The Law Enforcement Officer Thread

That might make sense the Infantry oriented marines would make sure we were a bit more aware of the limits of the armor.

Hey Apprilla do you know if they use any unusual tactics like that for law enforcement? What about being aware of body armor facing?

You know, I'm not sure. I'll have to ask around, but I've heard that some officers and agents use high-collar body armor that accommodates the back of the neck and the collar bones. I didn't know this until recently, but law enforcement agencies use a different sleeve system for their armor than military organizations do, and these modifications primarily make use of concealment under clothing.

The FBI and Secret Service apparently use a pop-collar suit that tapers along the hips so you can wear it with a blouse and tie. One cop did show me a test model of a new type of body armor that enables the wearer to have Kevlar wraps around the arm pits and shoulders. I can't find any links with photos, but from what I can see in person, it's basically a standard bullet-resistant vest with a kind of multi-layered under-armor (looks like the undergarments football players wear without the bulk). The physics behind its bullet resistance are odd, but the armor was designed mainly for the purpose of defeating or retarding jacketed hollow points since civilian suspects are more likely to fire that type of cartridge. Upon impact, the armor disperses the inertia from the blast in a wide and shallow fashion rather than a deep and narrow fashion like other types of body armor. You guys would know more about this than me, but this is basically how the armor works. I don't think it has a specific name but rather a family classification based on weave and material fittings.

As for shooting styles, some police officers are starting to use some sort of cross between non-sighted torso fire and quick-targeting sighted fire. Basically, you fire the first shot from the draw with the elbow tucked against the mid-section. The second shot is delivered from a double-tucked (both elbows inward) position with the sights at eye level just long enough to reassess the target's upper torso. You guys probably know more about this than me since I've never fought or patrolled with guns, but it's more or less a variation of the double-tap - slower but more lethal. If the first shot lands, your target is likely to go into septic shock, and if the second shot lands, they should undergo hydrostatic arrest or respiratory failure. I've never done it at a shooting range, but it sounds like a more conservative version of the Mozambique drill.

@Tuefel: Again, I'm obviously not speaking from combat experience, but from pure instruction, I've been told the same thing about exposing the flank of the body during movement. One of the rules my instructor repeatedly told me was "you lead the weapon, the weapon doesn't lead you", and it's something we've applied to both shooting and martial arts. I had to kind of hammer it out of my head that it's okay to lead with one side because it disrupts your center of gravity.

However, police officers tend to lead with a dominant side more often than soldiers partly because the "square up" position works a lot better when you actually have armor. I disagree, but I'm not a patrol officer, so I won't judge. Leading with the dominant can be good for non-lethal weapons like tasers and pepper spray when you approach a suspect with the device in the rear hand and your badge in the extended hand. It's dangerous but more legally acceptable, and some cops have told me that it's more effective for intimidation since most perpetrators will back down at the sight of this stance. By contrast, there are training studies showing that a square-up approach to a target is more evocative of fear in said target, thus leading to a greater chance of non-violent submission. The study is biased in that it only seems to deal with point-blank range encounters, so I wouldn't recommend it for mid to long-range engagements.

Barkey, would you say that the rabbit is a type of bounding overwatch? I'm picturing this tactic in my head, and it seems like it's ideal for firing and maneuvering at mid-range.

edited 26th Dec '10 10:55:16 PM by Aprilla

Sort of, only it's one person bounding instead of going as a squad.

An ideal situation for it(well, there is no ideal situation for The Rabbit) is your fireteam being pinned down, and one guy running to a position of cover that will take him in the enemy killing zone, this draws the enemy fire away so your fireteam can hopefully kill the enemy that is suppressing them.

You know, I'm not sure. I'll have to ask around, but I've heard that some officers and agents use high-collar body armor that accommodates the back of the neck and the collar bones. I didn't know this until recently, but law enforcement agencies use a different sleeve system for their armor than military organizations do, and these modifications primarily make use of concealment under clothing.

Yeah, LEO's have way different sets of armor since military makes no attempt at concealment except for OSI/NCIS/CID, our plainclothes law enforcement agents. Though at one point I did have a posting where I wore a second-chance vest under my cammies.

