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.