The Law Enforcement Officer Thread

^^

That isn't the problem, the problem is that they are having folks like Infantry and Cavalry Scouts as the police overseas. Instead of using Security Forces and Military Police, they instead almost exclusively use combat troops as the police force. I personally don't agree with this, because I'd rather have my shot at being out in the city, we're trained to handle that sort of thing pretty well.

The Use of Force policy for military cops really isn't that much different from a civilian LEO policy. Security Forces uses this model here.◊

You keep the level on the chart as low as possible to get the job done. When the suspect escalates it, you either go up the chart to match them, or you can escalate even further if you think it will lower their level(I.E. if a guy is resisting you physically, and it seems prudent to pull a gun on him to make him obey since you feel he is about to start attacking you) The big difference between our policy and a civilian one is that civilians have much more access to non-lethal weapons. Many cops only have their gun and their verbal controls available, which means there's talking, laying hands on them, and shooting them. And those are your only options. We also have priority level resources that we have to take special members to protect, so while obviously I can't shoot a bad guy if a schoolbus full of nuns is behind him, if there are nukes in danger then I can feel free to mow down the whole bus if it's in the process of protecting those resources.

Yes, we have an advisement of rights that carries the same issues as the civilian equivalent, all troops also have the right to an attorney in the same way that civvies do. There really aren't too many differences in criminal justice in the military, it's just we derive our authority and laws from the UCMJ, but as far as the rights of the individual, the UCMJ has articles that are carbon copies of most civilian ones.

I am <rank, name>, of <unit> Security Forces squadron. I am apprehending you for the alleged offense of <charge>, which you are suspected of. Under the provisions of Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice, you have the right to remain silent, that is, to say nothing at all. Any statement you make may be used as evidence against you in a trial by courts-martial or in other judicial or administrative proceedings. You have the right to consult a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during this interview. You have the right to military legal counsel free of charge. In addition to military counsel, you are entitled to civilian counsel of your own choosing at your own expense. You may request a lawyer at any time during this interview. If you decide to answer questions, you may stop the questioning at any time. Do you understand your rights? Do you request a lawyer? Are you willing to answer questions?

We don't have to advise members of their rights until we actually interview them, we're allowed to apprehend on the spot, and the advisement of rights comes once we have them sat down in the room with OSI or SF members asking them questions. We also have a civilian advisement of rights, which tells them they derive their rights from the fifth amendment and that they may have a lawyer, and if they cannot afford one that civilian authorities will appoint a public defender. Apart from that it's the same.

edited 19th Nov '10 7:01:02 PM by Barkey

I'm not talking about violence, I'm talking about general operating procedure. As I understand it, militaries generally either sit around staying ready to deploy on a preordained mission, or patrol waiting to stumble on an ambush or something. Missions come from intelligence gathering carried out by somebody else (diplomats, spies, scouts, etc…). This works well when your goal is to crush open resistance from any centralized authorities or wipe out trivially identified enemies (classic warfare.)

In contrast, police pretty much do their own intelligence work, and are always either pounding the pavement or shuffling paperwork (evidence. I.E.: Intel.) This means instead of having to send an elite SWAT team to have at it with a heavily armed group of mobsters (which is what the “terrorists” are by and large) you instead send a couple donut dunkers to haul in these scuzzballs one at a time, in their homes/places of work/etc.

edit: Erk, ninja'd.

Eric,

edited 19th Nov '10 7:04:12 PM by EricDVH

^

Once again, military police/SF have this training, we're just not the ones out there.

If Baghdad was full of military law enforcement and OSI/CID, things would be lots different. OSI/CID do gather intelligence in the field overseas, but they use that intel to plan combat operations, not apprehend specific people and put a stop to violence and crime at a local and individual level.

