View Full Version : Fbi Training LEOs for active shooter response?
Within OPSEC guidelines - is there anything new, special or otherwise noteworthy about this training (as mentioned today in USA Today.) john
Voodoo_Man
12-23-14, 09:04
No.
Most are getting into MACTAC scenarios and some even do force on force active shooter drills (ive been opfor for a few) its interesting.
But nothing has changed or really been new in the last year or two from what ive seen.
Link to article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/22/active-shooters-fbi/20433973/
They make reference to Texas State's ALERT program, which has been putting out good active shooter training for several years now.
We had a few officers go through the ALERRT training and after they came back and shared with the unit I felt the only difference was it introduced a bit of hesitancy in some officers. Basic principles have remained the same recently but the ALERRT seemed to advocate slowing things down at times when it would seem to be more tactically sound to move more quickly. I don't think I would be able to go any deeper into my opinion than that here though. And, of course, it is just IMHO.
ALERRT can come via certain funding support so it is getting very popular right now. MACTAC is also big and I am a Team Leader and Operator level course NTOA certified instructor. There will always be spins on techniques / tactics and arguments or pros and cons no matter what. Having a base understanding of small unit tactics is the key and time and resources always play factors in how effective any tactic is executed. Unfortunately when you are talking large agencies and perhaps little training hours, keeping things simple is a necessity.
My biggest problem with the first active shooter instructor course I went to was the emphasis on 4-5 man team tactics. That was one of the first NTOA courses. Been to a couple of courses since, including ALERRT and see the same problem. The ALERRT course I attended worked the two-man tactics as almost a after thought, we had one two man scenario IIRC. MACTAC seems to have the focus in the right place, I have yet to attend one.
My biggest problem with the first active shooter instructor course I went to was the emphasis on 4-5 man team tactics. That was one of the first NTOA courses. Been to a couple of courses since, including ALERRT and see the same problem. The ALERRT course I attended worked the two-man tactics as almost a after thought, we had one two man scenario IIRC. MACTAC seems to have the focus in the right place, I have yet to attend one.
When active shooter response really came to the forefront of LE first responder action after Columbine, 4 or 5 man teams was indeed original doctrine. We now understand that a lone responder can have a huge effect on the final outcome of the incident. Working lone man or small teams 2 or 3 man, like anything else has pro's and con's. Small teams create greater area's of responsibility and open up more angles to the working group. On the other hand there might be less coordination or choreography between team members as you are forced to do more with less, which is not always a bad thing. As an example, if I have myself and 3 or 4 other of my close friends who are well versed, then team movements / tactics are fluid and highly effective. Throw me in the mix with a random group, with varying skill levels from the responders, then there are times that I might want to be a part of a smaller group, or go it alone.
I prefer to create thinkers and not robots trained to do specific tasks that are almost pre-programmed choreography with specific contingency, because the moment that something occurs that has not been trained or practiced, things can fall apart quickly. I am intimately familiar with pretty much every method out there and I will simply say that if any "method" is so closed to interpretation or change, due to a learning curve or due to an administration or organizations unwillingness to adapt for the sake of "funding" or accreditation, then that is not a good thing.
As for MACTAC, it is flat out based around small unit tactics right out of the good ole military manuals and military guys especially combat arms, take to it like second nature. Also is an easy concept for LE Officers without any type of unit based tactics to pick up. Simple in concept, scaleable from lone gunman to multiple threats, multiple locations and like open source, it is free to use in conjunction and adapt with existing software and hardware. Take the good of everything and make it your own. Not a "this is THE way it is done, because we say so" attitude.
When active shooter response really came to the forefront of LE first responder action after Columbine, 4 or 5 man teams was indeed original doctrine.
Indeed. 4-5 man formations, diamonds, hall bosses, and complex movements were the norm. Many of them carry-overs from the SWAT community, which in many places was only begrudgingly sharing its TTPs for those responses.
Going with what you have is now a more commonly accepted norm, be it 1s and 2s. Thankfully.
Voodoo_Man
12-24-14, 17:40
Indeed. 4-5 man formations, diamonds, hall bosses, and complex movements were the norm. Many of them carry-overs from the SWAT community, which in many places was only begrudgingly sharing its TTPs for those responses.
Going with what you have is now a more commonly accepted norm, be it 1s and 2s. Thankfully.
In some places, yea.
Where I work, we were expressly told you are not to go in with one or two people, you MUST have at least 4.
In some places, yea.
Where I work, we were expressly told you are not to go in with one or two people, you MUST have at least 4.
That's interesting. Isn't that a step back so to speak. I thought that the norm these days was to enter ASAFP, even if that means one man entry. Given that the vast majority of these deuche bags off themselves at first true confrontation it seems prudent to get on site and in the fight as soon as possible.
El Vaquero
12-24-14, 22:58
That's interesting. Isn't that a step back so to speak. I thought that the norm these days was to enter ASAFP, even if that means one man entry. Given that the vast majority of these deuche bags off themselves at first true confrontation it seems prudent to get on site and in the fight as soon as possible.
I'm not too familiar with any agencies where they tell you that you MUST wait for four people before going in. That's the first one I've heard of. It's not a bad idea to wait for more if it's only a few seconds especially if there's multiple threats. I'm not sure I'd go play Lone Ranger if there's multiple shooters. We're taught you can go in solo, or wait for two or more of you and go in. It's kinda a judgement call dependent on the circumstances.
there is no wait in active shooter
In some places, yea.
Where I work, we were expressly told you are not to go in with one or two people, you MUST have at least 4.
I disagree with your agency's policy. They could say that having at least 4 on scene is preferred, but I do not believe you can mandate hard fast numbers to cover each and every scenario.
If the scene is active and only one or two officers are available, you respond with the resources you have on scene at the time. You should train and prepare accordingly.
Voodoo_Man
12-25-14, 16:23
Before you guys get the wrong impression, the policy where I work is for liability, written by lawyers who basically run the department.
I've said multiple times, even during training scenario's that I wouldn't have an issue showing up by myself and going in by myself. Hell, I've done it before (all false alarms, and a few prank calls). I am not waiting for anyone for people are dying.
I like it simple. Seek and Destroy....
Don't have to wait on teams, although the more the merrier.
Moose-Knuckle
12-25-14, 20:12
I like it simple. Seek and Destroy....
Damn good song!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StRVJO9Zq3o
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.