The Captain's Journal » Police Designated Marksman?

Police Designated Marksman?

BY Herschel Smith

13 years, 5 months ago

Richard Fairburn, writing at PoliceOne.com, gives us this remarkable portrait of his vision for the police state in America.

I saddled up my first patrol rifle, a Colt AR15, in a Chevrolet Blazer 4×4 patrol vehicle in 1985. The other two patrol deputies in my county had their own semi-auto rifles in locking racks, one carried a Beretta AR70 (also in 5.56mm caliber) while the other had a H&K Model 91 chambered for the much more powerful 7.62x51mm NATO round (.308 Winchester). While more than one potential human target saw the business end of our rifles over the years, no one ever challenged their authority.

Now we see patrol rifles in the hands of many U.S. police officers, generally a variation of the AR15/M16/M4 system. I have long believed a rifle is the long gun “answer” to most police shooting situations, now it seems most agencies agree. So, I’ll try to stay one step ahead by suggesting we now need to move a few of our officers “beyond the patrol rifle.”

The other dominant rifle form in U.S. police usage has been the sniper rifle, generally referred to as a counter-sniper rifle in its earliest days following the “Texas Tower” massacre committed by Charles Whitman in Austin, Texas on August 1, 1966. What I propose now is that we equip and train a percentage of our patrol officers to a capability midway between those equipped with a patrol rifle and snipers who generally only deploy as one element of a SWAT team. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps are fielding these intermediate-level marksmen in significant numbers and they are proving to be extremely effective in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military refers to them as “Designated Marksmen,” and I propose we adopt similar terminology and the same weaponry for perhaps one in 10 patrol officers.

In February 2009, only a few months after the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, PoliceOne ran my three-part series on how we should be training and preparing to counter terrorist teams of active shooters. In the development of that series of articles, I ran the drafts by LTC Dave Grossman, noted SWAT trainer Sgt. Ed Mohn, and a couple of military SpecOps dudes I know, adding their valuable input to the final product. I was more than a little gratified when I saw the Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and New York City police departments and the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) organize and train officers in ways that paralleled our early recommendations — the most common program being Multiple Attack Counter Terror Action Capabilities training, or MACTAC. It was in part three of that series that I first suggested the need for Designated Marksman (DM) capabilities when responding to a Mumbai-style attack.

The most simple and inexpensive way to improve on our existing patrol rifles is to upgrade existing 5.56mm carbines with low- to medium-power optical sights. This enhances the shooter’s ability to deliver precise fire at longer distances than we can generally muster with iron sights. In addition to optics, any 5.56mm DM rifle should be coupled with a heavy 5.56mm projectile like the 77gr MHP bullet in the Mk262 load. Most Army DMs are equipped with an M16 variant using a 4x optical sight and the Mk262 load. Many patrol rifle shooters can already quickly mount scopes or 3x magnifiers for low power optical sights.

But ideally, I think our Designated Marksmen should be equipped with a more powerful rifle to deal more effectively with both distance and light intervening cover. The AR15 platform can be upgraded to larger cartridges like the Remington .30 AR or the 6.8mm SPC, but stepping up even further makes more sense. The USMC Designated Riflemen generally shoot an updated M14 chambered for the 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester). Our LE-type DMs should also opt for the 7.62mm/.308 round, but instead of firing the 168gr Match Hollow Point (MHP) round our snipers use, we should opt for a 150 grain expanding projectile. The sniper’s match hollow points are designed primarily for accuracy and give erratic terminal performance. Choosing a round like Federal Ammunition’s P308E, which uses a 150 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet, or Black Hills Ammunition’s Black Hills Gold load that uses a Hornady 155 grain A-Max projectile, would provide devastating terminal performance and a reduced chance of over-penetration, coupled with the ability to switch interchangeably to military M80 Ball ammunition. The M80 Ball load is a trajectory match for a 150-155 grain expanding bullet and allows both reduced cost training as well as better penetration against barricaded targets.

The Marine Corp’s modified M14 DM rifle can be duplicated with an M1A rifle from Springfield Armory, their Scout Squad model is particularly handy. If you would prefer a semi-auto rifle with the same operating controls as your AR to simplify training, a number of AR makers offer a variation of the AR10 which is chambered for the 7.62mm round. A police DM rifle should be equipped with a scope sight of about 4x magnification (or a variable-power scope that will zoom up to at least 4x).

Analysis & Commentary

Despite his having invoked the U.S. Army, the classification of DM is primarily found in the U.S. Marine Corps (my son was a DM in his platoon). The training for DM is much the same as the training for Marine Corps Scout Snipers, except for the stalking, evasion, and other things that make a sniper unique.

The writer invokes the memory of the shooter at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966, but Charles Whitman was killed on the observation deck at close range by a police officer using a shotgun. Furthermore, it was a basic lack of plant security that allowed Whitman to be there at all. The next data point in his scare tactics to pressure the reader into accepting a militarized police is the Mumbai attacks in India. But there isn’t any indication that long range standoff weapons were used in ending the Mumbai attacks. In fact, the notion the writer promulgates is more one of a paramilitary style force.

He specifically alludes to the DM designation, with police officers envisioned as using long range standoff weapons such as a sniper rifle. Make no mistake about it. Mr. Fairburn is quite literally advocating a higher ratio of snipers / DMs for the police than we typically find in Marine Corps infantry units.

Given the horrible state of no-knock raids in America (see Jose Guerenna raid among many others), the proliferation of these military tactics across the law enforcement community (see Department of Education affiliated officers and the raid on Kenneth Wright), and the common practice used by felons of announcing themselves as police officers, there isn’t any prima facie reason to entrust the police with high power weapons used in a standoff fashion.

The track record of police offices behaving as military operators (as they wish to be called) isn’t very good. They haven’t earned the title, they haven’t deployed on combat tours, and their job function is to be peace officers. In my own hometown I have noticed an increasing inconsistency in uniform among police officers, from cargo pants and tee shirts to formal uniforms, from OWB handgun holsters to drop holsters with tactical belts, and on and on the list goes.

While there is a need for access to more than just side arms (and training to use them in limited circumstances), police departments needs to work more towards less militarization of tactics and uniforms, less use of no-knock raids, and certainly as limited use as possible of long range standoff weapons.

