Active Shooter In NS. April 19 2020

[mariomike]

We done CPR on people pulled out of the river because the family was there, even though we knew it was to late. To see our guys try to save their loved one, meant a lot to them.

Nice.

We had to treat all patients as viable, or face the possibility of coroner's court, and putting our municipal taxpayers on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Unless,

1. decapitation, transection, visible decomposition, putrefaction; or

2. absence of vital signs and:
a. a grossly charred body;
b. an open head or torso wound with gross outpouring of cranial or visceral contents;
c. gross rigor mortis (i.e. limbs and/or body stiff, posturing of limbs or body); or
d. dependent lividity (i.e. fixed, non-blanching purple or black discolouration of skin in dependent area of body).

I recall one family in our town ( successfully ) collected $10 million from city taxpayers for a 29 minute Delay in ( paramedic ) Service.

Not to suggest there is any civil liability in the MCI being discussed.

 

[KevinB]

Suppressive fire?

Well Aimed fire, may work as suppressive.
But domestic LE should never be randomly firing their weapons without an identified target and clear backstop.
*in extremis the clear backstop can be ignored/waived on balance of probabilities.

 

[Haggis]

Well Aimed fire, may work as suppressive.

Inadvertently, yes. Most LE firearms interventions occur with handguns and have a less than 20% hit rate.

But domestic LE should never be randomly firing their weapons without an identified target and clear backstop.
*in extremis the clear backstop can be ignored/waived on balance of probabilities.

Criminals have no such constraints.

 

[Booter]

Well Aimed fire, may work as suppressive.
But domestic LE should never be randomly firing their weapons without an identified target and clear backstop.
*in extremis the clear backstop can be ignored/waived on balance of probabilities.

We ve run very specific activities, scenarios, workshops, famils where it is necessary for the first responding pair to use a series of shots that is “suppressive” in nature but maybe not in a strict definition.

If I need to flank a shooter, I can use well aimed shots, like you said considering backdrops and factors- to push my shooter down to manoeuvre.

But the blind suppressive fire on doorways etc- there are some good American SWAT articles on why it makes no “police” sense.

So something “similar” can be accomplished but I would never refer to it as suppressive or covering fire in my notes or reports.

I suppose the delineation is this- my well aimed shots that are placed are seeking the secondary effect of suppression. If they cussed a change in behaviour- by contact or mood I would stop. My primary goal is not the advance or manoeuvre it’s stopping that threat.

Traditional “Suppressive fire” has a primary goal of reducing the enemies ability to move and be effective while I keep my ability to move and be effective?

So while functionally they look similar- they are notionally different even if the practical skills can resemble each other in a loose sense?

Thoughts?

Hard derail right here. That’s not even really relevant to this thread. Sorry. Just interesting.

 

[KevinB]

We ve run very specific activities, scenarios, workshops, famils where it is necessary for the first responding pair to use a series of shots that is “suppressive” in nature but maybe not in a strict definition.

If I need to flank a shooter, I can use well aimed shots, like you said considering backdrops and factors- to push my shooter down to manoeuvre.

But the blind suppressive fire on doorways etc- there are some good American SWAT articles on why it makes no “police” sense.

I have a really good OIS example of idiocy that I would love to share, lets just say there where multiple differences in opinions about one incident - and I'm pretty sure the only reason several Local LE didn't go to jail was two Federal agents shot first - and only the bad guy was killed.

So something “similar” can be accomplished but I would never refer to it as suppressive or covering fire in my notes or reports.

I suppose the delineation is this- my well aimed shots that are placed are seeking the secondary effect of suppression. If they cussed a change in behaviour- by contact or mood I would stop. My primary goal is not the advance or manoeuvre it’s stopping that threat.

Traditional “Suppressive fire” has a primary goal of reducing the enemies ability to move and be effective while I keep my ability to move and be effective?

So while functionally they look similar- they are notionally different even if the practical skills can resemble each other in a loose sense?

Thoughts?

I have referred to shots near a bad guy as "pinning fire" - to ensure they remain in position and cannot cause any further harm to the public or other officers. Suppressive fire as you know has many negative connotations.
Similar in practice - but alas sending #2 Rifleman to drop a grenade on a bad guy hunkered in a ditch isn't usually viewed as acceptable in a LE standard

Hard derail right here. That’s not even really relevant to this thread. Sorry. Just interesting.

Very few bad guys - even 1%'ers will get in a shootout with LE, a buddy of mine and I took 4 multiple homicide armed guys out of a car with no issues - simply because they made the correct assumption that we had no issues killing them in a heartbeat.
The issue comes when you run into the 1% of the 1% who will fight to their dying breath.
It is very hard to get any LEA to train their members to standard to be able to deal with that fraction - and even tougher to bread a mindset into an entity of "The Ethical GunFighter". One often ends up with either a trigger happy culture (I know of several) or a risk adverse one that will not charge to the sound of the guns.

