Oh spare me the moral indignation please. Neither I nor anyone else here has demeaned, defamed, or otherwise besmirched the bravery, dedication to duty, or moral character of any of the eight agents involved. However, this was not the first time in the FBI's history that they'd encountered a determined and heavily armed foe. They knew ahead of time that they were dealing with very bad and well armed people, that they'd already committed multiple violent crimes including murder, and that at least one had committed previous robberies with a semi-automatic center-fire rifle. Despite knowing all of this ahead of time they chose not to arm or armor themselves as heavily as they could, and obviously should, have. If that isn't poor planning then I don't know what is. If we aren't allowed to point out the numerous mistakes made that contributed to the outcome of the incident because it "defamed their memory" or some such nonsense then I don't know how we can learn from the incident and ensure that the same mistakes aren't made in the future.
40S&W…Have you seen the deals?
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
Oh spare me the moral indignation please. Neither I nor anyone else here has demeaned, defamed, or otherwise besmirched the bravery, dedication to duty, or moral character of any of the eight agents involved. However, this was not the first time in the FBI's history that they'd encountered a determined and heavily armed foe. They knew ahead of time that they were dealing with very bad and well armed people, that they'd already committed multiple violent crimes including murder, and that at least one had committed previous robberies with a semi-automatic center-fire rifle. Despite knowing all of this ahead of time they chose not to arm or armor themselves as heavily as they could, and obviously should, have. If that isn't poor planning then I don't know what is. If we aren't allowed to point out the numerous mistakes made that contributed to the outcome of the incident because it "defamed their memory" or some such nonsense then I don't know how we can learn from the incident and ensure that the same mistakes aren't made in the future.
The Verminator
Moderator
Really?
A few quotes from the Monday Morning Quarterbacks.........
"failed to adequately arm and prepare..."
"They actually did horribly."
"They had no coordinated plan..."
"...FBI shotgun... locked in the trunk of a car."
"One agent lost his firearm."
"The other failings of the Miami fiasco are often overlooked."
"Even though they knew that at least one of them was armed with a rifle, they had no rifles of their own."
"Had Manauzzi retained his revolver in a better manner..."
"the FBI did very poorly in the incident..."
"Had Grogan put a nerd strap on his glasses, he might not have lost them in the car crash..."
"Had the agents managed better than the 23% hit rate they achieved, the incident might have resolved more favorably."
"...they underestimated their opponents, didn't adequately prepare, and weren't good enough marksmen."
"a new duty weapon and cartridge that would have somehow made up for the failures of Miami..."
"...they chose not to arm or armor themselves as heavily as they could..."
"If that isn't poor planning then I don't know what is."
"...the pervasive failures..."
"
Sounds like you're trashing them in your infinite Monday Morning wisdom.......we can only conclude that you think you could have done better.
Those quotes ignored the underlying facts (WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY LAID OUT IN EARLIER POSTS) that explained the actions of the agents.......and some of these quotes are not even true.
But rave on. Dig your hole deeper.
Brave men they were, no doubt. But that doesn't exempt them from public scrutiny. They, and the whole agency, are public servants, paid for by tax money. I don't see much wrong commenting, criticizing, or even demeaning their policies. That's how things get improved. Can't take that heat, get another job. That goes also to the president whom I happen to admire dearly.
We are xxx party/department/agency. How dare you say we are wrong? We cannot be wrong because we are brave. I heard that plenty from certain authoritarian regime under which I grew up. But it shouldn't be here in America.
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
We are xxx party/department/agency. How dare you say we are wrong? We cannot be wrong because we are brave. I heard that plenty from certain authoritarian regime under which I grew up. But it shouldn't be here in America.
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
And how, pray tell, do any of those comments cast dispersion on the bravery, dedication to duty, or moral character of any of those FBI agents? No one has accused them of cowardice, dereliction of duty, or moral depravity; yet apparently pointing out the numerous mistakes that were made that day, in your own words, "demeans those brave men."
