Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Good tactics, good skills, good outcome


More details are emerging of how a Garland, TX police officer took down two fundamentalist Islamic terrorists a couple of days ago.  Bob Owens has a very informative analysis.  Here's an excerpt.

At the point of the attack, the two suspects apparently drove up and opened fire upon an unarmed security guard who was accompanied by a 60-year-old Garland police officer. The unarmed guard was struck the volley of gunfire. The veteran Garland officer then drew his duty-issue Glock pistol and opened fire on the suspects.

The officer killed one terrorist and wounded the other in his initial volley of return fire. Witnesses claim there was a brief pause, and then the officer fire two more shots to kill the still-moving terrorist as he appears to be reaching for a backpack. The entire event lasted 15 seconds, with heavily-armed Garland SWAT converging on the scene immediately afterward.

. . .

The evidence markers at the bottom of the photo above show us a remarkable story, as they denote the final locations of the shell casings ejected from the officer’s Glock duty pistol. While every pistol is different from another in its ejection pattern, and the movement of the officer and the cant of his gun precludes us from knowing exactly where he was, there, is a distinct trial of shells showing that the officer was moving forward from the bottom left of the photo above towards the terrorists at the rear of the vehicle.  He appears to have opened fire from 20 yards away, and fired at least a dozen shots by the time he reached an area near the traffic cones, roughly 7-10 yards from where the terrorists died.

. . .

No matter how you break down the details, this was an incredible display of bravery and marksmanship by this 30+ year veteran of the Garland Police Department, who not only resisted the natural urge to create distance between yourself and rifle-armed assailants, but who appears to have done precisely the opposite, and who advanced while firing accurately, bringing the attack to a swift conclusion without a single additional casualty once he brought his weapon to bear.

There's more at the link.  Well worth reading as an example of how to use controlled aggression, skill with one's weapon and courage to deal with an attack.  Recommended reading.

(Such tactics may not always be appropriate, of course;  every situation will have its own peculiarities that will help to dictate how one should respond.  Nevertheless, in this situation, under the circumstances then prevailing, the officer did very well indeed.  I'd like to buy him a beer sometime.)

Peter

5 comments:

JoeMama said...

My main concern about the after-action-reports that were inevitable, is that they would contain information that the bad-guys would read and that they would improve their plans.

This after-action-report is perfect. A predator cannot look at a person and determine a priori if they are brave or, in many cases, if they are armed.

This report gives the bad guys nothing. And it gives the defenders everything.

Thanks for sharing.

Stuart G. said...

Peter,
The actions of the very gallant, extremely courageous, and highly motivated Officer who stopped the two armed males, literally dead in their tracks, (I make NO apology my wording), is worthy of the the highest praise, and our deepest, most humble gratitude.
It can be speculated, but never be known, what damage this MAN, (this Warrior), prevented.
BUT.
I have a very grave concern, it's about what information, printed, visual, or however gathered, will be released to the media.
After barely five minutes of seeing two images of the crime scene, and reading less than 200 words of the actions of both the Officer, and the attackers,TOO MUCH information has already been divulged.
Too much has been GIVEN to those who are planning to do similar.
What the Officer was armed with, his placement on scene-preparation and potential tactics-, his clearly shown path of attack, where the two killers were located specific to their egressing the car, what possible type of self protection they had, AND it's age, and how any armour they were wearing might have not protected them, the list is lengthy.
I have never had one second of training remotely like what the officer would have had, not one second.
I have NEVER been on the two-way range, be very clear in that.
I do have near two decades of Intel éxperience'. Sigint/Elint/Humint/Opint, I am not bragging, and detest those who do, merely stating a fact, and very, very reluctantly so.
(Peter, if you want my bona-fides, a one-to-one is alright by me)
But, from just the two images, and printed words I have seen so far, one, and only one course of action must be observed by all who are connected with this event.
SHUT THE FUCK UP!- NO IMAGES!, GUARD YOUR 'TONGUES'!.
You have already compromised yourselves in too many stupid, dumb, careless ways, you've gotta be a lot smarter than this, remember, 'Know thy enemy'.
Do not give him what he needs to know.

Glen said...

Peter,

I see the situation as a textbook example of the proper combat mindset-something much more important than marksmanship.

Inside car on watch -condition yellow.

Car approaches - Yellow.

Two young men in car-Orange

The perps exit car-weapons seen. Red

I'm sure there will be lots of training simulations-discussions of different firing positions and technique.

It is always good to improve technique, but it is the mindset that won.

Glen in Texas

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this is a style of asymmetric warfare terrorist groups have not considered. That is, they are attempting to engage in an environment where they cannot know, or determine with a degree of certainty, which targets may respond with deadly force. With the exception of Israel, or possibly Switzerland, I can't think of a civilian/citizen population where large portions are usually armed (concealed). In particular, if the encounter is in a Southern state.

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...

Two opponents, armed w/ rifles/armor. One defender w/ a handgun. 15 seconds. What can we say? "Good shootin', Tex!" Peter, is Garland close to Law dog's balliwik? His take on this would be interesting. . . . .