RANGER AGAINST WAR: Taking the Shot <

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Taking the Shot

Hit me with your best shot
Why don't you hit me with your best shot?

Hit me with your best shot

Fire away

--Hit Me With Your Best Shot
,

Pat Benatar


For as long as our people are held hostage
by controllable socio-economic forces,
we cannot afford to be indifferent to the ravages of poverty
in all its dimensions and ramifications
--Ibrahim Babangida


Bang bang, you shot me down

Bang bang, I hit the ground

Bang bang, that awful sound

--Bang Bang
, Cher
___________________

This is not a t.v. episode of Flashpoint; this is real life, or to the point, real death.


"SWAT team members in Pennsylvania yesterday killed a career criminal suspected of killing a Fall River toddler and Yarmouth man execution style and critically wounding the boy’s mother and two others — while in Fall River, neighbors mourned the death of the youngest victim, who would have turned 3 this month, and prayed for his mother’s recovery (Cops Kill Suspect in Baby Slay Case.)

Reuters gives a somewhat more dispassionate head, "
Gunman who planned to kill man shoots child, another adult" but ledes with the claim that the SWAT team's target was, "an evil unrepentant monster."

Now, we are not defending the alleged actions of such a man, but we must consider the spin to which we are subjected daily. There are people who howl, "He is not a man -- he is a monster!" But sadly, no, he is all too human. The press did the same with killing of Osama bin Laden; the fact of his being unarmed and amidst family was too . . . like us.

As for the specifics of this SWAT event, Ranger wishes to comment as a former training specialist teaching in both the Hostage Negotiations and Special Reaction Teams courses at the U.S. Army MP School. These were the official qualifying courses for Army Hostage Negotiators (HN) and Special Reaction Teams (SRTs). While Ranger is not an expert on HN or SRTs, he did attend all the classes to know what used to be Federal Law Enforcement policy in hostage or barricade situations.


The recent incident with Mark Geisenheyner was a simple barricade situation. According to the details released in news reports, it need not have ended in Mr. Geisenheyner's death. Police policy for such situations would follow these procedures:

  • Isolate the scene with inner and outer security with an on-site command post
  • The HN and SRT's would be isolated and not in communication. Because the HN often gains a rapport with the subject, he should not know the tactical movements of the SRT for the reason that he might unconsciously convey some information to the subject
  • The formula was that the barricaded individual without hostages once physically contained is not a threat unless he attempts a breakout. At that point, elimination is alright; barring that, there is no viable reason to assault the barricade
  • All life is valuable, even the suspect's
  • The suspect has not been adjudicated and the SRT is neither a judge, jury or executioner. For example, the suspect may be bat shit crazy, and would not merit a death sentence. Any threat to life must be dealt with accordingly, but is it moral to kill a crazy person, even if barricaded? (If so, Ranger better get some good body armor.)

In the Geisenheyner scenario there is no evidence of a HN on-site, and one wonders why the SRT assaulted the suspect when he was cornered in the basement of a house. He was no threat to anyone. Assaulting him may have been dramatic and decisive and oh-so-manly, but it was a violation of established police doctrine, or of what was once accepted policy.

What was gained by this assault? If police do not believe in the sanctity of life, how do they differ from men like Mark Geisenheyner? The willingness of police to expedite assaults is discomfiting to this Ranger.

Labels: , , ,

9 Comments:

Anonymous CholoAzul said...

If the Supremes have reversed themselves on the Garner ruling, it's news to me.

Friday, July 8, 2011 at 10:20:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Cholo,
The fleeing felon rule/Garner is still the law, but it doesn't seem to pack much punch these days.
In the scenario we are discussing the suspect was holed up and hardly fleeing.
jim

Friday, July 8, 2011 at 10:53:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then there's this:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2011/07/portrait-of-patriot.html

bb

Friday, July 8, 2011 at 3:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Deryle said...

Stii in....Nha Trang

Y'all,
"When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
with your hands on your head
Or the trigger of your gun?"
--Tthe Clash

Coupla months ago the US Attorny Gereral
held aforo op lamenting the "epidemic" of
Killings of federales from all beaches--border
Patrol,ICE,DEA, et.al.
Thirty-nine combined--from ALL federal forces.
Hell---in Albuquerque,my hometown,the local
Po-lice have shot an killed 17 in the past 17
Months.

Now,an inquiring mind might wonder,just where
Is another war taking place'

Just saying is all.

There it is...

Deryle

Who is pretty overs here ..great food,too

Friday, July 8, 2011 at 7:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then there's this:

“Like a marine, she runs toward the danger."

http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/08/late-night-take-the-money-and-run-toward-the-danger/

bb

Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 12:44:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Blakenator said...

You are asking a question the "law and order-tough on crime" types don't like to answer, Ranger, because it involves actual morality. My beef is with the policy makers and the officials who provide cover for these abuses. Of course, the corrupt press is involved because they always paint the newly deceased as some sort of "monster who probably deserved to die anyway." That way the public outrage is held in check because "we killed him to protect you, doncha know?"
On a tangental note, I tell all my gun nut buddies this is how it will end for them. Even if it is a "wrong door" raid, you can bet the SWAT bubbas will be briefed the residence is armed and their cowboy trained instincts will be turned on maximum.

Monday, July 11, 2011 at 2:21:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Nator,
Let's take this one step farther.
Why do a SWAT entry when you can simply put a predator on station with a hellfire missile hanging from it??!!?
Guns are useless when a AC 130 gunship with infrared and heat sensing cameras on board is on station.
Just sayin'
jim

Monday, July 11, 2011 at 2:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Grant said...

My two cents:

I am constantly subjected to news articles about SWAT teams shooting bad people, good people, unarmed people, dogs, the wrong house, what have you. I have even seen officers commended for getting into firefights with innocent homeowners after doing a no-knock entry on the wrong house for some reason I have yet to understand.

The typical stance seems to be these excessive displays of force are for the protection of the officers. As a soldier with the CIB listed on my 214, I will grant you that there are plenty of advantages to shooting first and not asking any questions later. And I will, of course, accept the often quoted statement that police officers have the same right to go home to their families each night as the rest of us.

However...

If you are a law enforcement officer, you have assumed some amount of risk. And because you assumed that risk, you don't get to err on the side of caution and shoot people as if the local 7-11 is downtown Mosul.

If this makes a member of a SWAT team uncomfortable, I think said officer should pursue a career more in line with his risk tolerance, like being a meter maid.

Monday, July 11, 2011 at 2:42:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger babloo said...

happy anniversary didi and jiju
happy anniversary uncle and aunty

Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 5:05:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home