I don't argue that they were brave, but I think that had they had rifles available and at the ready in all their vehicles then Platt would not have had the "vastly superior weapon" as you called it but one evenly matched or inferior to those of the FBI. After all, the FBI figured out in the 1930's that when chasing heavily armed bank robbers, submachine guns and autoloading rifles were good items to have. They seemed to have forgotten that lesson by 1986 and they paid dearly for doing so. I also think that, while facing a foe with a semi-auto rifle is certainly brave, it would have been wiser to do so while wearing appropriate body armor. I think it pretty obvious that when heading into a known dangerous situation it would seem prudent to secure certain items like eyeglasses and firearms. These all seem like reasonable and sensible things to do when pursuing murderous armed men.
I have not once criticized the actions that any of the agents took after the shooting had started. Yes, once under fire from Platt they did the best that could reasonably be expected from them in a very bad situation. However, I don't think it impugns their bravery to point out that had they prepared better for the possibility of armed conflict based on the information that they had ahead of time, they might not have found themselves in quite so dire a situation to begin with. If looking at a significant incident like the 1986 Miami Shootout through the lens of history and pointing out mistakes that likely influenced the outcome makes me guilty of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" then I guess I'm guilty as charged and I make no apology for it. I'd rather be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" and learn from the mistakes made by those FBI agents than to wax on about how brave and heroic they were and leave the door open for the same sorts of mistakes to be made again in the future. You seem to think that anyone who wasn't in Miami on April 11, 1986 isn't entitled to have an opinion on the incident, well I answer that with this: Knowledge comes from learning from your mistakes, Wisdom comes from being able to learn from the mistakes of others.
The Verminator
Moderator
Fourth down.......Monday Morning quarterback threw incomplete pass.
He has many excuses, but he still goes out and the punter comes in.
He has many excuses, but he still goes out and the punter comes in.
Last edited:
At first when I saw this thread on the front page I thought; "How on Earth is this thread still going?!" then I took a peek, read about 9 posts, then thought; "Of course..."
Nothing quite keeps a discussion on .40 S&W going quite like the, "I don't hate .40, but..." Crowd.
Also, people who don't hate something don't spend multiple posts arguing over how unnecessary, pointless, or outright inferior it is. Unless they're trolls, of course.
Nothing quite keeps a discussion on .40 S&W going quite like the, "I don't hate .40, but..." Crowd.
Also, people who don't hate something don't spend multiple posts arguing over how unnecessary, pointless, or outright inferior it is. Unless they're trolls, of course.
The Verminator
Moderator
I don't mind people attacking the unpreparedness of the FBI........but it's kind of silly.
The FBI mirrored the unpreparedness of law enforcement in general.
The critics say, "Why no body armor? Why no speedloaders? Why no automatic rifles? Why were they so unprepared for battle?"
Well........because it was the 1980s.
Nobody........NOBODY was prepared for battle in the 1980s.
We should not be fooled by the police militarism of today.......it was not that way in 1986. Not even close. Not even close to close.
To judge them by current standards is at best unrealistic and at worst amusingly silly.
Most cops of that era carried revolvers and ammo pouches with loose rounds. They had shotguns. Some few had light vests that would stop weak handgun rounds. Nobody had "Body Armor."
So don't blame the cops. Can you blame the bosses? Well, the bosses were not under pressure to look ahead and buy better equipment........
But they were under pressure to keep costs down. Budget was job one.
Anyway, if the agents on that fateful day had a vision of how the day might go.......it was probably that they'd get called to a bank where the perps were trapped by local police and holding hostages and there would be hours of negotiations.
They're human, after all.
Miami was a SNAFU. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong........right down to the smallest details.
Check the important wounds that sealed the bad outcome. One to a forearm. Two to hands. One to the neck. Even the best body armor wouldn't have changed that.
Guns lost in collisions? Two of them?
Who would expect that a bullet would hit a handgun and disable it? What are the odds? Yet it cost two lives and one badly wounded.
There was a task force of 14 FBI agents involved (some with submachine guns) and the local cops had extra manpower on patrol..........but after a high speed chase that took the cops on a complicated route.......none of the backup knew where they were.
