high school Chemistry.

I found the Chameleon to be very unobtrusive.  The face of the kit measures 3 7/8” X 2 ¾.”  The entire armband weighs less than two ounces.  The strap is adjustable up to 14” in circumference.  A larger 18” armband is available.

The cassettes for each different type of hazard are individually pre-packaged, so the user just inserts all the cassettes in the armband and he or she is ready to go.  Initially enclosed in foil, the cassettes are loaded just prior to deployment.

Once opened, the cassettes have a 24-hour service life. They also remain viable after salt or fresh water immersion for up to one hour.  Overall cassette shelf life at room temperature is 24 months.

I recently received this Chameleon test kit.  A month ago, it is something that an officer could have used at a reported meth lab in one of our apartment complexes.  I have also been involved in search warrant services with SWAT where a suspected lab was in operation.  Detectors such as these could provide a valuable safety warning to officers.

In a previous article on Chemical Suicides, we talked about detection on the approach to one of these scenes.  This product would definitely assist in that.  In my area, we are lucky to have a Fire Rescue Haz-Mat response in mere minutes.  Not all officers are as fortunate.

Since I can’t just stand back and not give something a try, I used the included test kit in my secret lab.  The enclosed chemical training vials set off the cassettes appropriately.

In further experimentation, I found that, in less than 5 seconds, the Chameleon’s Chemical Suicide pack detected a vapor concentration of a common household chemical (no, I’m not going to say what) and gave a bi-color alert on one of the cassettes.

(Blaring disclaimer:  I am not Haz-Mat trained, nor am I a chemist.  I cannot speak to the absolute accuracy of any kit like this.  As usual, do your research and consult with the proper subject matter experts before using a product such as this in the field.)

I found Morphix Chameleon starter kits with one armband and packs for either Clan-Lab or Haz-Mat with ten cassettes each (ten uses) for under $200.00 on-line.  Cassette refill packs were about $150.00 for a ten-use kit.  For fifteen bucks an incident, I’d say that was well worth the money.

Officers are continuing to confront more complicated survival scenarios for each day’s pay.  Every bit of training and tools we can find to mitigate these risks is a bonus for our safety and the safety of our citizens.

Randall is a twenty-three year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department.  He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective, and SWAT Team Leader.  He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

Photo courtesy of Trung Nguyen

[Ed. note: This is part two of a series on Tactical Patrol.  The first article is Tactical Patrol Mindset.]

In this article I’d like to discuss a few of the most common critical incident calls where understanding the priority of life is critical to making a proper police response, especially for the initial patrol officers on scene.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This is probably one of the most frequent calls police receive, and also one of the most dangerous. Patrol officers should understand that it is the priority of life, along with the exigency exemption to the 4th Amendment, that allows officers to force their way into a residence to investigate a domestic violence report should someone refuse their entry. The courts are saying that the “victim” is more important than any privacy rights a suspect might want to enjoy, even in his own home. Understanding the priority of life gives patrol officers the confidence to act and to act quickly to properly handle domestic violence calls, and provide assistance to victims.

If entry cannot be obtained then officers should determine the situation’s facts. Is this a hostage situation? Is this a barricade? Are there innocent lives present? Answers to these questions will determine the most appropriate response of the patrol officers on scene. If you know people are inside and not answering, perhaps the best course of action is to surround the house and call them out to you. If the suspect refuses to exit, then perhaps a breach & hold (kicking in the door, but waiting outside the threshold) could be attempted. However, absent evidence of an assault in progress, treat it as a barricade and perform the “Four C’s” of patrol response to critical incidents (contain, control, communicate, call SWAT). Remember though, just because SWAT is called does not alleviate patrol’s responsibility to have an immediate action plan to enter and save hostages should that contingency occur.

If the victim meets you at the door and there are no innocents in the house, officers shouldn’t feel compelled to walk right into the residence to contact the suspect. How about calling the suspect to you where you can be in a position of advantage instead of walking into his.