After getting back from a meeting, I've been curious to know what some of you think of militias and vigilantes. This is a very broad inquiry as it can apply to any nation or group, so feel free to discuss accordingly. Here are some questions that come to mind:

1. Are militias still necessary? There are ordinary citizens who work as volunteer border watchers along the U.S.-Mexico border, but we have BORTAC, INS and the Texas Rangers for this duty. I would say roughly the same of neighborhood watch programs in urban areas, but again, we have police officers for this task. The advantages to having a neighborhood watch programs is that the residents have more information on daily street activities, and a stronger and tighter community network enables people to quickly notice when something is afoot. The disadvantage to this format involves the bystander effect (think of Kitty Genovese) and a lack of formal legal authority that can do more harm than good in the long run.

2. How do we distinguish militias from criminal organizations and terrorist groups? This isn't a huge problem in the United States, but to speak from a global standpoint, telling the difference between genuine freedom fighters and malicious criminals can be very difficult. Is this a matter of ideology, organizational methods, equipment, state sponsorship, or some combination of the set? For example, a group of people who are honestly defending their village could easily cross a legal and moral boundary by unwittingly using a weapon or ammunition that violates a human rights code. Citizen-based defense groups that once served under a reasonable and just leader could suddenly find themselves employed by a corrupt official or leader, as such has happened in several state, local and federal law enforcement agencies.

To better illustrate my point, think about how the German secret police was formed before the Blitzkrieg and how so many German citizens - especially Jews - didn't realize the true nature of this group until it was too late. The Gestapo was, for all intents and purposes, a militia, as were the RUF of Sierra Leone and some white supremacist militias associated with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Brotherhood who seem like innocuous concerned citizens until agencies like the FBI and ATF find a link between them and hate crimes or drugs/arms trafficking. There's also the situation with the Iraqi police forces (and the Iraqi National Guard if you want to count them) where Iraqi citizens are being harassed by corrupt patrol officers who are taking advantage of the lack of stability in key neighborhoods of Tikrit, Basra, and Baghdad. US military forces also get pulled into the community conflicts even though these situations are typically beyond their control, a fact that Barkey has pointed out several times.

This topic does involve some overlap between law enforcement and military organizations, both formal and irregular, so varied input is appreciated. I don't think we could isolate this into a law enforcement topic since militias have military connotations in practice, but given the nature of the thread, law enforcement is the primary focus here.

Addendum: The Robin Hood effect also comes to mind. You have criminal organizations in the favelas of Brazil who are highly respected by the impoverished, yet these very same groups are notoriously involved in kidnapping, murder, and extortion. You also have mafias that "offer" their protective services to small business owners in exchange for a cut of their profits. It sounds Hollywoodish, but this still goes on to this very day.

edited 16th Jan '11 9:09:16 PM by Aprilla

Well the answer for the Neighbor hood watch and militia alike is that while we have dedicated organizations for those professions they can not be everywhere at once.

Neighborhood watch groups often work closely with local police to help deter crime and act as watch dogs. Local police also frequently give courses on how to patrol, observe, and report. The neighbor hood watches often get assigned a car on call in case of sighting. The car will respond soonest possible moment and check out the situation.

The militia is helping the INS (I have doubts about their skill and abilities as an org) by watching spots of the border they lack the personnel to cover. A friend of mine recently stationed with the TSG near Del Rio on the U.S. side of the border got a lot of traffic. The nearby town was over run with illegal immigrants and drug runners alike. Once they started intercepting people running the border with check points and turning them around the town had a drop in population as folks were turned around or sent back across the border. Of course they would cross or attempt to cross at other points after that but they were trying to choke off one of the more major corridors. INS in Texas does not have the staff or equipment to do the job adequately.

Also state sponsored militias like the TSG make excellent first responders in emergency situations and also serve as a back up should something happen to the federal authority and the state needs some muscle. I would say its better to have them and regulate them at the state level for the militia's then to not have them at all. Most of them are funded through donations and volunteer efforts.

As for outside the U.S. Sometimes the only difference between a group as protectors and thugs is who is leading them and how many go along for the ride. Some of the larger gangs in the U.S. started as groups looking out for their various ethnic neighbor hoods making sure folks could exist their inside their culture with minimal trouble. Of course there is always the tale of someone seeing a chance to grab power and make money off of the situation and it goes down hill. The Crips if I remember came about this way.