(OSI and CID are the Air Force and Army investigative services respectively. Consider Security Forces and Military Police as patrol cops and the SWAT team, where as the above three letter acronyms are the Detectives. This works really well at the CONUS base level, but we need to use that model overseas if we want the military to be an effective police force)

The problem is, you have to be heavy handed with crime in a place like Baghdad, you can't just go in and get one guy, he's in a neighborhood full of people with assault rifles who don't like you. The only way to have even a remote chance of all the other assholes letting you haul one asshole away is to roll up with tons of firepower so they don't even consider fighting back, meaning combat troops. One fireteam of Security Forces wouldn't be adequate to make an arrest in Baghdad or Kabul, two APC's with one squad each however, is the appropriate level of manpower for doing so.

edited 19th Nov '10 7:15:41 PM by Barkey

The North Hollywood shootout is an interesting case because it called attention to the fact that private citizens who are would-be criminals have access to advanced body armor and high-caliber automatic weapons. It's a contentious issue because it inevitably surfaces the debate about gun control and the rights and privacy of individual citizens. I actually consider the 2nd amendment to be a form of gun control, but that's an entire separate matter.

I think I've said this before, but one of the reasons why we've seen a more pronounced paramilitary presence in law enforcement agencies is because many military forces consult police officers for civilian management protocol (and vice versa). The shift from symmetrical direct conflicts to asymmetrical low-intensity conflicts has brought with it a rise in soldier-civilian interactions. Look at the tactics used in the first Gulf War compared to the tactics used in the second Gulf War. There's a noticeable frequency of coalition forces finding themselves handling domestic disputes such as neighborhood robberies, murders, and rape even though the Iraqi police and ING are supposed to deal with these situations themselves.

Likewise, other industrialized first-world nations are having to deal with a sharp rise in criminal activities involving the deployment of military—grade weapons. The Aryan Brotherhood, the Ku Klux Klan, and few other homegrown anti-government organizations have arsenals that are, quite frankly, nerve-racking. The Waco shootout also forced United States federal law enforcement agencies to seriously reevaluate the employment of less-than-lethal weapons systems, and it's no coincidence that the United States Army has warmed up to said devices such as the active denial system, enhanced stun grenades, and portable EMP transmitters that can shut down cars, computers, and cell phones so EOD teams can safely handle IE Ds without having an insurgent remotely activate the bomb in question.

As a side note, the German GSG-9 and the JSDF paramilitary division are good examples of how to properly balance military and police tactics. The FBI HRT is top-notch, as well, but the situation in Waco and the belated response to terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11 speaks against their efficiency. Then again, I have to stress this is more of a leadership issue than anything else.

Edit: I just thought of something else. Another reason why law enforcement agencies are more militaristic has to do with the conjoined evolution of criminal organizations and terrorist groups. Based on what I've researched and experienced, most terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, the IRA, the ELT, FARC, American Christian extremist groups and the oil mafia are really crime syndicates who just happened to tack on an ideological banner so they can come off as more appealing to future recruits. Now that terrorism and organized crime are more or less one and the same, military groups and police groups have to change accordingly.

edited 19th Nov '10 7:40:18 PM by Aprilla

What about the "Mega Gangs" Like MS 13? They have been noted to carry an impressive arsenal. Some folks who worked for them were once nabbed with a functional WWII PIAT launcher and rounds for it.

They have also become more aggressive towards law enforcement and have become the ever creative sneaky little bastards.

Who watches the watchmen?