If there are innocents in the house (children, other family, neighbors, etc.) patrol should try to separate the victim and suspect as quickly as possible. If the suspect has fled to a deep part of the residence then have the victim and innocents leave the danger area, and when they are secure, attempt to call-out the suspect. During this time an arrest team should be ready in case the suspect decides to exit.

BARRICADED SUBJECTS (SUICIDAL)

This is probably the most misinterpreted and mishandled call that police respond to today. However, if you use the priorities of life scale, the understanding of how to properly handle these calls should be more clear.

The first consideration should be to determine if any innocent people are close to the suicidal subject. If yes, than we must act to deprive the suicidal subject the opportunity to turn those people into hostages, or victims. If the answer is no, then we have to determine if the person is in a capacity to endanger innocents.

If the suicidal is armed in a public place we have to do something, which is the protection of innocents. This does not mean we rush the subject or expose ourselves needlessly to danger, violating the priority of life scale. Officers who approach suicidal subjects unnecessarily, were threatened and as a result killed the suspect, have been found civilly liable for “creating” a deadly force situation. Instead, we need to contain them and use less lethal intervention as quickly as possible.

However, if the suicidal is alone at home we need to completely re-evaluate our response tactics. What happens if the suicidal subject refuses to come outside? Should we force entry because they’re threatening suicide? Should we make this a prolonged “barricaded” subject call? I think the answer is no to both questions, and the National Tactical Officer’s Association (N.T.O.A.) seems to support that idea.

The reasoning goes back to the priorities of life scale. Being alone in his house, the suicidal poses only a threat to himself. I understand that “suicidal = homicidal” but in this particular situation the subject is in their own home and not posing a risk to anyone other than themselves. That’s the key to our decision making. A homicidal person poses a risk to the innocents living around them so our tactics have to protect the innocents by removing the threat.

Recent court decisions look unfavorably on police when they burst into the homes of suicidal subjects to “save” them and end up killing them instead. If the subject commits suicide than they made that choice in the privacy of their own home. Perhaps a call from a C.I.T. officer, or a local mental health provider would be appropriate, but a full-scale S.W.A.T. operation will probably only end badly for the police. If “negotiations” fail, notify neighbors to call if something changes and have mental health personnel continue attempts at phone follow-up.

Leaving may seem impossible, but the 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment. Any breaching or entry tactic is going to be seen as an escalation of the danger created by the police, which may result in an unconstitutional seizure by the police. Handling it like a barricade may result in a successful outcome, but how many extended suicidal barricades can your agency afford to conduct.

BARRICADED SUBJECT (CRIMINAL)

This type of incident really bring into focus the priority of life scale. If there are hostages or innocents in the residence, then our response is dictated by those facts. In a hostage situation information should be gathered to determine if there is an immediate threat to the hostage. If the answer is yes, then an immediate action plan should be executed including distractions, gas, and perhaps multiple entry points. All of this should be committed with the singular goal of getting to the hostage as quickly as possible to ensure their safety. Obviously one of the ways to ensure this goal is to eliminate the hostage taker if immediate compliance is not gained.

If there are innocents inside that are not hostages then we need to begin procedures to surround, contain and call-out. This is the more frequent case as we go to serve a search or arrest warrant and the wanted party refuses to come out. We need to separate the innocents from the suspect, and then evaluate our options.

I just attended the S.W.A.T. Team Leader course offered by the N.T.O.A. Several scenarios were debriefed where officers forgot the priorities of life scale and went in on a criminal barricaded subject. Officers were killed or injured. We have other tactics to resolve those situations safely – gas, gas, and more gas into the house.