 

[Booter]

I have a really good OIS example of idiocy that I would love to share, lets just say there where multiple differences in opinions about one incident - and I'm pretty sure the only reason several Local LE didn't go to jail was two Federal agents shot first - and only the bad guy was killed.


I have referred to shots near a bad guy as "pinning fire" - to ensure they remain in position and cannot cause any further harm to the public or other officers. Suppressive fire as you know has many negative connotations.
Similar in practice - but alas sending #2 Rifleman to drop a grenade on a bad guy hunkered in a ditch isn't usually viewed as acceptable in a LE standard


Very few bad guys - even 1%'ers will get in a shootout with LE, a buddy of mine and I took 4 multiple homicide armed guys out of a car with no issues - simply because they made the correct assumption that we had no issues killing them in a heartbeat.
The issue comes when you run into the 1% of the 1% who will fight to their dying breath.
It is very hard to get any LEA to train their members to standard to be able to deal with that fraction - and even tougher to bread a mindset into an entity of "The Ethical GunFighter". One often ends up with either a trigger happy culture (I know of several) or a risk adverse one that will not charge to the sound of the guns.

Really good stuff in here.

That pinning fire is a good label to get away from the label issue- I’ll back pocket that if you don’t mind.

Your last sentence about the divide is super key. It’s almost impossible to breed that middle mindset. Because the threshold of Ops is either a cadence where complacent social workers are made- or so high that moral compromise judge dredds are built. If a person isn’t interested in being a moral triggerman there is no incentive.

Interesting stuff. Thank you.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Can I ask why "suppressive fire" is a negative term? It's the perfect description of what it is, fire meant to suppress the bad guys desire to stick his head over the parapet and shoot at the good guys.

 

[KevinB]

Can I ask why "suppressive fire" is a negative term? It's the perfect description of what it is, fire meant to suppress the bad guys desire to stick his head over the parapet and shoot at the good guys.

Same reason "Assault Rifle" has negative connotations, and Patrol Carbines are issued...
Suppressive fire tends to pull up mental images of soldiers spraying automatic fire etc, especially if encouraged by a Defense Counsel, or worse an ADA/Crown.

 

[Booter]

Can I ask why "suppressive fire" is a negative term? It's the perfect description of what it is, fire meant to suppress the bad guys desire to stick his head over the parapet and shoot at the good guys.

It’s just contrary to round accountability in a way. Police services like terms a lot.

Police “service” instead of “force” etc.

If suppressing fire was a book it would be huge- and it’s very small, semi-applicable police use, would be a few paragraphs. So it’s not accurate to use the term if youre splitting hairs.

I suppose in practicality you’re right. But if you used it in passing comments with lawyers you’d be in trouble. Which is where the real hesitancy would be I imagine. I would want to be very specific about my intention and goal rather than using a scary umbrella term at an inquest or a subject officer statement

Consider how people at this particular inquiry are hanging entire narratives off a few words in an hour of testimony- that’s where the issue would be

 

[KevinB]

Consider how people at his particular inquiry are hanging entire narratives off a few words in an hour of testimony- that’s where the issue would be

Bingo

 

[Kat Stevens]

Same reason "Assault Rifle" has negative connotations, and Patrol Carbines are issued...
Suppressive fire tends to pull up mental images of soldiers spraying automatic fire etc, especially if encouraged by a Defense Counsel, or worse an ADA/Crown.

I guess so, but it seems arbitrary to me...

Lawyer: "Officer, did you or did you not expend 30 rounds from your assault rifle as suppressive fire against my client?"
LEO: "No sir, I expended 30 rounds from my patrol carbine to pin your client in position."
Prosecutor; "Prosecution rests, your honour."

 

[Booter]

But they didn’t do it to pin them. If I could shoot them and stop the threat I would have. The secondary benefit is they can’t move.

So my intention- was to hit my guy. I didn’t. But I enjoyed the benefit of keeping him from being able to take the initiative.

Whereas in “suppressive fire” my primary aim can be to only reduce the enemies ability to move and keep my ability to manoeuvre.

I wouldn’t be doing that as a primary aim in police work. Every trigger pill would be to “stop the threat”

I know that seems incredibly minor but it’s a staggering detail for explaining actions in a legal context.

About five years ago now I was tapped for an SME report for court on a shooting. The actions of the officer immediately following the shooting were talked about in court almost more than the shooting- the scalpel taken to this stuff can be incredibly specific.

So not even having “suppression” in an officers vocabulary is important ‍

That’s an opinion of course. This stuff can change quite fast when it comes to training, tactics, court, and use of force.

It’s not REALLY my function anymore so I’m not speaking as an authority.

 

[Haggis]

Hard derail right here. That’s not even really relevant to this thread. Sorry. Just interesting.

In fact, I believe it is.