I can imagine various situations occur around the world. The initial use of the groups are for legitimate reasons like the Militants that fought Russia that we are duking it out with in Afghanistan. They fall under management that changes the outlook of the group and their purpose and direction changes for the worse. I would say it is harder to clean those groups up and is better to dismantle them entirely when that happens.

edited 16th Jan '11 9:30:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Well, even with the Minuteman Militias, we still don't have enough manpower to secure the border. It's a real problem that we're going to have to solve somehow, someday.

Until then they are helping out as best they can. The TSG is an actual historically founded state defense force though. From the days when Texas was a small little nation unto itself.

I guess "Militia" has been tainted as a word where I live. Personally, I understand that the overwhelming vast majority of people and organizations that identify as a militia aren't stark raving mad people who fret over "the gub'ment" and "black helicopters" and stuff of that ilk, but... the mental image I conjure up by default is just that - a bunch of trigger-happy who have a few mental issues.

I guess I've been tainted by the media portrayal of them.

Recognizing that, I can see how a militia would be quite useful in disaster response - looking at the Michigan State Militia website, they have a lot of stuff to do along those lines, as well as promoting a safe environment to go out and practice a lot of the soldiering skills that don't always include throwing lead downrange - field cooking, setting up a bivouac site, land nav and other useful skills.

They have to train their own guys usually from scratch with the experienced men they get.

Usually tons of prior military, and current National Guard/Law Enforcement involved.

And if they are the honestly well regulated militia they try to weed out the loons as much as is possible.

Oh hell yeah the militias love prior service guys of nearly every stripe.

I've been considering moving to Indianapolis, I just kind of want a change of pace to Cali life, and a good friend of mine is in a Security Forces guard unit there. He makes it sound like a really nice place, and I could join a militia and actually buy the decent guns that all the other states except mine allow!

What is it about nice weather that makes my state go insane?

We tend to get some "colorful" individuals in our tracker groups. I never outright dismiss conspiracy theories on the off-chance that they might be true, but I've seen and heard some pretty wacky stories from would-be members of the clubs. I have to agree with pvtnum about the stereotypical image of a modern militia, and the paranoia that some people bring with them can be quite annoying, to say the least.

What kind of screening process are we talking about here? I know some militias have police officers and certified medical experts provide drug testing and background checks at a reduced fee, but many smaller defense organizations don't use this method very well or at all. I keep thinking of Dale from King Of The Hill and his gun club that basically consisted of people who were either crazy or incompetent. Some militias and defense enthusiast groups like that really exist.

The Ozarks Tracker School in Arkansas has a basic background check policy that operates on a tier system for particular classes. If you have a history of mental illness or violent crime, you won't be allowed to take specific courses that involve the use of weapons, stalking, counter-stalking, or surveillance, let alone general courses. We have a few private investigators and off-duty police officers who make it a point to spot and weed out potentially unstable students. You're actually required to present a valid driver's license, military ID, or school ID, so that helps. The kind of person who isn't willing to give you something as simple as a photo ID is the kind of person who could be a threat to other students, prejudiced as that sounds.

As for the screening process you pretty much already pointed out the methods they use. Some of course lacking resources do the best they can and may have a few tests and questions and if you run around acting excessively crazy they ask them to leave.

Just like any group there are always the extremists which the media always focuses on.

Usually when we talk about snipers, we think of military snipers. However, police snipers have a noticeable niche in matters of defense. Based on my research and what professionals have told me, these are a few of the differences between military snipers and police snipers:

1. More frequent use of aerial platforms

2. Firing at shorter ranges. Probably anywhere around 150 meters to as close as 50 meters in urban environments.

3. Use of semi-automatic weapons with intermediate cartridges. This seems to have changed recently with the military's more frequent use of semi-automatics such as the M14 EBR and the SR-25. With the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Iraq, military forces seem to be refashioning sniper and sharpshooter equipment loadouts with something more suitable for rapid follow-up shots. This issue also came into being with the Munich massacre, as German law enforcement officers didn't have a rifle that was appropriate for the conditions.

4. Police snipers have more long-term training than military snipers. Military snipers tend to have more specialized roles in a larger operating body, especially Marine Corps scout-snipers. Police snipers are usually either former military or well-versed in hunting in the community where they hold jurisdiction. Some under-funded police departments even allow the SWAT snipers to use their own rifles as long as they meet department standards.