Back in 2003 my S.W.A.T. team responded to assist a neighboring agency on a barricaded suspect that had engaged officers and firefighters in a gunfight. The Vietnam-vet had a history of mental illness. He lived with his 80-year old mother, and apparently got mad at her and stabbed her on the neck and arms. When she left to call for help the first officers and firefighters came under rifle fire from the house almost immediately. Having one of the first Lenco Bear Cat’s delivered to police, we responded and began evacuating the pinned-down patrol officers, firefighters and then neighbors. Eventually we saturated the house with gas and the suspect committed suicide. Before that happened about 150-200 rounds had been fired at responders. This guy had a plan and knew his tactics because our snipers never saw him in the house. When we were relatively certain the suspect was dead we still didn’t rush in. We used the Bear Cat as a battering ram. We pushed a car through and out the back of the garage to open up an exterior wall of the house and allow our E.O.D. unit to send in a robot. Only after the robot found the suspect laying in a bathtub did an Entry Team enter and confirm he was dead. Had we conducted a “dynamic” entry while the suspect was alive I’m quite sure that one or more of my teammates would have been wounded or killed.

The concept of “dynamic entry” was around in the beginning of S.W.A.T. The concept was that if S.W.A.T. entered a house with surprise (usually early morning) and diversion (flash bangs) that they could rush through the house and seize everyone before they could catch up in their O.O.D.A. cycle and respond. I’ve been a part of dozens of raids that conformed to this flawed ideology. Sadly, it has taken multiple failed attempts at dynamic entry for the police community to realize that there are better tactics to accomplish the same goal.

Much of what drove that push to rush was the desire to save evidence from destruction. Are you kidding me? Property and evidence are even lower on the priority of life list than the suspect! In essence the law enforcement community (especially S.W.A.T.) was placing the need for evidence or seizing the suspect, above the need to protect officers. For nearly 15 years now the N.T.O.A. has NOT endorsed a dynamic entry method except for hostage-rescue or active shooter situations where there are hostages or innocents in harm’s way.

HOSTAGE-TAKER/ACTIVE SHOOTER

By now the law enforcement community is pretty well-versed in the appropriate response to active shooters: get there, get in, respond to the sounds of the shooter, and rescue the hostages/innocents by capturing or eliminating the threat. Often times, however, active shooter training only emphasizes getting to the shooter and killing the shooter(s). The real goal is to protect hostages/innocents. They are the reason we are rushing in, not for the shooter, because we definitely don’t lower ourselves any further on the priority of life scale.

However, we need to remember that the overall police mission in critical incidents is to save lives, including the suspects. The choice to eliminate the suspect must be made only when saving him can not be accomplished without unduly risking harm to a person higher on the priority of life scale. And yes, that decision may literally be made in micro-seconds, but overall our mindset must be on the priority of life – we went in there to rescue hostages/innocents. Understand that I am not advocating officers to stop and help injured along the way. In a hostage taker situation we must advance as rapidly as possible to the hostages, even overstepping wounded or innocents seeking help.

Remember “why” we do what we do, and it will guide you on the “how” to do what we do right.

In the event of a hostage taker several considerations must be made before action is taken. To successfully weigh our options we need to consider the definition of “Immediate threat” and “Imminent threat”.

Immediate threat – the suspect’s actions are currently causing a serious threat of death or serious physical injury to the hostage.

Imminent threat – the suspect is capable of lethal action and is in close proximity to the hostage creating a jeopardy that the hostage could at any moment be at risk of death or serious physical injury.

At first glance that might seem to be splitting hairs, but it really is not. The important concept for law enforcement to understand (supported by the “reasonable” test of Graham vs. Connor) is that hostages are always in “imminent” danger as long as they are in close proximity to the hostage taker. This means that if we can establish separation of the hostage taker from the hostages, and the hostage taker is not negotiating or surrendering, than police should seriously consider deploying lethal force to end the threat imposed on the hostages.

If the hostage-taker shows “immediate” threat to the hostages than an emergency action plan must be executed to enter and quickly rescue the hostages – often by eliminating the hostage taker. Patrol officers may have to act based on the circumstances presented to them, so it is critically important for the initial patrol officers on scene to correctly assess just what type of situation that they are dealing with.