This relates directly to the quality and quantity of training LEO receive in use of force and, specifically, firearms. Somewhere else on these forums we have discussed the decreasing round count of annual qualifications and the concordant impact on an officer's ability and confidence to respond with a firearm. Deliberate suppressive fire is not taught. The LEO must be able to articulate why each shot was fired.

 

[Booter]

The LEO must be able to articulate why each shot was fired.

I suppose this is the succinct version of my meandering.

 

[Kat Stevens]

But they didn’t do it to pin them. If I could shoot them and stop the threat I would have. The secondary benefit is they can’t move.

So my intention- was to hit my guy. I didn’t. But I enjoyed the benefit of keeping him from being able to take the initiative.

Whereas in “suppressive fire” my primary aim can be to only reduce the enemies ability to move and keep my ability to manoeuvre.

I wouldn’t be doing that as a primary aim in police work. Every trigger pill would be to “stop the threat”

I know that seems incredibly minor but it’s a staggering detail for explaining actions in a legal context.

I get that, and I have zero experience in cop shooting scenarios. Every round I ever put down range had the intention of hitting my target, other than good ol' "spec fire". I think maybe we're getting intent of fire and volume of fire conflated somehow. Suppressive fire doesn't have to be spray n pray, if you ping a round in his direction every time he pokes his head out, that's suppressive to my mind. You are suppressing him by making him not want to get shot in the head. I know I'm old and dumb, but this whole "words hurt" thing does my head in. Locate the enemy. Win the firefight. As surroundings allow, of course.

 

[Booter]

I get that, and I have zero experience in cop shooting scenarios. Every round I ever put down range had the intention of hitting my target, other than good ol' "spec fire". I think maybe we're getting intent of fire and volume of fire conflated somehow. Suppressive fire doesn't have to be spray n pray, if you ping a round in his direction every time he pokes his head out, that's suppressive to my mind. You are suppressing him by making him not want to get shot in the head. I know I'm old and dumb, but this whole "words hurt" thing does my head in. Locate the enemy. Win the firefight. As surroundings allow, of course.

This is exactly what it is.

“This isnt a practical use of language”

“Welcome to court”.

What we are looking for is a detailed account of their decision making process- but if I give them a term they will default to it rather than explain. And as you pointed out- the term can be micro and macro.

And you got me on volume and intent of fire. I’m running things together by using one extreme example.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I get that, and I have zero experience in cop shooting scenarios. Every round I ever put down range had the intention of hitting my target, other than good ol' "spec fire". I think maybe we're getting intent of fire and volume of fire conflated somehow. Suppressive fire doesn't have to be spray n pray, if you ping a round in his direction every time he pokes his head out, that's suppressive to my mind. You are suppressing him by making him not want to get shot in the head. I know I'm old and dumb, but this whole "words hurt" thing does my head in. Locate the enemy. Win the firefight. As surroundings allow, of course.

And I'll add one more thing just to really secure my popularity in this topic. If I expend ten rounds in his direction, to every one of his in mine, that's an uneven equation I can totally get behind if I get to go home and eat supper that night. I'll reimburse the crown the cost of the ammo.

 

[Haggis]

I guess so, but it seems arbitrary to me...

Lawyer: "Officer, did you or did you not expend 30 rounds from your assault rifle as suppressive fire against my client?"
LEO: "No sir, I expended 30 rounds from my patrol carbine to pin your client in position."

Lawyer: "To what end? My client was no threat to you after the first round, yet you felt the need to try and kill him with 29 more."
LEO: "I wanted to make sure he couldn't move from that location".
Lawyer: "Not even to surrender?"
LEO:: .......
Lawyer: "He had a revolver with six rounds. You had an assault rifle with six thirty round clips. He was no threat to you after the first shot you fired. He feared for his life but you wouldn't even let him come out to give up."

 

[Kat Stevens]

Lawyer: "To what end? My client was no threat to you after the first round, yet you felt the need to try and kill him with 29 more."
LEO: "I wanted to make sure he couldn't move from that location".
Lawyer: "Not even to surrender?"
LEO:: .......
Lawyer: "He had a revolver with six rounds. You had an assault rifle with six thirty round clips. He was no threat to you after the first shot you fired. He feared for his life but you wouldn't even let him come out to give up."

LEO: All he had to do was throw his revolver out into plain sight. It's not my fault he brought a slingshot to a gunfight. To misquote Mr Churchill, a criminal is someone who tries to kill you, and failing that, asks you not to kill him.

 

[Booter]

Mr. Goudy: Mr. Cogburn, in your four years as U.S. marshal, how many men have you shot?
Rooster Cogburn: I never shot nobody I didn't have to.
Mr. Goudy: Well, that was not the question. How many?
Rooster Cogburn: Shot or killed?
Mr. Goudy: Let us restrict it to "killed" so that we may have a manageable figure.