Well, you remember the whole controversy with the Navy SEAL gun runners. More and more criminal organizations are packing seriously dangerous gear, and those SEA Ls planned on selling Semtex and portable rocket launchers to several clients. And those are just the ones that were arrested. Think of all the arms dealers and drug cartels that finance these mega gangs you mentioned. As Wesley Snipes's character Nino Brown mentioned in the movie New Jack City, "Ain't no Uzis made in Harlem". He's clearly referring to the military-industrial complex and the medical-industrial complex as being congruent with drug trafficking and arms smuggling.

edited 19th Nov '10 7:57:54 PM by Aprilla

Yeah I knew the MIC and MIC hmm interesting MIC can stand for both Medical and Military Industrial complex. Any ways. Yeah they have their dirty hands in that. Also CIA and other three letter organizations are not entirely innocent in those areas either. It also doesn't help that not all of their weapons come straight from the U.S. Plenty of the weapons are also licensed copies of American models. Or Other nations own MIC's (that can be a great generic term for future discussion use)are in on the game as well. We really need to find a reliable way to slow the flow of weapons across the border from at least the U.S. yeah they will still get guns elsewhere but we would be helping to make them seek other sources. I wonder how many weapons come from South America's smuggling lanes vs U.S. routes.

Oh before I forget also of note. The incident in California a few months back with the failed booby trapping of police property. While not even really successful it sets a dangerous precedent.

edited 19th Nov '10 8:26:57 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I never heard about that. Do you have an article link by any chance?

The Booby traps for the cops?

• Police Booby Traps California
• Booby Traps for California Cops

Who watches the watchmen?

For anyone who's interested what the German guys are saying after the cop left.

"How crass/wack was that?" (rhetorical question) - "Are we allowed to drive on?" - "I think so."

Being from Germany myself I think it's a little weird how he asks for the papers but doesn't even look at them. However, it seems there was something more important on his radio which took his attention

edited 19th Nov '10 9:05:01 PM by Herbarius

Wait German from what?

Who watches the watchmen?

That's kind of my point right there. If you knew the names of all these people, and they knew yours, and there were other folks there who knew you and liked you, and you were a continuous presence on the turf in question rather than rolling in like holy thunder on Sundays, perhaps things wouldn't be like that. Things shouldn't have been allowed to fester that much.

Admittedly, there are places where even actual cops take a more military attitude of watching for brushfires from a safe distance and swooping in as needed to snuff them out en masse, but that's generally regarded as the wrong way of doing things compared with the traditional “one on every street corner” style.

Peanuts. The Zetas are a more alarming variety, whole ex-military units gone rogue, they sell themselves to the highest bidder as a sort of mercenary big guns for crime cartels. That sounded like a movie pitch.

Eric,

edited 20th Nov '10 12:38:40 AM by EricDVH

The Zeta's are literally just mercenaries they are nowhere near as large or as organized as MS 13 or as wide spread. Ok they are not just Mercs but I find it funny they hire MS 13 for assassinations in the U.S. supposedly.

edited 20th Nov '10 1:31:26 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

^^

That's the problem though, we need to be able to meet in the middle in our techniques. Regular Law Enforcement tactics will not work, but full forced military tactics won't either. What you need is high numbers of military police who roll in packs with heavy weapons and the like. Basically you need combat troops with a police officer mindset, which is what the Air Force is fast moving to with Security Forces. We're getting bigger guns, more combat training, but still keeping a good standard for our Law Enforcement training. I think if we went in that direction with SF and M Ps we could have the best available resource for policing these areas. Cops who act like regular police, and then when the shit hits the fan they can switch right into combat infantry mode.

I wasn't aware MPs and suchlike are used for external affairs now. I was under the impression they were primarily intended to handle base security, and to liaise with local civilian authorities for the policing of crimes in which military personnel are involved. Repurposing them to act as the nucleus of a paramilitary police wing in peacekeeping missions does sound exciting. How long has this been going on, and what are the most interesting deployments you'd care to mention?

Eric,

I wasn't aware M Ps and suchlike are used for external affairs now. I was under the impression they were primarily intended to handle base security, and to liaise with local civilian authorities for the policing of crimes in which military personnel are involved. Repurposing them to act as the nucleus of a paramilitary police wing in peacekeeping missions does sound exciting. How long has this been going on, and what are the most interesting deployments you'd care to mention?