If however, the hostage taker is negotiating and not presenting an “immediate” threat to the hostages, than perhaps the best course of action is to allow negotiators to work on a planned release of hostages and surrender of the suspect. This must still be done with an Emergency Action entry team ready to go on a moment’s notice.
Hopefully this review of some common critical incidents that patrol officers respond to, along with understanding the priority of life scale, will allow patrol officers to have the understanding to make the proper assessments at the scene, decide on the best course of action, and have the confidence to act.

Photo courtesy of Trung Nguyen

An internationally publicized case of a tragic shooting in which Force Science testimony was given has been decided by a California appellate court in favor of the involved officers.

Controversial from the beginning, the headline-grabbing case concerned a tense standoff between LAPD SWAT and a drug-deranged father who was holding his 19-month-old daughter in his arm as a hostage and human shield. In a desperate showdown, officers killed the offender in a fusillade of bullets–but also, inadvertently, killed the child.

The girl’s mother filed suit, claiming the operators’ reckless and unreasonable use of force and negligent disregard of proper police tactics caused her daughter’s wrongful death. At trial, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, testified on the officers’ behalf, describing in realistic terms the death scene’s chaotic climax.

A Superior Court judge ruled that the plaintiff’s arguments had no documented merit and tossed the case. Now the California Court of Appeal has upheld that decision, in an opinion written by Justice Madeleine Flier. Click here to read it in full.

THE THREAT. On a balmy Sunday in July, 2005, 34-year-old Jose Raul Pena, drunk, coked up and meth-addled, depressed over financial problems, and “emotionally unstable,” turned deadly. After threatening to kill himself and members of his family, he grabbed his baby daughter Suzie and stormed off to the garage/shop of a small used car lot he owned around the corner from his home in Watts, where a standoff with responding police officers shortly ensued. Pena claimed to have access to 2 handguns, a 12 ga. shotgun, and extra ammunition.

“Four times, Pena stood outside the auto shop and shot at officers [with a 9mm Beretta] as he held Suzie in his right arm as a shield,” the appellate decision recounted. Raving that he was Tony Montana from the movie Scarface, he yelled “over 10 times” that he was going to “kill Suzie” and take her “to hell with me,” a phrase from the film. According to an investigative report later, he “told the officers to go ahead and shoot him.”

“I’m going to kill my baby before I leave my baby to my wife, that whore,” the appellate decision quoted him as threatening. He said he’d been in the “Salvadoran military” and knew “how to kill.” He also said he’d been in jail and “wasn’t going back.” Extensive attempts across nearly 3 hours that late afternoon to negotiate a surrender of the child, of Pena or of his weapons were unsuccessful because the hostage-taker “was not being rational and was making constant threats.”

SHOTS FIRED. Five minutes after breaking off communication by disconnecting his phone, Pena again “exited the auto shop, holding Suzie in his right arm.” A SWAT sniper tracked him via rifle scope from inside a Bear Cat parked outside.

“[H]e saw Pena move his hand as if he were about to remove his gun from his waistband,” the appellate decision stated. “[H]e believed Pena was going to shoot Suzie.” The sniper fired; Pena flinched “as if struck” and stumbled back inside.

Immediately, the SWAT team leader ordered 4 operators, specially trained in hostage rescue, to enter the building as a rapid-deployment Emergency Assault Element under his direction and bring the baby to safety.

“When they entered the auto shop, the officers expected Pena to be on the floor as a result of [the sniper's] shot,” Justice Flier wrote. “[I]nstead he was positioned in an interior office,” still alarmingly alive and alarmingly deadly. Quickly he fired “at least six shots through the drywall” in the officers’ direction. One round hit one of the rescue team in the shoulder.

The operators said later they did not retreat because their “mission was to separate Suzie from Pena” and they considered her to be in “imminent peril.” Retreating, their commander said, “would have been a dereliction” of their duty. Instead, the wounded oprator tossed in a flashbang and the stack surged in.