It took them more than four minutes to figure it out and get there.....too late.
Eight agents had to handle it and two were never really in the fight ........leaving six lightly armed guys to deal with the Mini-14 and several magazines of .223. Two were then killed and the remaining four were wounded.
By chance, none of the FBI AR-15s or submachine guns were in the cars on the scene.........only pistols and one shotgun could be deployed against the far superior Mini-14 .223 wielded by a skilled and almost inhumanly determined killer.
Fate simply did not favor them that day.....but they faced it with great courage.
And this adds what, exactly, to the discussion? Your sports ball analogies are becoming tiresome.
And yet you respond to those who do with moral indignation and accuse them of "defaming their memory."
Well, the other six agents in the stakeout were apparently prepared for battle as they had M16's and MP-5's. Two of the agents in the gunfight had vests that could protect them from at least Mattix's shotgun and both he and Platt's revolvers while the other six agents were unarmored entirely. Don't give me the "it was the 80's" excuse, the FBI agents involved chose not to utilize weapons and armor that were available to them and chose to pursue armed murderers in such an unprepared manner. The fact of the matter is that they could have all had MP-5's and M16's and they could have all had at least light armor, but they didn't and thus were less prepared than they could have been for what they had to face.
40S&W…Have you seen the deals?
I guess you are just going to completely ignore the people rehashing the Miami shootout (yet again). I think the fans of the 40SW will survive this thread.
I guess you are just going to completely ignore the people rehashing the Miami shootout (yet again). I think the fans of the 40SW will survive this thread.
The Verminator
Moderator
Some of them did. No info on how many of them.
And the ones who did had the entire issue for the entire task force of 14.
Did they have any other battle gear?
There was no mention of body armor or speedloaders for revolvers.
Not exactly a swat team, were they?
As I said, nobody was prepared for battle in the mid 80s.
The FBI, as ill-equipped as they were, had far more than the average cop.
The Verminator
Moderator
Not exactly right.
All the agents had light bulletproof vests of the era (meaning they would stop some handgun bullets).
Maybe not the .357s that the perps carried.
Only one agent put on a vest and secured it......the other put his on but did not hook up the fasteners.
The Verminator
Moderator
I have not found any records that verify your claim of those "facts."
What I do see is that you are again sharing your opinion and calling these agents irresponsible and incompetent.
It actually WAS the 80s and the fact is probably that they took what they were issued and went out to do the job.
I haven't seen any credible records that say the agents chose their equipment for this task force operation.
Perhaps. The point is that if one is going to do a proper after-action, one has to be willing to look at all of the evidence and go where it leads. What they apparently did was pick a conclusion and then work towards rationalizing it.
Given the specifics of the people they knew they were hunting (people who were prepared for "battle"), that was a mistake. The fact that it was a common one at the time doesn't change it into "not a mistake". But for the most part they ignored that in their analysis. Remember, they were supposed to be the leading edge, they were supposed to be showing the way. You can't maintain that position if you won't admit your mistakes and better them.
You need to read a good solid breakdown of the encounter.
It was not guns being hit by bullets, it was guns literally being lost in collisions. Automobile collisions during the initial car stop. One agent, for example, unholstered his firearm and put it on the seat next to him--presumably to make it more accessible. Then the car got bounced around during a collision and the gun was lost. He didn't have time to look for it because there were people shooting at him so he went for his snubby backup instead and was essentially unable to contribute constructively to a positive outcome. As I recall, Platt intentionally shot him in the groin after his gun ran dry.
Not by chance. Because the people in those cars specifically chose not to put them in the cars they would ride in. It wasn't like the FBI didn't have sufficient weaponry to arm all of them commensurate to the threats they knew they would face.
Are you sure about this? I don't recall seeing body armor in the official inventories of the scene.
Ok, here's the official report.
https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI Miami Shooting 4-11-86 /Miami Shooting 4-11-86 Part 7 of 11 /view
None were wearing vests during the stakeout.
McNeil, Orrantia and Risner put vests on when they arrived at the scene of the shooting.
The other agents were not wearing ballistic vests during the shootout.