It's a work in process, the problem is that combat troops are great at what they do, destroying shit, but not trained at all at policing a local populace. Military Law Enforcement on the other hand, is great at what they do, but lacks sufficient combat training to respond to attacks in the expert manner of combat troops. The only reason the Air Force is laying the groundwork to be a forerunner in this field is because we don't have frontline combat troops, aside from special forces. Security Forces are the first and last line of defense for an Air Force base, which is why in light of all that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan we're getting lots more combat training.

It's also the Air Force trying to save face and contribute more, since in todays age of asymmetrical warfare we look rather weak since Air Superiority stops being an issue within 48 hours of a conflict starting. While vital, transportation, satellite imagery, and UA Vs aren't exactly the glorious and high profile activities that earn you a higher budget and prestige. By using Security Forces to attempt to become self-sufficient for air base security, we can both free up Army manpower since they wouldn't have to help guard our bases, but also aid in their own endeavors by augmenting the army with SF members. It's not so much that using military law enforcement as the nucleus of securing foreign soil under our control is the goal, but it's going to be a consequence of our goal of appearing more useful. We already do things like training Afghan/Iraqi Police, being in charge of most military prisons overseas(haven't seen an Abu Ghraib situation at any of our detention facilities, that's for sure) and patrolling the areas immediately outside our bases, often times including villages.

Most folks don't realize how much potential Security Forces has, now if we just had a bigger budget... A small number of our folks do things like Ranger School, Jump School, Air Assault, and other specialized training schools. Unfortunately we're pretty low on the priority list for those schools and the Air Force doesn't see us as enough of a priority to spend lots of money in that direction. We also have K9 School(Our K9 school is the entire Department of Defenses canine school. All military K9 handlers are trained under our program at Lackland AFB, San Antonio) Air Force Counter-Sniper school is there, the Phoenix Raven program has seen huge successes since it was implimented, and our Armourers are better than the other branches in certain aspects. CATM/Combat Arms Training and Maintenance are Security Forces members who are the small arms armourers of the Air Force, they can actually repair weapons down to the most critical components, and are certified rangemasters. Where as other branch armourers aren't rangemasters, and if a weapon has certain critical parts damaged, they send it in to civilian contractors to fix. Edit: This probably sums it up a little better.

That's pretty much the whole kit and kaboodle of my career field right now. I wish it was more publicized that we have so many options, but obviously we aren't ever going to be the highlight of the Air Force, while critical to the AF mission, we are not the mission, our aircraft are.

Did I mention that we're specifically the only ones trusted to guard our nuclear arsenal? All us. Nobody else.

edited 20th Nov '10 7:14:48 AM by Barkey

The video I posted earlier in this thread.

Now if you excuse me, Starfleet is about to award the Christopher Pike Medal to my dick. — SF Debris

What does concern me is that civilian law enforcement is getting equipment without, necessarily, the training to use it effectively or as safely as it can be done. Also, especially since law enforcement is so politicized, there's often the pressure to make a big show and use all that lethal gear when it's not necessary — and sometimes that escalates situations.

Frequently, for instance, a smaller PD will get a SWAT team. However, there's not much in their town for a SWAT team to actually do. So they end up e.g. serving warrants SWAT-style where there's no real reason to suspect a violent response, just to justify having the SWAT team.

That in turn escalates the likelihood of (a) the civilians inside getting hurt, and (b) the chances of someone, surprised by a violent assault on their home and not knowing it's the cops, pulling out a gun and getting shot — or shooting a cop. Frequently the police in these incidents do not properly announce who they are nor give the people inside a chance to surrender peacefully.

A brighter future for a darker age.

How do you all feel about traffic officers and traffic violations? Can you recall times where you were treated unfairly by a police officer while you were operating a vehicle? Do you feel that police officers in general are treated unfairly when citing traffic violations? A common issue with patrol officers dealing with traffic violations is that they are a necessary evil, so bear that in mind when think about this issue.