Consider the pandemonium. The office was a tight 8 X 12 feet, filled with smoke and the echoing boom of the grenade. Pena, moving rapidly, continued shooting at officers while still holding his infant daughter as a shield. All 4 officers simultaneously fired back, defending their own lives and, they thought, saving Suzie.

At least 1 of the officers said he was “blinded by muzzle flashes from Pena’s weapon” a few feet from his face, so he could not actually see the child. All concentrated their fire on their assailant’s left side, aware he had consistently held the baby on his right throughout the standoff. “Together the officers fired 50-55 shots inside the office within 3.5 to 6 seconds,” the appellate decision said. In all that fateful Sunday, Pena had himself fired at least 39 rounds before his fatal takedown.

When the smoke cleared, the officers discovered that the baby had been killed, along with her father. Just who fired the fatal round to her head was never determined, although the court said the shooter was 1 of 3 members of the entry team. All carried Colt M4 carbines, according to an investigative report.

“NONSUIT.” The sole basis for the mother’s inevitable lawsuit claiming “negligence and wrongful death” was her allegation that “the officers used unreasonable force” in confronting Pena’s deadly threats, the appellate decision noted. Her only expert witness–a retired LAPD commander who admitted to having no experience, training, or familiarity in SWAT tactics and protocol–opined that retreat and more negotiation would have been preferable to lethal assault.

During the initial 2-week trial in the Superior Court of Judge Rolf Treu in 2009, Bill Lewinski was asked to explain, among other things, how multiple rounds could have missed the suspect in such tight quarters, including the one that struck and killed the child. (An autopsy revealed that Pena had been hit just 6 times.)

That was not a matter of recklessness, Lewinski told the jury, but instead a common dynamic of sudden, life-threatening confrontations of high stress, rapid dynamic movement, and short duration.

Drawing on studies by the Force Science Institute and other research groups, for instance, he documented the typical time required for officers in a shooting to perceive a given threat, interpret its meaning, decide on a response, and perform a reaction. That all can occur within mere micro-seconds, he explained. Yet within that brief timeframe, the scenario they’re confronting can change radically because of split-second movements by the targeted suspect. Officers might not be able to detect the change in enough time to alter the rapid-fire action they’ve initiated.

Unexpected movement by Pena, who was highly agitated and animated, would account for the failure of the highly trained sniper to deliver an effective head shot outside the shop and of the operators who stormed the inner office to put all rounds on their target, despite the close distances. Pena shifting the little girl from one arm to the other could have brought her into the line of fire unexpectedly and unavoidably.

“These were elite officers,” Lewinski told Force Science News. “If LAPD had a Delta team, it would be these guys. Yet they still couldn’t shoot with total accuracy in that difficult situation, not because they were recklessly out of control but because of immutable human limitations.

“Force Science has measured what an ‘instant’ is in a high-stress encounter and what people can and can’t do in that time. My job was to help clarify for the jury how our research on human behavior related to what happened in the confrontations with Pena.”

After attorneys for both sides had rested their case and minutes before closing arguments were to start, Judge Treu abruptly called a halt to the trial. In response to a defense motion, he found that “reasonable jurors here could only draw one conclusion from the evidence presented, and that was that the officers’ use of force was reasonable.” In short, the matter was a “nonsuit,” and he issued a directed verdict aborting the case.

It was this ruling, challenged by the plaintiff, that the appellate court upheld.

APPELLATE REASONING. In the appeal, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Treu’s nonsuit ruling was improper because no probable cause had existed either for the sniper’s initial use of deadly force against Pena or for the rescue team’s use of lethal force during its final assault.

The appellate decision characterized this claim as a “nonsensical interpretation of the evidence.”

The evidence was “overwhelming,” Justice Flier wrote, “that Pena posed a danger to Suzie,” even though he did not point his gun directly at her. He had made numerous verbal threats to kill her, and the sniper was “not required to wait” until Pena pointed his gun at her and actually “pulled the trigger to conclude that [the] threats were real and exposed Suzie to great risk.”