Mr. Fairburn is pressing towards the increased militarization of U.S. police, while the optimum goal should be the decreased militarization of tactics. But the troubling thing about Mr. Fairburn’s argument is its wide acceptance within the law enforcement community. It’s not uncommon now to find this attitude within police departments. It’s easy to understand the interest in the so-called “black guns” (ARs) with close to two decades of war flashed across our TV screens (I have one), and I am certainly a defender of the right to bear arms as my readers know. I regularly engage in both open and concealed carry.

But interest in tactics, dress, weapons, and so on, isn’t the same thing as behaving like military operators around the public where innocent bystanders can be injured, and where we have the bill of rights to protect us from the state. Mr. Fairburn should rethink his position, but common citizens should become engaged in their local communities to ensure that the police aren’t in fact becoming too autonomous.

Featured,Police,SWAT Raids

Comments

On July 19, 2011 at 4:24 am, Jim Harris said:

Hard to know how to deal with this article. Is this an argument against police having a DM capability? Or, it it an argument that police need better, more consistent training so that, in the process of “protecting us,” they don’t become (more) part of the problem?

If the former, I disagree. I see nothing wrong in police having a capability to engage targets at distance. I think the increased threats that they and all of us face warrants it — amongst other things.

But if police are increasingly part of the problem, elimination of their capabilities is not going to solve that. Such measures would only enable the combat power of criminals and terrorists without decreasing the ability of criminals, terorists, and POLICE to wreak havoc with the rest of us.

I think the solution is to give the police what they need based on sound strategic, operational, and tactical level analysis of threats, but to make sure that their training and their leadership is sufficient to curtail (at least most) abuses and to hold those accountable who actually abuse.

I support the 2nd Amendment also; and as a measure to protect myself and people/things I care about, it is a vital right.

But unless I’m actually part of some well organized, trained, and equipped militia (e.g., police or other state reserve, armed neighborhood watch, etc.), I’m not usually going to be that effective by myself. My personal armament, while desirable, is only as good as my awareness and reaction time. My involvment in the community, as described above, would count for much more. I’d watch my neighbor’s back, and he/she would watch mine.

Better to have well equipped (armed), organized, and above all well lead police under OUR control than to have a feckless, ineffective force that we’ve emasculated because we are more afraid of them than real terrorists, etc.

On July 19, 2011 at 7:38 am, John Gardner said:

Jim

Not to belittle the Police or your opinion of the increased threats but I don’t see how creating DMs or providing additional training on that level will better suit the individual officer or department in countering a Mumbai type attack.

The best way in my opinion to counter this type of attack is to make the attack untenable at the outset with the existence of multiple citizens armed to protect themselves and others. The police cannot be everywhere (we don’t want them to be) but we are and I contend that concealed carry by the law abiding is by the best way to deal with this type and many other tactics by by actors.

Just think about how easy in NY City for instance it would be to overwhelm the ESU with multiple calls in Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx not to mention luring them out to Staten Island then creating an accident on the Bridges to slow response. This is just me (no tactical genius spitballing)

Not just blowing smoke I have some experience with firearms/tactics training and knowledge being former USMC 0331 and current USCGR Small Arms Instructor. Not that this is saying much just trying to point out my opine is not entirely finger in the air stuff.

S/F
JTG

On July 19, 2011 at 10:07 am, Bill said:

NY? NY is done. They believe a piece of paper will protect you from people who don’t obey the law in the first place.

I agree that shall issue concealed carry should be the norm.

And the police don’t need any more toys or loosened ROE. They’ve not demonstrated any sort of tactical competence with what they DO have. And they’re here to protect and serve, not intimidate and destroy.

Join the armed forces if that’s your thing. These cowboy cops and their like are really starting to aggravate me and give police as a whole a really bad name.

On July 19, 2011 at 10:10 am, Warbucks said:

Political accountability is the key link I think. Only an elected sheriff has to report back to his constituency for confirmation of his post and it’s operating themes. Most “police chiefs” are ensconced in layers of protection that create this problem to begin with. I think part of the solution will be found in where training and resourcing assets are held. The must face real accountability. Police commissions while helpful are insufficient to rise to a level of responsive government. The ballot box holds an important part of the answer, I think.

On July 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm, Federale said:

I don’t think that either author was on target with either the problem, the solution, or the ancillary issues.

Countering a Mumbai style attack has nothing to do with no-knock warrants or their abuse. Note that the Guernena case was not a no-knock warrant, as the officers involved activated a siren before they knocked and announced.

While the PoliceOne author thinks that a 7.62 rifle would be needed for a quick counter attack action, I disagree. A sniper type weapon would be needed in the longer term response, but any quick reaction by regular patrol officers would be based on surprise, speed and violence of action. Setting up for long range shots would be more of a measured response from a dedicated tactical unit.

And, as one commentor claimed that CCW holders could stop an attack, that is also equally foolish. The Mumbai terrorists had automatic weapons in rifle calibers, handgrenades and other explosives and were acting in teams. It is very unlikely that a single CCW holder or multiple CCW holders could have done much against such an array and against those willing to die for their cause.

It is equally incorrect to say that wide availability of selective fire weapons somehow creates an abusive police force. Guns don’t cause crime, people cause crime. An abuse, such as that of no-knock warrants, would be the same whether the officers are carrying M-4s or Detective Specials.

On July 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Thanks for everyone’s comments. Jim and Federale, your comments warrant a special and involved retort.

Make sure that you don’t misconstrue my argument. I do not, and would not, keep law enforcement of any kind, local, state and federal, from getting more qualified on their firearms. I hope that my own grandchildren can place a round on target at 500 yards one day. All Americans should avail themselves of all kinds of firearms, and if in fact I believe this, then my belief applies to law enforcement as well.

So make sure that you aren’t setting up a straw man, only to knock it down, and missing my entire argument.

As for no-knock raids, my correlation of these to police DMs is the category “militarization of the police.” It is indeed related, and whether the weapons, tacti-cool equipment and uniforms, Television, loose rules, support from the local Sheriffs, or whatever, leads to abuse, my argument is that there is a trend. I am not outlining causation, but correlation. There is a correlation of evidence that the police in America are becoming militarized in their tactics, and it’s possible (and a good thing) to turn this around. I never said that rifle training causes militarization of the police. Read more deeply than that, please.