Well when not in a budget pinch or pushing for more cash there is no problem. But when our local law enforcement starts enforcing ticket quotas yeah then they start gunning for everything no matter how trivial and possibly bogus. Its one of the issues with the local cops. The city cops are pretty professional as a whole. The nearest large town small city Bellevue, the cops are noted for being horrendous dick heads to anyone who is not from Bellevue or is in the military. There have been a lot of issues with their attitudes and behavior that have earned them some bad press.

I have gotten pulled over bad lights and stuff but I got fix it tickets. I have been pulled over for looking lost in a bad neighbor hood but that was to try and help us find a way to some place safer.

I would say it depends on the situation. We have what we call a ticket quota season. Usually mid spring to July. Any other time frame they seem to be more liked. So I would say it is entirely situational to local law enforcement practices and other factors.

edited 17th Dec '10 4:19:45 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I recently corresponded with a former teacher of mine who started a course on defensive shooting stances. One of the issues we discussed involved the use of the Mozambique technique as well as shooting stances such as the center axis relock (CAR), the Weaver, and the rifle stance. I talked with a few police officers, some of whom are former or current military, and this is what I can substantiate based our findings at the range.

CAR

Strengths: exceptionally useful for CQB, comprehensive, and very fast

Weaknesses: exposes the flank and requires recession of the shoulder blades, which may hinder rapid shifting from side to side.

Weaver

Strengths: encourages accuracy and stability, versatile at various ranges

Weaknesses: wide girth discourages rapid strafing in CQB, a little too rigid for its own good

Rifle Stance

Strengths: Exactly What It Says on the Tin making use of rifle posturing to improve accuracy and stability at long ranges, very aggressive

Weaknesses: not appropriate for speed shooting, lacking in mobility

These are just short-hand notes I took at the range when I experimented with different shooting postures and firing methods with my uncle and few of his friends. They let me try out the Mozambique technique with a Beretta PX 4 (9mm), a Glock 22 (.40 SW), a Wilson Combat KZ 45 (.45 ACP), a Ruger P95 (9mm), a Taurus .357 revolver (I think either a Model 66 or 608), and a Walther P22 (.22).

The Mozambique technique seems to be easier with low-caliber pistols, but that also seems to defeat the purpose of the skill - to incapacitate the target as quickly as possible. The .45 ACP cartridge is one of the best rounds for this job. One thing I was repeatedly told is that the Mozambique technique emphasizes speed and ammo capacity whereas the traditional center-mass targeting is more a matter of one or two well-placed shots to the torso area. Obviously, Mozambique didn't work too well with the revolver, and my uncle told me to avoid using the rifle stance because the gases from the exhaust port would burn my fingers. I found the Glock 22 and the KZ 45 to be most comforting for the two-chest one-head maneuver, especially since both pistols had high-capacity magazines and modified grips.

I tried out CAR, and the results were mixed, aside from the fact that I've had little training in this stance. I found myself tempted to revert to Weaver out of frustration until one of my uncle's friends told me to drop my strong-side elbow and shift weight inward to the front leg. I hit more targets after that, but CAR still seems risky when visually vectoring targets at each flank. Point shooting works better for me when dealing with left-to-right target acquisition, but that's just me.

Some reports show that the Mozambique technique works better in a law enforcement capacity because officers are more likely to encounter an unarmored target, and the ballistic insult used to shut down the target is ideal for high-risk warrant situations where the suspect is intoxicated.

I'm not sure what position military organizations hold on its implementation outside of the special operations community, and it really doesn't seem appropriate for the conventional soldier who is statistically more likely to use short bursts in the kill triangle, an area in the torso that apexes at the centerpoint of the collar bone and diverges at either side of the lower rib cage. Police officers tend to invert the triangle to where the apex is located at the solar plexis, but I've heard varying reasons for this. Now, I have friends coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan who have seen standard infantry personnel shut down targets at mid-range using the Mozambique technique, but from what I've gathered, these results were not consistent and had more to do with the immediate threat level of the target.