As for the final shootout, the appellate panel agreed with the trial court that the operators “had probable cause and rights within their discretion to go in after Pena, particularly since there were shots fired from inside the room out and the officers could reasonably have believed [these] may involve Suzie.”

Addressing the multitude of rounds fired, the officers’ “concurrent shooting multiple times at Pena cannot constitute excessive force under an objective standard,” the appellate decision stated. Case law has established that the “number of shots by itself cannot be determinative as to whether the force used was reasonable. That multiple shots were fired does not suggest the officers shot mindlessly as much as it indicates that they sought to ensure the elimination of a deadly threat.”

Any belief by the plaintiff “that the officers should have stopped after each shot and assessed its effect” when Pena was shooting directly at them was unrealistic from “the perspective of [a] reasonable officer at the scene,” the court declared.

Tragic as the unintended death of the child was, the decision concluded, “retreating when Suzie remained in danger would have been a dereliction of duty…. [C]onsidering the exigency of the circumstances,” the officers acted properly in pursuing the father who threatened her life and “used reasonable care in employing deadly force.”

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

Photo courtesy of Oregon DOT

This is the first article in a series that will focus attention on the needs of patrol officers to be tactically minded and response capable. At the same time I’m going to discuss current philosophies about the proper patrol response to critical incidents such as active shooters, and barricaded subjects.

One of the most basic tenets of law enforcement is the protection of life. “To serve and protect” is probably the most universal mission statement of American law enforcement. In that regard I want to examine the “Priorities of Life” and make sure that patrol officers understand the order and its significance when they are confronted with the most critical incidents we face.

Simply put the “Priority of Life” is demonstrated in this order:

1. Hostages/Victims
2. Innocent by-standers
3. Police/First Responders
4. Suspects/Subjects.

As sworn defenders we must recognize that we may have to endanger ourselves to save others in harm. I put the first responders (firemen and paramedics) along side police because they are also first responders. As such, they realize that their duty may place them into harm’s way, and as such our efforts to protect them cannot be accomplished at the expense of the first two groups of people.

A suspect is someone believed to have committed a crime. A subject usually refers to someone who is suffering mental illness, suicidal, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs that may still pose a serious safety threat, but their original intent was not criminal activity.

It is also very important to emphasize that police officers should not lower themselves on that priority list by unnecessarily exposing themselves to danger simply to capture a suspect. This will be addressed in greater detail in Part II when I cover the proper considerations for handling high risk warrants or barricaded subject calls.
In most critical incidents patrol officers have been taught the “Four C’s”:

• C-Contain
• C-Control
• C-Communicate
• C-Call SWAT

However, patrol officers may be called upon to take immediate emergency action because in some circumstances the need to act won’t wait for S.W.A.T.. To do so safely, patrol officers need to know the most common methods (tactics) for ending hazardous incidents in buildings or residences. This is not for routine calls, but for the high risk calls.

These are the tactics that S.W.A.T. teams train and perform on a regular basis. Patrol officers need to know more options than just knocking on the door, or kicking the door and rushing in. The most commonly recognized tactics are:

Take Down Away – (usually only used in ending hostage situations – officers allow the suspect to leave and then take him down in a pre-planned area away from the hostages or innocents)
Surround and Call-out – (containment on the outside while ordering the occupants to exit)
Breach & Hold – (opening a door or window, but staying outside of the threshold while giving orders for occupants to exit)
Limited Penetration – (Only entering to a pre-determined area of the residence)
Controlled Entry – (clearing the residence using the best practices of cover, light control & controlled movements – not slow and deliberate, but not “dynamic” either)

Patrol officers will still need to establish inner and outer perimeters to control the scene, select an arrest team in the event the suspect exits or an emergency entry is required, and assess the environment for other potential officer safety issues.

Finally, every officer must continually assess their ability to take another human being’s life. The taking of life should never be viewed lightly, but as professional law enforcement officers our duty may demand that we take a life to save a life. The priorities of life are just, reasonable, and morally and legally sustainable. Understanding the proper tactics for a given situation builds confidence into action. Having those foundations thoroughly thought out should allow the patrol officer to properly handle the critical incident that the citizens expect them to handle.

