05:23 UTC+0, 2019-12-14
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Forums » Discussions » Tactics and Techniques » Debate - LL Weapons
Debate - LL Weapons
RaptorDate: Monday, 2012-01-09, 23:56 | Message # 1
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
First let's repeat one of AST fundamentals: the safety of the team and the safety of civilians have always priority over the safety of suspects.

In general all less lethal weapons lack of firepower compared to lethal guns. Easy to understand considering that this weapons are intented to hurt and distract and not to kill. LL options in swat4 (namely ll shotgun, pepperball, taser [normal taser and cobra stun gun], 40 mm launcher, and also pepperspray and punching) have the following disadvantages:
- no automatic fire
- small cartridge (taser, 40mm launcher)
- ineffective or pretty inaccurate on mid and huge distance
- not penetrating windows
- mb ineffective hits (punching, ll shotgun on bodyarmor, pepperball against mask)
That's why ll weapons contradict the basic rule above. The officer, which has a ll weapon instead of a lethal one, abandons some firepower. He puts himself, his team and civilians in a higher risk just to gain more safety for suspects.

Still less lethal weapons can save the life of sus (thinking about the kids in the A-Bomb or kinda confused junkies in the Qwik Fuel Store). Also ll weapons can be used to stop runners. Futhermore, in certain situations, taser and pepperball allow to take down a sus silently without breaking the stealth approach of the team. And the 40mm launcher can give the team a huge amount of tactical aids or get tacaids over a huge distance (a gas launcher can effect huge, far away areas, pretty handy on maps like the Fresnal Station).

So the decision to carry or use a ll weapon demands for carefully consideration, weigh up the additional risk and the advantages mentioned above. One needs to take into account the team formation, the general tactical approach, the enviroment and the suspects (equipment, training, rate of aggression).

There are some basic rules:

1) Every officer has to carry at least one lethal gun.

In case we come across windows or we taking casulties and the officer needs to change position in the team.

2) Whenever you do not have a lethal gun in hands ready to shoot, you need a fellow officer to cover you (not only referring to ll weapons).

As a result of this rule, the taser should only be used by the pointman while the coverman provides lethal cover (the pointman is also closer to the target, improving the chance to hit). [We also need to improve communication in such situations: if the point equips his taser and his coverman grabs a flash at the same time, both can easily end up dead.]

3) Officer with a ll primary should be placed in the middle of the team.

Imho the 3rd position is the best. A1 and A2 cover the front, RG the rear and 4th can cover the sides 3 and 9 oc. The officer with ll is covered from all sides and is close enough to the front to support the assaulters. When I lead, I personally like to take this position by myself.

4) The presence of ll weapons does NOT change the RoE.

If you have to shoot a threat, shoot! No matter how many ll options are ready or already in use: any current threat (i.e. aiming sus) has to be taken down as fast as possible using all available options. And the fastest and safest option is to shoot. You can list the same reasons, why we try to point as many weapons to a threat as possible: all other officers may miss, run out of ammo, have a lag, have a weapon malfunction, aim at another target, etc...

One can easily get a penalty when using ll and lethal weapons at the same time, but that's absolutly bullshit. Image the situation without a ll gun: you would have to shoot the sus and it would be perfectly legal. Now we take some additional risk to our team by using ll weapons just to increase the safety of the sus... and we get punished for this. That's bullshit. Again: not to shoot a current threat is not an option because of the reasons written above.


"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
RaptorDate: Monday, 2012-01-09, 23:56 | Message # 2
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Quote from SAS Random:

Quote
Excellent guidelines for the use of LL. Well thought out.

I will debate just a little about the presence of LL not changing RoE. I would argue that it's safer to use LL to shoot an armed suspect who is not yet alerted to your presence PRIOR to issuing compliance. You protect your team and civilians better by shooting the LL first or at the exact time as issuing compliance. If you issue compliance and wait for the tango's reaction, the tango may be able to turn quickly and get off a couple of shots. You may be forced to kill that tango. Firing LL first avoids having to take hostile fire.

So I'd say that for everyone EXCEPT the officer with the LL weapon, the RoE is the same. Definitely NEVER wait for the LL officer to take a shot first. If you RoE says fire then, like stated by Raptor, you fire. The officer with LL should be able to shoot first when the situation dictates it's the safer thing to do.


"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
RaptorDate: Monday, 2012-01-09, 23:58 | Message # 3
Group: Commander
Messages: 3115
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
Agree 100%, it's already written that way in the RoE decision tree (see armed, not stunned, not alerted).

"Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at."
Murphy's Laws of Combat #9
 
Forums » Discussions » Tactics and Techniques » Debate - LL Weapons
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Search:

Communications