Next, the Jose Guerenna raid was a no-knock raid. I don’t care that they ran a siren and knocked four seconds before they knocked down the door. That’s looking for loopholes. Knock, knock the door in, and video it to show that it wasn’t a no-knock raid.

Cheap. And stupid. And the American public can see through those stunts. And yes, The Guerenna raid was an abuse of police power, just as the Kenneth Wright raid was.

Next, to compare Marine Corps infantry DMs (or simply MOS 0311), who put literally thousands of rounds down range daily, day after day after day after day, with Lance Corporals hovering over their boots, ready to hit one of them in the back with the butt of their weapon if they fail (and scream at them for an hour and then send them on a four mile run with fill kit, only to do it all again until it’s right), with police officers who have not and will not ever become that good, or perform under that kind of pressure, is absurd. Again, it’s preposterous. Again, it’s ridiculous. I don’t trust law enforcement in the large scale, frequent employment of long range standoff weapons.

Finally, let’s talk about what is a good defense against terrorism. The writer’s use of Mumbai is absurd. Preposterous. Ridiculous. My only mistake is that I didn’t ricicule it enough in the initial article.

Yes, it’s true that the attackers in that incident were high on cocaine (and other drugs to help them stay awake for 50+ hours). It’s true that they were on a suicide mission, just as Federale said. Only one of them was taken alive.

But it’s also true what I said. The attackers were killed in CQB, just like the shooter in the tower at the U. of Texas. Long range standoff weapons would have been worse than useless. They would have been a danger to others around them. Concealed weapons could have indeed helped. They might not have delivered the decisive blow, but to pan their use entirely as you have done makes no sense.

These things can help in combatting terrorism:

[1] Kill the terrorists where they breed, thus preventing them from coming to our shores.

[2] Close the borders.

[3] Harden the infrastructure (see here http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/09/28/a-terrorist-attack-that-america-cannot-absorb/)

[4] Conduct and perform better investigative work, finding and shutting down the terrorists before they can conduct an attack of this sort. For example, which of the following would make me feel safer: (a) My local police officers going to the range a couple of days a year and then pretending they can use long range standoff weapons, or (B) my local police going after and shutting down the city’s MS13 gang, which they know exists? You take a guess.

[5] An armed public.

If you/we/America doesn’t want to do any one of the five things I have outlined above, we will not, cannot, stop terrorism. The police cannot protect us. And their use of long range standoff weapons will add precisely zero (0) to my safety and security. But their belief that they can use long range standoff weapons might in fact detract from my security, and adds to the militarization of police tactics in America, a trend which I deplore.

On July 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm, Lance Heckerman said:

@Jim Harris

Your perspective is valid to a degree but not much in my opinion. Consider the following:

1. The response time for LE is too slow and getting worse due to the economy. This is the reality. A criminal can kill the entire family during a home invasion and have time for a beer before the police arrive as evidenced by actual crimes.
2. In the time it takes a LE to respond to a serious life threatening crime, an armed citizen may intervene as is their right.
3. It is not the legal responsibility of LE agencies to protect the citizenry. If this were so, there would be no end to the litigation that would ensue when they failed to respond in time to any serious crime that resulted in the death of the victim.

Given the above statements to be correct, one may conclude that more armed citizens would be more effective as no community could ever have enough police to respond effectively to the majority of situations. An armed citizen that is on the spot then has the ability to prevent a tragedy, Lubby’s Diner comes to mind as an example of how just one armed citizen could have stopped the massacre.

FBI crime reports support that legally armed citizens are not the problem. Armed criminals are. I will parrot the NRA’s talking point that armed citizens save a significant number of lives each year. Enough so that it supports the argument to promote 2nd Amendment rights by allowing law abiding citizens the right in every state to arm themselves in public.

Armed citizens have proven that during countless lethal encounters that they would be more effective in the actual prevention of tragedy than law enforcement due to the fact that it only takes a criminal seconds to kill his intended victims while the police are “on-the-way”. The “DM’s” should be the people themselves, not an expanded police force.

I am a 20 year retired combat vet that was humiliated by my local police department when I was denied a CCW after my wife was held up at gun point while on here way to run errands. They told me the reason for denial was that personal or family protection was an invalid reason to justify the issuance of a CCW and that the chances of me “hurting myself or family” and “public safety” outweigh my desire to defend myself and family. I was reminded to call the police if I encounter crime and they will handle it. What a joke. They stood there and told me, a combat vet that has been in more combat engagements than their entire department has during the chief’s career, that I am a danger to public safety.

Regarding the validity of your argument: Is there a need for law enforcement? Yes. But only as a supplement to the responsibility of all citizens and would be accountable to the citizens they serve. Yes, I do believe that as citizens, and are of sound mind and are able-bodied, you have a responsibility to enforce law and order.

The Rodney King & Watts riots are examples of the value of an armed citizenry to protect life and property when law enforcement cannot be expected to realistically respond. Ex-United States soldiers have performed police duties all over the world but are not trusted to defend there local communities in times of crisis?

“But if police are increasingly part of the problem, elimination of their capabilities is not going to solve that. Such measures would only enable the combat power of criminals and terrorists without decreasing the ability of criminals, terorists, and POLICE to wreak havoc with the rest of us.”

This is an invalid argument as you limit the outcome to only one. What if the citizenry were allowed to exercise their rights by responding with lethal force themselves? Increasingly the police and citizen relationship is becoming more polarized. Enforcing the law gives one lethal power privilege that common citizens have been denied in many states and communities. Not only can you not defend yourself with lethal force in public, you are regulated regarding non-lethal force options to the point of ineffectiveness such as weak pepper sprays, etc.

I get the impression that you are a LEO and if that is the case, I thank you for dedicating your life to serve the public. My beef is that the balance of power has tilted to a police state environment by violating my rights.

