22:14 UTC+0, 2020-10-25
Forums » Discussions » Tactics and Techniques » Content - RoE: Rules of Engagement
Content - RoE: Rules of Engagement
RaptorDate: Wednesday, 2012-01-11, 22:40 | Message # 11
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Quote (Booone)
Indirect threat is bullshit, what would you say is an indirect threat?

Simply: e.g. an armed sus standing next to a civ screaming "I will kill her, I swear I will!" (but not aiming).
The sus is not a threat yet (no current threat), but he may shot the civ so fast that you simply can not react. Another example: a sus pulling out a gun. He is not aiming, so the "Aiming" (at civ or officer) does not apply yet. While thinking about it: an armed sus running towards you is the same situation.
Do you have a better name for this situations?

In a "closely dangerous situation" the sus itself represents currently no threat (neither current nor indirect). He may not act aggressive, mb he is even stunned. What makes him dangerous are the current circumstances, the whole situation.
E.g. after a bang you end up alone in a room with 3 stunned sus widely spread over the room (rest of your team is busy, get pinned down outside the room because of some runners). So none of the sus is a threat yet since they are stunned. But due to game dynamics it's pretty likely that all 3 will recover within the same second and start to shoot at you. In case you are not Lucky Luke, you can't win this situation. Therefore RoE should allow you to shoot 1 or 2 of the sus while they are stunned. (btw: the example is not fiction, happend to me once in St. Micheal Medical Center. Because of 2 runners shooting from cover, my team was simply not able to follow inside the room.)
Another example: a sus running across the room is not a threat. A sus heading towards a civ can easily become one: it's pretty difficult to hit a sus that aims to you and gets cover behind a civ (especially when the civ is far away). And besides your carefull aim, the civ could stand up and run just in the wrong moment. So we should at least consider to shoot the sus before he reaches his human shield.

Quote (Booone)
And once again lets finish the concept first, when we agree on it we can start filling the table.

Well I already tried this. But when writing the proper reactions I realized that 2 situations both demands for absolutly equal reactions, so I have merged them. And the other way around: I have also splitted some situations.
And I already told you my opinion about your set of situations (see some posts above).

Quote (Booone)

Quote (Raptor)
Than I'll tell you whats wrong with it

What doesn't fit with your opinion, that is, *cough* dry

Well, this was meant as a joke. I think you already realized that I do not call the ideas just "bullshit", but I give arguments and reasons why things should be handled this or another way. And I think I'm also pretty open minded for arguments given by other people, ain't I?

Honestly, your first RoE suggestions look to me like you want to save sus in situations, where it's simply not possible. A gunshoot can easily end lethal, no matter whether fired by a well trained terrorist or a confused kid.[

Quote (Booone)
The colors on the left mark what set of RoE is applied not what level of force for the current situation is applied.

Same as in my table.


"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
BoooneDate: Thursday, 2012-01-12, 20:22 | Message # 12
Group: Lieutenant
Messages: 849
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
That is not really an indirect threat, at least not as I understand it. And your first example does not really makes sense. Well a person pulling a gun is an armed person (a suspect then) obviously and a gun may always be a threat. I see your point but really, it's the same as a situation about to escalate. A suspect with a gun in his hands may shoot a person within a split second and you can't do anything about it, we have a case like this very often (yet mostly they don't shoot right away). Same with a suspect faking compliance. He can shoot someone in a split second.
-> So this all together is a suspect (or multiple) about to pose an immediate threat.

Quote (Raptor)
Well, this was meant as a joke.


You shouldn't be joking about this! How dare you? wink

Quote (Raptor)
A gunshoot can easily end lethal


Sure it can, it always can. But if we play with realism you have a big factor to count in aswell, the mindset of the suspect, that is.

A murderer, e.g., already has "blood on his hands" so he will have an a lot lower tendency to hesitate to shoot you than a person who never held a gun.

Also if we practice to shoot to wound, etc. we will have a higher chance of saving a suspect. Sure you can always make a mistake, well then, sucks doesn't it? But don't always use it as an argument. You can train to aim at certain bodyparts in order to cause a certain effect.


 
RaptorDate: Thursday, 2012-01-12, 21:42 | Message # 13
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Quote (Booone)
So this all together is a suspect (or multiple) about to pose an immediate threat.

Ok...

Quote (Booone)
You can train to aim at certain bodyparts in order to cause a certain effect.

Sure. In situations where I have a lot of time, e.g. a fleeing sus, I can aim for certain body parts.
But in case of an immediate threat there is only one effect I want to achive: take the threat down asap. I won't risk my own life. Aim for center of mass and thats it. Especially considering the netcode of swat4.