Clearly, there are plenty of exceptions to the above, but this is the gist of what distinguishes a police sniper from other types of shooters. Many of the police marksmen with whom I've spoken have gone so far as to argue that they are better shots overall than their military counterparts, and it would appear that there is some truth to this. I don't want to turn this into "police snipers are better than military snipers", but one of the explanations for this conjecture is that police officers have more time to hone their shooting skills.

I think the average military sniper probably gets about 3 to 4 years of in-depth sniper training, which is brief compared to career law enforcement agents who probably spend about a decade going through numerous marksmanship programs. The prevalence of former military law enforcement snipers would also explain this.

Something else that occurred to me is that military sniper schools, while relatively short in duration, are extremely rigorous. Military snipers have the added risk of being killed on site when overwhelmed by enemy forces. A police sniper may come under scrutiny for failing to take down a deranged suspect during a hostage crisis, and while he may even lose his badge, he can still walk home at the end of the day. A military sniper doesn't really have this luxury, and the contrary is certainly a subject of interest.

edited 21st Feb '11 10:22:19 PM by Aprilla

I would challenge that the Military snipers are actually spend even more time shooting then the Police. They have special courses beyond the standard school. Which by the way have trained many police snipers. There is a special course for urban sniping methods, jungle, desert, etc.

Military snipers are also infiltrators and scouts in addition to being snipers.

Police snipers are more limited in their target options especially because their shooting is often on a situational basis and highly dependent on the targets actions and usually have more over sight then a military sniper.

Police Sniper Great Shot.

Given the fact that the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, the Secret Services, the ATF, the DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies get the sniper and scout training at Quantico, I'm actually willing to concede to your argument. Interesting video, by the way.

The commentary is not what I was looking for there is a different video which tells the situation better.

The roles are definitely different. Police snipers aren't as versed in the whole scouting, surveillance, and recon aspects that a military sniper does.

However, I feel a police sniper has more time to train, not only because of how much time he puts in, but how many of the military courses are filled with rigorous PT shit instead of actual learning material. He also needs to be a better marksman, we shoot for center of mass to kill. Sometimes they have to make some seriously compromising shots that they have to make compared to us.

And as said, we learn a lot of extra stuff. The actual marksmanship part is.. Meh. It's not the meat and potatoes of most military marksmanship courses. The course Security Forces does is more like "Learn everything there is to know about finding a sniper, and then qualify with the M24, the end."

Then again our CPEC course is tailored to our job, our job isn't to really have sniper cover that we provide, CPEC grads are more or less expected to be on the job, and if a sniper starts shooting our guys, he has to be able to unpack that rifle, and then find and neutralize him.

I read a book that discusses the evolution of modern special operations forces and federal agents, and in the "Vietnam" section it briefly mentions that Air Force Combat Controllers would patrol airbases from concealed positions using sniper and counter-sniper tactics against Viet Cong and NVA. Some of these commandos went on to revise escort strategies and tactics used by the Secret Services and the Marshals Service, which was especially necessary given the JFK assassination.

Yeah, our ground troops on the USAF side really had a chance to shine in 'Nam, that's where we earned our Beret, at the Battle of Tan Son Nhut and Bunker 051.

I checked the info out on that bunker. Man that was a really hairy fire fight.

Check this out Body Cams for CopsI think it is a pretty good idea. It will keep the bad apples more honest and protect officers from people law suit hunting. That and there is the fact that knowing you are watched causes people to modify their behaviors most of the time.

edited 3rd Mar '11 9:38:57 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Mixed feelings here.

So long as I'm the one turning it on and off, I'm ok with that. I don't want my every move and word recorded the entire time I'm at work, not because of any wrongdoing, but because I don't want the things I say if I'm on the phone or talking to my partner to be on display for the whole department to see.

edited 3rd Mar '11 10:46:33 PM by Barkey

I think the purpose of the cam is for cops in the field responding to situations and doing traffic stops. They may be able to turn it off until they begin an official piece of police business or get out of their car which would make sense to me.

edited 4th Mar '11 12:18:46 AM by TuefelHundenIV

That's actually a very sensible idea. I'm the sort of libertarian that always has the dashboard cam on while driving a car, to suppress any evidence obtained through an illegal search.

Perhaps if the whole interaction is recorded, the cops will be less eager to engage in arbitrary searches.

edited 4th Mar '11 7:10:12 AM by SavageHeathen