What is the chance of any random citizen becoming a victim of violent crime? In my experience, very good. I have been personally involved in two encounters my wife had one encounter, and my sister in law was car-jacked, beaten and left for dead. She is now paralyzed. Judging from my history, I will neither confirm nor deny that I carry a concealed firearm even though I have been denied the permit to do so. If I do carry, it is the police leadership that has left me no viable option.

I cannot carry unloaded in a holster because of the school zone prohibition which covers the majority of my community making it impractical and in danger of a LEO encounter if I unknowingly violate it.

Am I the enemy? No. I am one of the law-abiding citizens that you are accountable to but no longer are when you deny my rights at your discretion.

On July 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm, Federale said:

I am confused, if correlation is not causation, then what is the relationship between a cop with an M-4 and a no-knock warrant? You claim militarization, but you seem to forget that cops before the Warren Court had little or no restrictions on how they executed warrants. As a matter of fact, the Warren Court claimed that what they were doing was ending police abuses. And they did it with six guns.

But getting back to Mumbai, while there probably were few 500 yard shots in that incident, which I must say neither you or I actually know, but I do know that Indian cops with Lee-Enfields shot it out with the terrorists in the train station and those shots were not CBQ. There is a great area between CBQ and 500 yards. Like between 10 yards and 100. The Mumbai train station is pretty big. In any event, a 5.56 or 7.62 in a quality semi or assault rifle might have made the difference. And the Indian police are not know for their adherence to civil rights. But it is not the guns or lack of them that causes abuses. But the lack of the correct tools can mean the difference between success or failure.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people do. Guns don’t abuse civil rights, cops do….erhh….people do….

You also seem to forget that Guernenna’s wife was awake at the time and claimed to have looked outside and claimed to have seen a “gang” of people and told her husband that. Note that the gang was wearing uniforms with “Police” in big yellow letters on their chests. It is clear that she knew the people coming in were police, but claimed to have told her husband something else. So it is clear that she is lying and covering for something, most likely the drug dealing. If she was the innocent housewife, why is she making such an absurd statement? If what she claims is true, then she set up her husband to be killed by the police. What is more likely is that they were involved in drug dealing and she told her husband the cops were at the door and he decided to fight it out. To say the Guernenna shooting was bad means that you must believe that the wife is lying about what she says she saw. Then you must explain why she lied. The only reasonable explanation is that they knew it was the police and decided to shoot it out, much like the parolee at large who was shot by the SFPD recently. He decided to shoot it out with the cops and died. Guernenna decided to do the same thing or was set up by his wife. Given the wife’s statements, those are the only two explanations.

On July 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm, Lance Heckerman said:

Regarding the Guernenna fiasco, here is something for you to consider Federale:

Afghanistan rules of engagement afford many more safeguards regarding when a civilian home can be searched, by whom, and what force may be used.

The rules of engagement by our modern day police “commandos” place our citizens at greater risk. Although I disagree with the current ROE in Afghanistan because they get soldiers killed and the fact that we are at war, I feel the commando tactics of police directed at our own citizens, is an affront to our sense of liberty and freedom. You want to be a commando? Join the military. You are not at war with the citizens of this country and you damn well better realign your shot group because you are failing miserably in the forum of public opinion.

This is more than just an isolated incident. It is trending upward and I am disgusted. There is nothing more reprehensible than a misguided police commando to cause one to question “Is this the US or some third world country?”

You don’t want me to paste all of the results of wrongful SWAT raids resulting in the tragic deaths of the innocent. You hide behind special protections from prosecution. Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind. No justice will ever be seen. Only lip service is paid to supposed transparency and accountability. That’s what happens when it’s an us against them dynamic that gung-ho wannabe commandos have created. Check the link below for another example of what is becoming a daily occurrence in the “Land of the Free”:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-fu-with-me-cop-threatens-concealed-carry-gun-owner-during-traffic-stop/

I agree with Captain that the trend needs to stop now. I used to think the accusations of police brutality were not to be believed when I read the papers regarding a police shooting in urban crime areas. Now I am not so sure.

It is the trend that scares me. As a citizen that carry’s a firearm UOC when practical, I am in constant fear of the over reaching power of the police who feel that my being armed is a direct threat to their authority. I have had officers in gun forums state that depending on our cooperation, they determine how they will treat us. I take issue with that. If I am within my rights, they damn well better be respectful in their duties as I do not feel obligated to kiss their a$$ in hopes that I will be in awe of their authority and power. God help any of them that violate my rights as I will have no mercy.

I have a reasonable expectation that LEO’s in general should hold their actions to a higher standard of scrutiny. If they cannot, then they should not be in the field of law enforcement.

LE organizations are fighting back though. They know the direction of the trend and the us against them attitude is obvious when they can get laws passed to criminalize video taping of LEO’s on a rampage. We are at the front door of a police state. For me to admit that as an extreme right conservative is an indicator one cannot overlook.

It’s all about perception and you are quickly loosing support. Does this not alarm you? Will you just double down and entrench further the us against them attitude?

It is well known in Mexico City that you can easily get you butt whooped by a federale if he does not like your attitude. I do business there on a frequent basis and it is because of this experience, I see where our country is headed, like a freight train going down a mountain rail with no brakes.

The answer to this problem can be found in a mirror. It is not until the public demand accountability and transparency that the trend can be reversed. Police work is inherently dangerous, but it does not excuse them from safeguarding the public from ill-conceived raids. In the process of getting the edge of the criminal, they are playing fast and loose with the rules of engagement to the point that they are violated frequently.

“Well, I DID knock but the suspect who was sleeping at the time and said he did not hear me announce that we were law enforcement, so he claims, and grabbed his gun from the night stand and pointed. He left me no recourse so I reacted with lethal force. Sorry, but I was within the scope of our rules of engagement”. Even though they had gotten the warrant based on an informant that got the address wrong! Luckily the resident survived. Result of investigation? No charges filed, but they will “review procedures”.

The above is not a straw man argument. It actually happened. Another similar incident happened to an elected official. The informant in this case stated he bought weed from the resident. A SWAT raid for weed sales because an informant said so? You create the monster, you are going to have to live with the consequences.

There is nothing that P1sses me off more than abuse of power and position.

On July 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm, Jim Harris said:

FYI … I’m not ignoring the debate here. There’s a lot to respond to; and to give it due dilligence, it will take some time — out of respect for the opinions voiced here. I have some major projects due this week, so I’ll be back next week.