Quote (Booone)
A murderer, e.g., already has "blood on his hands" so he will have an a lot lower tendency to hesitate to shoot you than a person who never held a gun.

Mb. But when someone points a gun in my direction I do not care for his "tendency to hesitate".

Futhermore idk whether this 16 years old teenager is just a kid or already a serial killer. All I know is the caliber of the gun he is pointing in my direction.
Also I do not know whether this heavily armed, armored and masked guy in front of me is a trained soldier or just a nice boy who meets the wrong people. None of my buisness.

Remember: when we enter, all negotiationes are considered useless or have already failed. Our entry team is the last opinion available before calling in the army. The situation is at least supposed to be dangerous, otherwise we wouldn't be there.
So you can consider the circumstance/the scenario for the general tactic approach (formation, equipment, route) and also for certain situations. It's bullshit to shoot running kids in the ABomb. It's ok to shoot running gangsters in the stechkove warehouse. It's absolutly reasonable to shoot running "terrorist" in the Thereshold Research Center.
Also we can do a lot of things to avoid that an immediate threat arise. But when a sus forces us to use lethal force we can't afford to hesitate. A threat is a threat, no matter of age, mental status, experience, religion, gender, birth place, etc.


"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
BoooneDate: Thursday, 2012-01-12, 22:45 | Message # 14
Group: Lieutenant
Messages: 849
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Yes, Raptor, that's exacttly what I mean. Once the gun (of a sus) is pointed, it does not matter who or what kind of person you have there, BUT what I meant was the hesitating to point a gun at all, or alike.

So, the sets of RoE do NOT matter to actions to immediate threat, but rather to how or what actions you may do before that.


 
SAS_RandomDate: Monday, 2012-01-16, 06:48 | Message # 15
Group: Registered
Messages: 52
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
A contact pulling a weapon is more dangerous than a tango holding a weapon. He's pulling the gun out for one reason. If you can't stun him immediately, he will shot at you. If your team is exposed, you must fire. A tango already holding his weapon has a greater chance of complying. He has not yet revealed an intent to fire.

SAS_Vet_Random
Lt. Colonel (Retired)
22nd SAS Elite Virtual Regiment
www.sasclan.org
 
RaptorDate: Tuesday, 2012-01-31, 12:03 | Message # 16
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Browsing the web I found a general approach to this topic:

Quote

A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have:

ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon; you face multiple unarmed attackers; an unarmed attacker has an obvious, substantial advantage in physical ability and/or skill),

opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to immediately harm you), and

intent (hostile actions and/or words) that indicates he means to do you serious or fatal physical harm.

(found at http://www.firearmstactical.com/ )

I think this conditions describe pretty well, when you are allowed to shoot on yellow RoE.

Btw: Booone I guess we finished the table header, so you could make a suggestion how to fill the table.


"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
BoooneDate: Tuesday, 2012-01-31, 15:36 | Message # 17
Group: Lieutenant
Messages: 849
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Very well, filled in version with my suggestion here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28307273/AST/Rules%20Of%20Engagement.ods

 
ShadowManuDate: Tuesday, 2012-01-31, 15:37 | Message # 18
Group: NCO
Messages: 791
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
BUt we still miss one point. When does runners must be wounded/neutralized and when to prefer one action on top of the other?

 
BoooneDate: Tuesday, 2012-01-31, 16:04 | Message # 19
Group: Lieutenant
Messages: 849
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
If you are talking about Red ROE, see the asterisk (*) behind neutralize, which means that this action will only be done with leader's order.

 
RaptorDate: Tuesday, 2012-01-31, 20:22 | Message # 20
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Your RoE allow pepperspray against armed, not-stunned targets?

You demand an order by the EL in far too much situations. Trust your team members and their judgment more.

Green:
- you do not allow ll options against stunned armed persons?
- shoot armed persons which run towards a controlled area but just injure when they run towards an uncontrolled area?
- why the hell do you want to injure non-compliant civs?

Yellow:
- again controlled vs. uncontrolled area
- no ll against "sus about to pose an immediate threat""? Or injure?

Red:
- no ll against unaware unknown persons?

I told you before: looking at your reactions you can merge 3 situations concerning civs to just one situation.

Can you give kinda general text about the intention of your 3 color codes?

Imo this horizotal design is not better than my vertical table.


"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
Forums » Discussions » Tactics and Techniques » Content - RoE: Rules of Engagement
Search:

Communications