In future articles, I will discuss patrol options for responding to active shooters, barricaded subjects, and hostage situations. I will also discuss the need for patrol officers to be armed with patrol rifles and other tactical tools that will allow them to successfully resolve active tactical situations they are confronted with.

Stay safe!

We have all probably left something on our cruisers at one point or another.  Coffee cups, clipboards, an unfortunate Radar gun.  But a firearm?   Yes, it can happen.  And it happened at my agency many years ago.

After Mids Readoff, one of our SWAT guys put his H&K MP5 on the trunk of his car while talking to a buddy.  Following the conversation, the officer got in his car and drove off, forgetting the nylon bag with his subgun, and its three topped-off mags, on the decklid.

For some reason, something was nagging in the back of his mind about 20 minutes later and he checked his trunk.  I’m sure his face showed his horror at what had occurred.

He rushed back to the station and looked everywhere.  He called a supervisor and then things got really, in a word, stupid.  The troops were recalled and some brain surgeon had the idea to put a ten-pound dumbbell in an MP5 bag and have the officer drive off like he did when he lost it.

Of course the bag fell off in the PD parking lot and everyone converged on the spot of the second bag.  Not even close, boys.

I was called by the now-frantic supervisor, who asked me to take my K9 out to go up and down the streets to look for the gun.  Yeah.  I didn’t need the dog for that.

To sum it up, a couple of dozen city blocks were gridded off and search teams were sent out.  The news media was alerted.  Command staffers were furious.

Early the next afternoon, a local TV station was called by a “concerned citizen” who had found the gun bag about a mile from the PD.  He had seen it fall off the police car.  He had picked it up and taken it home.

He did not mention that an officer knocked on his door in the morning and asked if he had seen such a bag.  He told the officer he had not.  This citizen, a convicted felon, had also bent the barrel of the gun under the corner of a dumpster.

A chagrined captain was sent to meet with the news crew to retrieve our wayward submachine gun from the citizen.  The story made the national news outlets…

I know how Seattle PD officers feel.  A moment’s inattention by one officer has become what seems like an eternity of embarrassment for all the officers.

We are only human and we make mistakes.  Be humbled and realize they can be made by you.  In that way, we reinforce that we are fallible and need to pay due attention to our duties each and every shift.

Randall spent eight years as a Police K9 Handler.  His two German Shepherd Dogs were deployed for Patrol, Narcotics, and SWAT.  He also handled a Narcotics Labrador Retriever.  Randall is currently a proud K9 Unit Supervisor.

When I went to SWAT school in the late 80’s, most police teams visually resembled the British 22^nd Special Air Service Regiment (SAS).  You know, black BDU’s, black balaclava hoods, black nylon load-bearing vests, black MP-5’s.

After all, the Iranian Embassy hostage siege in London was still fresh in people’s minds.  The iconic images of the SAS storming the embassy on foot and by abseil (rappel) were very strong indeed. The 22^nd SAS were the US Navy SEALS of that era.  Police SWAT teams sought to mimic the look and attitude.

The dynamic entry doctrine used by American SWAT at the time was appropriately called SAS:  Speed, Aggression, Surprise.  These are the three very principles being effectively employed in ambushes to kill police patrol officers on our streets.

Speed is just what it implies, a rapidity of action.  In this arena, speed is the ability of the suspect to quickly attack or very quickly access a weapon to attack.

Aggression is also referred to as violence of action.  This aggression is a committed, overpowering attack, which is sustained until the opponent is defeated.

Surprise is to attack suddenly and without warning.

These three characteristics in combination have led to numerous officer deaths.  The key to this doctrine is initiative.  Action beats reaction.  It is a pre-planned strategy, not one born in the give and take of a casual encounter.  Used by a suspect on the street, it is premeditated murder.

The best defense against this style of attack is to negate it through situational awareness and solid officer safety practices.