By way of clarification on my background: I’m a retired Marine CommO that has retained an interest in polito-military affairs; spent about half my military career working for/with infantry up to MEF level (I MEF/1st MarDiv), the other half at either HQMC or what was once USACOM. I read this and other blogs regularly, and occasionally respond when the internal pressure not to is too great.

My civilian work is Database Design, currently with U.S. CBP. I’m not a LEO of any kind; I just do databases for them (and yes, I’m too aware of the shortcomings there).

My politics are conservative: I believe that the government that governs least governs best, and that government has become too intrusive in our lives. I believe in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the several state’s constitutions; and this includes the Second Amendment. I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms (with PERHAPS ARGUABLE exceptions for those convicted of felonious violent crime). I believe in both concealed and open carry, as a natural result of 2nd Amendment rights; and that if I’m carrying anything, it is none of anybody else’s business — including the Police, unless they have SUBSTANTIVE probable cause that I’m breaking a law. I think every law abiding American Citizen has, not only the right, but perhaps the duty, to be armed to the teeth at all times! (Tongue-in-cheek, — but not too much so.)

Where I differ from others herein — and which I’ll address in due course — is in the training/education, leadership, and equipping of police.

Semper Fi — and enjoy the rest of this hot weekend!!

On February 25, 2014 at 9:15 am, FrankTheTank said:

Brilliant! Let’s keep our communities safer by reducing the level of training we give police officers. I’m sure parents across the country would be relieved at notion should the police have to respond to their kid’s school for an active shooter. Afterall, think how terrible things would have been if the police could have ended the massacre at Columbine, with one well placed rifle bullet from a far.

You’re a defender of the 2A, you carry a firearm as a citizen, so maybe you would like to spearhead the first “volunteer” quick reaction force to charge head-long into our schools or elsewhere someone is committing mass murder without body armor, long guns. Things might look different to you if you’re the one expected to do that job “John Wayne” style, instead of the cops.

No thanks. If that’s what you want, I won’t be going into your kids school on a suicide mission. You can do that yourself. Keep up this ridiculous argument, and that’s what you’re going to get. A police force that sits in the station and takes reports after the fact. Cops are people too, and we have families. We do a very dangerous job because we care about our communities and our country. Keep it up, and eventually these risks won’t be worth it to us. The quality of police service you get will plummet.

The police aren’t the problem, folks. If you are concerned about the potential for the government to trample your rights (as you well should be), you need to keep a better eye on your politicians.

On February 25, 2014 at 10:10 am, Herschel Smith said:

When you think you’re anything but a “peace officer,” you’re a problem. When you raid the peaceful homes of women and children and point weapons at them and scream obscenities in their face while failing to observe proper trigger and muzzle discipline, you’re a problem. When the judges are in bed with you and you will never, not even once, be held to account for your crimes, you’re a problem.
But the really, really important thing isn’t whether women and children get to listen to obscenities and get rifles point in their face. It’s whether you get to go home at the end of your shift.

On September 23, 2015 at 1:58 pm, AlvinBr said:

Richard Fairburn has a column on PoliceOne about how to go about killing people’s dogs and livestock. Wow, what a degenerate. While there, also take a look at his mug.

On September 23, 2015 at 2:08 pm, Herschel Smith said:

URL please.

On September 23, 2015 at 3:13 pm, AlvinBr said:

www dot policeone dot com/patrol-issues/articles/4778746-Shooting-to-kill-an-animal-A-sad-but-necessary-skill/

On July 19, 2011 at 4:24 am, Jim Harris said:

Hard to know how to deal with this article. Is this an argument against police having a DM capability? Or, it it an argument that police need better, more consistent training so that, in the process of “protecting us,” they don’t become (more) part of the problem?

If the former, I disagree. I see nothing wrong in police having a capability to engage targets at distance. I think the increased threats that they and all of us face warrants it — amongst other things.

But if police are increasingly part of the problem, elimination of their capabilities is not going to solve that. Such measures would only enable the combat power of criminals and terrorists without decreasing the ability of criminals, terorists, and POLICE to wreak havoc with the rest of us.

I think the solution is to give the police what they need based on sound strategic, operational, and tactical level analysis of threats, but to make sure that their training and their leadership is sufficient to curtail (at least most) abuses and to hold those accountable who actually abuse.

I support the 2nd Amendment also; and as a measure to protect myself and people/things I care about, it is a vital right.

But unless I’m actually part of some well organized, trained, and equipped militia (e.g., police or other state reserve, armed neighborhood watch, etc.), I’m not usually going to be that effective by myself. My personal armament, while desirable, is only as good as my awareness and reaction time. My involvment in the community, as described above, would count for much more. I’d watch my neighbor’s back, and he/she would watch mine.

Better to have well equipped (armed), organized, and above all well lead police under OUR control than to have a feckless, ineffective force that we’ve emasculated because we are more afraid of them than real terrorists, etc.
On July 19, 2011 at 7:38 am, John Gardner said:

Jim

Not to belittle the Police or your opinion of the increased threats but I don’t see how creating DMs or providing additional training on that level will better suit the individual officer or department in countering a Mumbai type attack.

The best way in my opinion to counter this type of attack is to make the attack untenable at the outset with the existence of multiple citizens armed to protect themselves and others. The police cannot be everywhere (we don’t want them to be) but we are and I contend that concealed carry by the law abiding is by the best way to deal with this type and many other tactics by by actors.

Just think about how easy in NY City for instance it would be to overwhelm the ESU with multiple calls in Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx not to mention luring them out to Staten Island then creating an accident on the Bridges to slow response. This is just me (no tactical genius spitballing)

Not just blowing smoke I have some experience with firearms/tactics training and knowledge being former USMC 0331 and current USCGR Small Arms Instructor. Not that this is saying much just trying to point out my opine is not entirely finger in the air stuff.

S/F
JTG
On July 19, 2011 at 10:07 am, Bill said:

NY? NY is done. They believe a piece of paper will protect you from people who don’t obey the law in the first place.

I agree that shall issue concealed carry should be the norm.