I've only met a few police officers (mostly SWAT) who have taken down a suspect with the Mozambique technique using carbines and sub-machine guns, and all targets were brain dead before they fell to the ground. The skill may be morally dubious, yet, as Adrian Gilbert put it, it is paradoxically one of the more humane methods of projectile combat because it ensures immediate death of the target. This is definitely something to think about.

edited 25th Dec '10 11:00:24 PM by Aprilla

Nice write up. I preferred a modified weaver stance it works well for me and allowed just a little bit more mobility. Mozambique from what I trained in was good for sentries as usually need to stop whatever is going on dead in it's tracks right quick. That is if you can't nab that close range head shot.

I have heard a variety of things from aiming for the pelvis to a box from the middle of the rib cage and including the head. But yeah a burst or two or three rapidly fired shots into the center mass are preferred as it usually includes multiple organ hits and increases the chance of a fatal hit.

Who watches the watchmen?

I tend to switch between weaver and CAR respectively, this took lots of practice to get the muscle memory down, but for my specific case it's absolutely necessary.

I'm legally blind in my left eye, so I can't swap to a lefty weaver, I just can't. That's for CQB though of course, I'm exclusively right handed weaver outside of 10 meters.

CAR works good for my odd monovision setup. My right eye compensates for my left and so when something is lined up with the right eye, I have great depth perception of sorts. It sucks when I'm training with others though, instructors think I'm all fucked up until I tell them why I do it the way I do. With a long gun I can't lefty at all, I pretty much tuck that shit and hip fire if I'm coming around a corner and leading with my left.

Just something interesting for you Aprilla, the military is now teaching two stances, a regular rifle stance for outdoor, and a sort of isosceles stance for CQB(with a long gun that is), I know lots of law enforcement do this for the same reason we just started widely teaching it, but the isosceles indoors is so instead of twisting to minimize your frame, you're going full forward so you lead with your body armor and plates, since our sides aren't as well protected.

edited 26th Dec '10 10:44:53 AM by Barkey

I could be thinking differently or maybe it was because I was trained during the crux of change but they told us never turn your side to the direction of fire for that very reason. I remember when we were covering our MOUT stuff they made sure we knew every weak point in our armor and how to use cover with the best protected parts of the armor.

So new stances for indoor and outdoor eh. I wonder what those would look like with a long gun. Do you know Barkey if they still teach sighting over just the front sight and using the turkey peak around corners? Or my favorite the rabbit.

Turkey peak: You grip the butt stock near the charging handle under your arm pit and adjust your grips so you are pulling the trigger with your thumb. You use the other hand to pull the sling tight in the direction of the butt stock. You place your cheek (directionally dependent just ahead of the rear sight assembly/carrying handle and pop your head out at a tilt and back for a split second. If you see something you fire off a couple shots.

Rabbit: This one is risky and well fucking crazy. Fire team (4 in a fire team) You use this on T or + intersections of hallways. Two guys face the direction of suspected enemy location one man the opposite. The Rabbit will point his weapon in the direction of the one guy. What the rabbit does is well gets a running start and slams into the wall or crosses the hallway as noisily as possible goes prone on his side. The whole purpose is to try and get an enemy to expose themselves to shoot at the rabbit but when they do your boys are covering the hallway waiting for them. This of course can back fire badly.

Who watches the watchmen?

We still do the rabbit, it's not formally taught, but it's widely known.

I'd never use it indoors though, that's seriously risky, I'd just as soon frag the room.

Outdoors, however, it's a great way to get the enemy to expose themselves.

Never heard of the Turkey, in general we're just point shooting indoors, though I use my regular rifle stance at longer ranges indoors.

I think there might have been a training gap regarding body armor for us, since the AF has only started getting the new body armor a few years ago.