If I say trust no one, I do not mean be impolite.  I can have a proper, professional interaction with a citizen and still have a plan to go to deadly force in an instant.  I do not preach police paranoia; I advocate police preparedness.

The difficulty of our job is in the rules of engagement.  There are no obvious signs of who is or is not the enemy.  We cannot treat everyone as a non-threat, nor can we handle every person as a combatant.

If we held all persons proned-out with their hands to their sides (palms up), legs crossed, face away, while they were at the social end of an AR-15, well then there would be no surprise attacks.

There are tactics to defeat the three SAS principles.  We can eliminate a suspect’s ability to use Speed, Aggression, and Surprise in many ways during personal encounters:

• Contact and Cover
• Weapons Pat Down
• Good Searches
• Proper Interviewing Distance
• Monitoring Hands
• No Person Unobserved
• Limit Their Mobility
• Enough Back-up Officers
• Focus on the People

Sounds like the reverse of some of The Ten Deadly Errors.  The ambush is one of the hardest things for us to defend against.  Let’s do everything we can to take away a suspect’s tools.

Randall is a twenty-three year veteran officer of a mid-size Florida police department.  He served as a SWAT team officer for over 21 years, to include 12 years as a Team Leader. He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

The platform can also be broken down for air transport or dropped into place on the ground.  The platform can be built with stations for door, window, wall and roof breaching.

MGM is a manufacturer of steel targets including poppers, plate racks and IPSC targets.  The MBP was one of three SWAT training tools the company showed at the National Tactical Officers Association Breacher’s Conference.

Information on the new Streamlight Sidewinder Compact flashlight designed for SWAT and combat troops to mount on their helmets.

The BlueSheepdog.com staff recently attended the vendors’ exhibit at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in Tampa, Florida.  While we were utterly blown away by Dillon Aero mini-guns, MRAP armored vehicles, and the latest microwave/laser missile defense systems, getting those items on a department purchase order seemed a bit ambitious.

We did spot an item at the Streamlight booth that may interest the S.W.A.T. teamers out there.  Streamlight makes the original Sidewinder LED light that conveniently mounts on M.O.L.L.E. loops, a belt, or a helmet.  The light has an articulated head “to meet a variety of hands free tasks,” according to the manufacturer.

Recognizing that the Sidewinder light is a bit large at 2.34L” X 4.65W” and 5.02 oz., the company decided to downsize the unit.  The result is the Sidewinder Compact.  The dimensions for the Compact are 3L” X 2.01W” at 2.4 oz.

The Sidewinder Compact, which is powered by one CR123 battery, throws a maximum of 55 lumens of bright white light from the main LED.  There are modes for Low, Medium 1, Medium 2, High, and Strobe.  Low runs for 60+ hours, High for 5.25 hours, and Strobe for 9 hours.  The modes toggle with a rotary switch that prevents accidental changes.

Added to the main LED are three auxiliary LEDs to further the light’s versatility.  The options for the secondary lights are red, blue, green, and IR/IFF.  The Sidewinder Compact comes in three models (Military, Aviation, and Medical) that vary the trio of the LED’s by mission.

The light is waterproof and can be mounted or clipped to a vest, belt, hat brim or pocket.  The helmet mount allows it to be attached to the standard military or tactical ballistic headgear.

Streamlight’s Matt Baker said the MSRP for a Sidewinder Compact is around $80.00 for the light and $110.00 for light and helmet mount.  A new Sportsman’s model was added in 2011 that has a red, blue, and green auxiliary LED, but lacks the IR light.  A quick Internet check shows that you can pick up the lights for much less with a bit of shopping.

This light is designed to be an effective utility light, but it should not be expected to pull duty for actual high-risk suspect searches.  It feels rugged in the hand, has positive switching qualities, and is adaptable for the mission.

Randall is a twenty-three year veteran officer of a mid-size Florida police department.  He served as a SWAT team officer for over 21 years, to include 12 years as a team leader. He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.