And the police don’t need any more toys or loosened ROE. They’ve not demonstrated any sort of tactical competence with what they DO have. And they’re here to protect and serve, not intimidate and destroy.

Join the armed forces if that’s your thing. These cowboy cops and their like are really starting to aggravate me and give police as a whole a really bad name.
On July 19, 2011 at 10:10 am, Warbucks said:

Political accountability is the key link I think. Only an elected sheriff has to report back to his constituency for confirmation of his post and it’s operating themes. Most “police chiefs” are ensconced in layers of protection that create this problem to begin with. I think part of the solution will be found in where training and resourcing assets are held. The must face real accountability. Police commissions while helpful are insufficient to rise to a level of responsive government. The ballot box holds an important part of the answer, I think.
On July 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm, Federale said:

I don’t think that either author was on target with either the problem, the solution, or the ancillary issues.

Countering a Mumbai style attack has nothing to do with no-knock warrants or their abuse. Note that the Guernena case was not a no-knock warrant, as the officers involved activated a siren before they knocked and announced.

While the PoliceOne author thinks that a 7.62 rifle would be needed for a quick counter attack action, I disagree. A sniper type weapon would be needed in the longer term response, but any quick reaction by regular patrol officers would be based on surprise, speed and violence of action. Setting up for long range shots would be more of a measured response from a dedicated tactical unit.

And, as one commentor claimed that CCW holders could stop an attack, that is also equally foolish. The Mumbai terrorists had automatic weapons in rifle calibers, handgrenades and other explosives and were acting in teams. It is very unlikely that a single CCW holder or multiple CCW holders could have done much against such an array and against those willing to die for their cause.

It is equally incorrect to say that wide availability of selective fire weapons somehow creates an abusive police force. Guns don’t cause crime, people cause crime. An abuse, such as that of no-knock warrants, would be the same whether the officers are carrying M-4s or Detective Specials.
On July 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Thanks for everyone’s comments. Jim and Federale, your comments warrant a special and involved retort.

Make sure that you don’t misconstrue my argument. I do not, and would not, keep law enforcement of any kind, local, state and federal, from getting more qualified on their firearms. I hope that my own grandchildren can place a round on target at 500 yards one day. All Americans should avail themselves of all kinds of firearms, and if in fact I believe this, then my belief applies to law enforcement as well.

So make sure that you aren’t setting up a straw man, only to knock it down, and missing my entire argument.

As for no-knock raids, my correlation of these to police DMs is the category “militarization of the police.” It is indeed related, and whether the weapons, tacti-cool equipment and uniforms, Television, loose rules, support from the local Sheriffs, or whatever, leads to abuse, my argument is that there is a trend. I am not outlining causation, but correlation. There is a correlation of evidence that the police in America are becoming militarized in their tactics, and it’s possible (and a good thing) to turn this around. I never said that rifle training causes militarization of the police. Read more deeply than that, please.

Next, the Jose Guerenna raid was a no-knock raid. I don’t care that they ran a siren and knocked four seconds before they knocked down the door. That’s looking for loopholes. Knock, knock the door in, and video it to show that it wasn’t a no-knock raid.

Cheap. And stupid. And the American public can see through those stunts. And yes, The Guerenna raid was an abuse of police power, just as the Kenneth Wright raid was.

Next, to compare Marine Corps infantry DMs (or simply MOS 0311), who put literally thousands of rounds down range daily, day after day after day after day, with Lance Corporals hovering over their boots, ready to hit one of them in the back with the butt of their weapon if they fail (and scream at them for an hour and then send them on a four mile run with fill kit, only to do it all again until it’s right), with police officers who have not and will not ever become that good, or perform under that kind of pressure, is absurd. Again, it’s preposterous. Again, it’s ridiculous. I don’t trust law enforcement in the large scale, frequent employment of long range standoff weapons.

Finally, let’s talk about what is a good defense against terrorism. The writer’s use of Mumbai is absurd. Preposterous. Ridiculous. My only mistake is that I didn’t ricicule it enough in the initial article.

Yes, it’s true that the attackers in that incident were high on cocaine (and other drugs to help them stay awake for 50+ hours). It’s true that they were on a suicide mission, just as Federale said. Only one of them was taken alive.

But it’s also true what I said. The attackers were killed in CQB, just like the shooter in the tower at the U. of Texas. Long range standoff weapons would have been worse than useless. They would have been a danger to others around them. Concealed weapons could have indeed helped. They might not have delivered the decisive blow, but to pan their use entirely as you have done makes no sense.

These things can help in combatting terrorism:

[1] Kill the terrorists where they breed, thus preventing them from coming to our shores.

[2] Close the borders.

[3] Harden the infrastructure (see here http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/09/28/a-terrorist-attack-that-america-cannot-absorb/)

[4] Conduct and perform better investigative work, finding and shutting down the terrorists before they can conduct an attack of this sort. For example, which of the following would make me feel safer: (a) My local police officers going to the range a couple of days a year and then pretending they can use long range standoff weapons, or (B) my local police going after and shutting down the city’s MS13 gang, which they know exists? You take a guess.

[5] An armed public.

If you/we/America doesn’t want to do any one of the five things I have outlined above, we will not, cannot, stop terrorism. The police cannot protect us. And their use of long range standoff weapons will add precisely zero (0) to my safety and security. But their belief that they can use long range standoff weapons might in fact detract from my security, and adds to the militarization of police tactics in America, a trend which I deplore.
On July 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm, Lance Heckerman said:

@Jim Harris

Your perspective is valid to a degree but not much in my opinion. Consider the following:

1. The response time for LE is too slow and getting worse due to the economy. This is the reality. A criminal can kill the entire family during a home invasion and have time for a beer before the police arrive as evidenced by actual crimes.
2. In the time it takes a LE to respond to a serious life threatening crime, an armed citizen may intervene as is their right.
3. It is not the legal responsibility of LE agencies to protect the citizenry. If this were so, there would be no end to the litigation that would ensue when they failed to respond in time to any serious crime that resulted in the death of the victim.

Given the above statements to be correct, one may conclude that more armed citizens would be more effective as no community could ever have enough police to respond effectively to the majority of situations. An armed citizen that is on the spot then has the ability to prevent a tragedy, Lubby’s Diner comes to mind as an example of how just one armed citizen could have stopped the massacre.