The FBI, in June of 1986 changed their policy and required agents to wear ballistic vests when "there is a reasonable assumption that they may encounter dangerous suspects".
https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI Miami Shooting 4-11-86 /Miami Shooting 4-11-86 Part 7 of 11 /view
None were wearing vests during the stakeout.
McNeil, Orrantia and Risner put vests on when they arrived at the scene of the shooting.
The other agents were not wearing ballistic vests during the shootout.
The FBI, in June of 1986 changed their policy and required agents to wear ballistic vests when "there is a reasonable assumption that they may encounter dangerous suspects".
The Verminator
Moderator
Your linked report might be better described as official but flawed.
When it was written up they hadn't even interviewed all the survivors of the fight and a lot came out later.
Example: It does not include the fact that after Mireles empties his shotgun Platt came out of the FBI unit and fired three times at him at close range with a .357 and missed and then ran back to the FBI unit to again try to get it started (and that it would not start).
It was considered odd that Platt missed.......but at that point Platt was shooting with his weak hand because his right was too damaged and he must have been only semi conscious due to his mortal wound.
Your linked report is useful however, in that it shows that the 14-man task force was issued only ONE M16 and ONE MP5.
That contradicts some of the Monday morning quarterbacks who made it sound like there were several of each among the agents who were not involved in the shootout.
I had read that report before but hadn't noticed that it listed all FBI weapons.
I found it to be so heavily redacted and smudged that reading it was sort of difficult.
Last edited:
The Verminator
Moderator
Do you have any verification for your claim?
Because I highly doubt that the FBI even today issues everybody on a task force any weapon they might like to have.
And this was the 1980s.......long before the cops were militarized.
The Verminator
Moderator
The heat would have probably been a factor, yes.
But I suspect there were other factors........one would be that they if people saw the vests it would ID them as cops and blow their cover.
Think about what you are saying.
We're talking about the FBI, not local cops. The FBI branched out from federal investigations into more "mainstream" law enforcement in the 1930s to try to deal with violent, heavily armed gangs--the same time that the NFA law (restricting machineguns, concealable rifles/shotguns and silencers) was passed for the same reasons.
So you have access to a report that's more accurate than the one the FBI did? That's impressive.
By the way, I'm sure you already know this, but that link was to only one of 11 documents that makes up the entire report.
When was that particular portion of the report I linked to written up and how much more recent is the report you have access to?
How did the information I cited change in this more accurate and more recently written report that you have access to?
Does the report explain why in spite of the fact that all the agents were wearing ballistic vests, the FBI made a policy change announcement after the shootout telling agents to wear their vests in dangerous encounters?
In fact, could you please link to (or provide a source for) this more accurate and more recent report you have access to? I would like to read it.
Why would you bother if you don't believe the contents and you have access to a more accurate report?
1. None of the FBI agents reported that occurrence (Platt walking over to fire at Mireles at close range) in their interviews. A civilian did claim they saw that but it remains disputed.
2. Part of the official report (of which the document I linked to was only one small portion) does indicate that the "driver" (Platt) fired "a revolver" "at least three times" at Mireles during the final portion of the shootout. Anyway, that kind of a dispute between eyewitnesses (which is very common, by the way) is hardly the same thing as saying that the FBI didn't know whether or not their agents were wearing body armor during the shootout.
They had what they drew for the operation--this was a high-priority task. If they had wanted more, there's no reason to suspect that they would have been denied. Again, let's think back how the FBI started working this kind of operation in the first place in the '30s--it was to deal with gangsters armed with machineguns.
At the very least, every agent could have had a shotgun if they had wanted. Think how things might have been different if McNeil, who was armed only with a revolver, had exited his car with a shotgun and been able to put shots on Matix and Platt with that firearm from close range instead of using his revolver. As it was, some believe that his shots, very early in the encounter, took Matix out of the fight--imagine what he could have done with a few rounds of buckshot instead.
Ed Mireles answered a lot of these questions.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-special-agent-ed-mireles-on-1986-shootout
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-special-agent-ed-mireles-on-1986-shootout