FBI crime reports support that legally armed citizens are not the problem. Armed criminals are. I will parrot the NRA’s talking point that armed citizens save a significant number of lives each year. Enough so that it supports the argument to promote 2nd Amendment rights by allowing law abiding citizens the right in every state to arm themselves in public.

Armed citizens have proven that during countless lethal encounters that they would be more effective in the actual prevention of tragedy than law enforcement due to the fact that it only takes a criminal seconds to kill his intended victims while the police are “on-the-way”. The “DM’s” should be the people themselves, not an expanded police force.

I am a 20 year retired combat vet that was humiliated by my local police department when I was denied a CCW after my wife was held up at gun point while on here way to run errands. They told me the reason for denial was that personal or family protection was an invalid reason to justify the issuance of a CCW and that the chances of me “hurting myself or family” and “public safety” outweigh my desire to defend myself and family. I was reminded to call the police if I encounter crime and they will handle it. What a joke. They stood there and told me, a combat vet that has been in more combat engagements than their entire department has during the chief’s career, that I am a danger to public safety.

Regarding the validity of your argument: Is there a need for law enforcement? Yes. But only as a supplement to the responsibility of all citizens and would be accountable to the citizens they serve. Yes, I do believe that as citizens, and are of sound mind and are able-bodied, you have a responsibility to enforce law and order.

The Rodney King & Watts riots are examples of the value of an armed citizenry to protect life and property when law enforcement cannot be expected to realistically respond. Ex-United States soldiers have performed police duties all over the world but are not trusted to defend there local communities in times of crisis?

“But if police are increasingly part of the problem, elimination of their capabilities is not going to solve that. Such measures would only enable the combat power of criminals and terrorists without decreasing the ability of criminals, terorists, and POLICE to wreak havoc with the rest of us.”

This is an invalid argument as you limit the outcome to only one. What if the citizenry were allowed to exercise their rights by responding with lethal force themselves? Increasingly the police and citizen relationship is becoming more polarized. Enforcing the law gives one lethal power privilege that common citizens have been denied in many states and communities. Not only can you not defend yourself with lethal force in public, you are regulated regarding non-lethal force options to the point of ineffectiveness such as weak pepper sprays, etc.

I get the impression that you are a LEO and if that is the case, I thank you for dedicating your life to serve the public. My beef is that the balance of power has tilted to a police state environment by violating my rights.

What is the chance of any random citizen becoming a victim of violent crime? In my experience, very good. I have been personally involved in two encounters my wife had one encounter, and my sister in law was car-jacked, beaten and left for dead. She is now paralyzed. Judging from my history, I will neither confirm nor deny that I carry a concealed firearm even though I have been denied the permit to do so. If I do carry, it is the police leadership that has left me no viable option.

I cannot carry unloaded in a holster because of the school zone prohibition which covers the majority of my community making it impractical and in danger of a LEO encounter if I unknowingly violate it.

Am I the enemy? No. I am one of the law-abiding citizens that you are accountable to but no longer are when you deny my rights at your discretion.
On July 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm, Federale said:

I am confused, if correlation is not causation, then what is the relationship between a cop with an M-4 and a no-knock warrant? You claim militarization, but you seem to forget that cops before the Warren Court had little or no restrictions on how they executed warrants. As a matter of fact, the Warren Court claimed that what they were doing was ending police abuses. And they did it with six guns.

But getting back to Mumbai, while there probably were few 500 yard shots in that incident, which I must say neither you or I actually know, but I do know that Indian cops with Lee-Enfields shot it out with the terrorists in the train station and those shots were not CBQ. There is a great area between CBQ and 500 yards. Like between 10 yards and 100. The Mumbai train station is pretty big. In any event, a 5.56 or 7.62 in a quality semi or assault rifle might have made the difference. And the Indian police are not know for their adherence to civil rights. But it is not the guns or lack of them that causes abuses. But the lack of the correct tools can mean the difference between success or failure.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people do. Guns don’t abuse civil rights, cops do….erhh….people do….

You also seem to forget that Guernenna’s wife was awake at the time and claimed to have looked outside and claimed to have seen a “gang” of people and told her husband that. Note that the gang was wearing uniforms with “Police” in big yellow letters on their chests. It is clear that she knew the people coming in were police, but claimed to have told her husband something else. So it is clear that she is lying and covering for something, most likely the drug dealing. If she was the innocent housewife, why is she making such an absurd statement? If what she claims is true, then she set up her husband to be killed by the police. What is more likely is that they were involved in drug dealing and she told her husband the cops were at the door and he decided to fight it out. To say the Guernenna shooting was bad means that you must believe that the wife is lying about what she says she saw. Then you must explain why she lied. The only reasonable explanation is that they knew it was the police and decided to shoot it out, much like the parolee at large who was shot by the SFPD recently. He decided to shoot it out with the cops and died. Guernenna decided to do the same thing or was set up by his wife. Given the wife’s statements, those are the only two explanations.
On July 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm, Lance Heckerman said:

Regarding the Guernenna fiasco, here is something for you to consider Federale:

Afghanistan rules of engagement afford many more safeguards regarding when a civilian home can be searched, by whom, and what force may be used.

The rules of engagement by our modern day police “commandos” place our citizens at greater risk. Although I disagree with the current ROE in Afghanistan because they get soldiers killed and the fact that we are at war, I feel the commando tactics of police directed at our own citizens, is an affront to our sense of liberty and freedom. You want to be a commando? Join the military. You are not at war with the citizens of this country and you damn well better realign your shot group because you are failing miserably in the forum of public opinion.

This is more than just an isolated incident. It is trending upward and I am disgusted. There is nothing more reprehensible than a misguided police commando to cause one to question “Is this the US or some third world country?”

You don’t want me to paste all of the results of wrongful SWAT raids resulting in the tragic deaths of the innocent. You hide behind special protections from prosecution. Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind. No justice will ever be seen. Only lip service is paid to supposed transparency and accountability. That’s what happens when it’s an us against them dynamic that gung-ho wannabe commandos have created. Check the link below for another example of what is becoming a daily occurrence in the “Land of the Free”:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-fu-with-me-cop-threatens-concealed-carry-gun-owner-during-traffic-stop/

I agree with Captain that the trend needs to stop now. I used to think the accusations of police brutality were not to be believed when I read the papers regarding a police shooting in urban crime areas. Now I am not so sure.

It is the trend that scares me. As a citizen that carry’s a firearm UOC when practical, I am in constant fear of the over reaching power of the police who feel that my being armed is a direct threat to their authority. I have had officers in gun forums state that depending on our cooperation, they determine how they will treat us. I take issue with that. If I am within my rights, they damn well better be respectful in their duties as I do not feel obligated to kiss their a$$ in hopes that I will be in awe of their authority and power. God help any of them that violate my rights as I will have no mercy.

I have a reasonable expectation that LEO’s in general should hold their actions to a higher standard of scrutiny. If they cannot, then they should not be in the field of law enforcement.

LE organizations are fighting back though. They know the direction of the trend and the us against them attitude is obvious when they can get laws passed to criminalize video taping of LEO’s on a rampage. We are at the front door of a police state. For me to admit that as an extreme right conservative is an indicator one cannot overlook.

It’s all about perception and you are quickly loosing support. Does this not alarm you? Will you just double down and entrench further the us against them attitude?

It is well known in Mexico City that you can easily get you butt whooped by a federale if he does not like your attitude. I do business there on a frequent basis and it is because of this experience, I see where our country is headed, like a freight train going down a mountain rail with no brakes.

The answer to this problem can be found in a mirror. It is not until the public demand accountability and transparency that the trend can be reversed. Police work is inherently dangerous, but it does not excuse them from safeguarding the public from ill-conceived raids. In the process of getting the edge of the criminal, they are playing fast and loose with the rules of engagement to the point that they are violated frequently.

“Well, I DID knock but the suspect who was sleeping at the time and said he did not hear me announce that we were law enforcement, so he claims, and grabbed his gun from the night stand and pointed. He left me no recourse so I reacted with lethal force. Sorry, but I was within the scope of our rules of engagement”. Even though they had gotten the warrant based on an informant that got the address wrong! Luckily the resident survived. Result of investigation? No charges filed, but they will “review procedures”.

The above is not a straw man argument. It actually happened. Another similar incident happened to an elected official. The informant in this case stated he bought weed from the resident. A SWAT raid for weed sales because an informant said so? You create the monster, you are going to have to live with the consequences.

There is nothing that P1sses me off more than abuse of power and position.
On July 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm, Jim Harris said:

FYI … I’m not ignoring the debate here. There’s a lot to respond to; and to give it due dilligence, it will take some time — out of respect for the opinions voiced here. I have some major projects due this week, so I’ll be back next week.

By way of clarification on my background: I’m a retired Marine CommO that has retained an interest in polito-military affairs; spent about half my military career working for/with infantry up to MEF level (I MEF/1st MarDiv), the other half at either HQMC or what was once USACOM. I read this and other blogs regularly, and occasionally respond when the internal pressure not to is too great.

My civilian work is Database Design, currently with U.S. CBP. I’m not a LEO of any kind; I just do databases for them (and yes, I’m too aware of the shortcomings there).

My politics are conservative: I believe that the government that governs least governs best, and that government has become too intrusive in our lives. I believe in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the several state’s constitutions; and this includes the Second Amendment. I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms (with PERHAPS ARGUABLE exceptions for those convicted of felonious violent crime). I believe in both concealed and open carry, as a natural result of 2nd Amendment rights; and that if I’m carrying anything, it is none of anybody else’s business — including the Police, unless they have SUBSTANTIVE probable cause that I’m breaking a law. I think every law abiding American Citizen has, not only the right, but perhaps the duty, to be armed to the teeth at all times! (Tongue-in-cheek, — but not too much so.)

Where I differ from others herein — and which I’ll address in due course — is in the training/education, leadership, and equipping of police.

Semper Fi — and enjoy the rest of this hot weekend!!
On February 25, 2014 at 9:15 am, FrankTheTank said:

Brilliant! Let’s keep our communities safer by reducing the level of training we give police officers. I’m sure parents across the country would be relieved at notion should the police have to respond to their kid’s school for an active shooter. Afterall, think how terrible things would have been if the police could have ended the massacre at Columbine, with one well placed rifle bullet from a far.

You’re a defender of the 2A, you carry a firearm as a citizen, so maybe you would like to spearhead the first “volunteer” quick reaction force to charge head-long into our schools or elsewhere someone is committing mass murder without body armor, long guns. Things might look different to you if you’re the one expected to do that job “John Wayne” style, instead of the cops.

No thanks. If that’s what you want, I won’t be going into your kids school on a suicide mission. You can do that yourself. Keep up this ridiculous argument, and that’s what you’re going to get. A police force that sits in the station and takes reports after the fact. Cops are people too, and we have families. We do a very dangerous job because we care about our communities and our country. Keep it up, and eventually these risks won’t be worth it to us. The quality of police service you get will plummet.

The police aren’t the problem, folks. If you are concerned about the potential for the government to trample your rights (as you well should be), you need to keep a better eye on your politicians.
On February 25, 2014 at 10:10 am, Herschel Smith said:

When you think you’re anything but a “peace officer,” you’re a problem. When you raid the peaceful homes of women and children and point weapons at them and scream obscenities in their face while failing to observe proper trigger and muzzle discipline, you’re a problem. When the judges are in bed with you and you will never, not even once, be held to account for your crimes, you’re a problem.
But the really, really important thing isn’t whether women and children get to listen to obscenities and get rifles point in their face. It’s whether you get to go home at the end of your shift.
On September 23, 2015 at 1:58 pm, AlvinBr said:

Richard Fairburn has a column on PoliceOne about how to go about killing people’s dogs and livestock. Wow, what a degenerate. While there, also take a look at his mug.
On September 23, 2015 at 2:08 pm, Herschel Smith said:

URL please.
On September 23, 2015 at 3:13 pm, AlvinBr said:

www dot policeone dot com/patrol-issues/articles/4778746-Shooting-to-kill-an-animal-A-sad-but-necessary-skill/

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Police Designated Marksman?

Comments

Leave a comment