40S&W…Have you seen the deals?

[Webleymkv]

From the document JohnKSa linked under the section entitled "Background of the Investigation" on page 5 we find the following:

"Other agents on the surveillance who were not involved in the shooting we're armed with M16 rifles and submachine guns."

The fact that they were referred to in plural would suggest to me that, at some point in the investigation there were at least two of each.

Also, Platt's S&W 586, while chambered for .357 Magnum, was found loaded with Winchester Silvertip .38 Special +P ammunition. One of the FBI vehicles examined after the shooting was found to contain two speed loaders, one loaded with .38 +P LSWCHP and the other with .357 Mag Winchester Silvertip, so we know that speed loaders were available as at least one agent had them. McNeil's shotgun not only never made it out of the car, but was found unloaded.

Finally, while the vests available that day might not have stopped all the rounds fired by Platt and Matrix, they'd still have been better than nothing. Even NIJ Level II armor, considered very weak by today's standards, is rated to stop .357 Magnum and the armor the FBI had in 1986 was certainly capable of stopping.38 +P and 12 gauge #6 shot. Even though the .223 FMJ could certainly penetrate it, it's velocity would be reduced in doing so and the resulting wound would be less severe than one sustained by someone unarmored entirely.

 

[The Verminator]

So you have access to a report that's more accurate than the one the FBI did?

Did I say that? Please show us where. Quote me.

If you have to invent things I didn't say.......you must be more desperate than I thought.

Do better.

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?

Seriously?

There is no record anywhere that all the agents wore vests.

If you want to discuss this you should make a better effort to stick with facts.

At the very least, every agent could have had a shotgun if they had wanted.

I asked you before if you had any confirmation for your claim that they could have had automatic weapons.

You failed to respond.

If you really want to think that any agent could request any weapon his little heart desired........fine.

But if you want to make claims like that you should give us a link that backs up what you said.

Think about what you are saying.

I have.

Apparently you didn't.

Your tedious response is long on snark and totally lacking in facts of any kind.

Originally posted by The Verminator
Did I say that? Please show us where. Quote me.

If you have to invent things I didn't say.......you must be more desperate than I thought.

Do better.

"Other agents on the surveillance who were not involved in the shooting we're armed with M16 rifles and submachine guns."

The fact that they were referred to in plural would suggest to me that, at some point in the investigation there were at least two of each.

It doesn't "suggest" that at all.

The report is clear.

It specifically lists the agents (names redacted) who had an automatic weapon.

TWO agents.......one had an M16 and one had an MP3.

It was you that called John's linked report "incomplete" and posited that "a lot came out later" so it's only logical to think that perhaps you have access to a more comprehensive report.

No, it's totally ILLOGICAL and invented.

Again, I have to laugh at the desperation that motivates someone to invent something I never said.

I asked him to quote me.

He can't.

Thanks for your "help."

 

[TunnelRat]

No, it's totally ILLOGICAL and invented.

Again, I have to laugh at the desperation that motivates someone to invent something I never said.

I asked him to quote me.

He can't.

Thanks for your "help."

I don’t think it’s illogical at all. So at least two people don’t think that way.

As for Webley’s help, it’s a public discussion board. People comment on what you say, even if it was to another person.

 

[The Verminator]

I don’t think it’s illogical at all. So at least two people don’t think that way.

As for Webley’s help, it’s a public discussion board. People comment on what you say, even if it was to another person.

And thanks for YOUR help.

 

[dogtown tom]

The Verminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
Because the people in those cars specifically chose not to put them in the cars they would ride in.
Do you have any verification for your claim?

I do......actual FBI agents who were employed when the Miami Shootout occurred. Both agreed that there was absolutely no reason that those agents were not all armed with shotguns. This conversation was in 1989. In 1989, every Houston PD patrol car had a shotgun mounted in the front seat.....and had them for years. YEARS before the Miami Shootout.

Because I highly doubt that the FBI even today issues everybody on a task force any weapon they might like to have.

Even Barney Fife had 12ga pumps, a Win 70 and a Win 94 to choose from.
Sure, the FBI isn't going to just issue a Glockchester 1100 just because one agent requests one. Like nearly every LE agency THEN and NOW, there were qualification requirements with the firearms that an agency did have in inventory. And FBI agents were trained on a variety of shotguns, semiautomatic rifles and machine guns.

And this was the 1980s.......long before the cops were militarized.

Horsehockey.
Local, state and federal LE have been receiving surplus military equipment and firearms since day one, not just in the last 20 or 30 years.
Ten seconds on Google and you would realize how factually wrong you are about when police in America became "militarized".......try the early 20th century.

Freaking out because you feel offended by criticism directed at the FBI agents in Miami? Tough. That criticism, that analysis, is what has saved quite a few police officers over the years. Local/state/federal LE changed policies, tactics and procedures specifically because of this incident. You snidely refer to it as Monday Morning Quarterbacking.......and yes, thats exactly what it is when an incident goes down as horribly as did this one in 1986.

Hindsight is almost always 20/20. But putting your head in the sand by denigrating such criticism is a thousand times worse. I have no doubts those agents were/are heroes. But that doesn't excuse the fact that they were unprepared and under armed.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv View Post
It was you that called John's linked report "incomplete" and posited that "a lot came out later" so it's only logical to think that perhaps you have access to a more comprehensive report.
No, it's totally ILLOGICAL and invented.

Again, I have to laugh at the desperation that motivates someone to invent something I never said.

I asked him to quote me.

He can't.

Thanks for your "help."

Well allow me to offer a little more "help." In post # 282, you quoted and took issue with the following sentence from post # 279:

Originally posted by JohnKSa
So you have access to a report that's more accurate than the one the FBI did?

Do you see the punctuation that I added emphasis to there? Typically, when someone ends a sentence with a question mark, it is meant to be interpreted as a question. You stated, in post # 276 that the report in John's link was "official but flawed" and "When it was written up they hadn't even interviewed all the survivors of the fight and a lot came out later." Given that you're casting dispersion on the report written by the FBI themselves, I think it's certainly a fair question to ask if you have a different source that is less flawed and/or written after "a lot came out later." So, since you seemed to have trouble understanding what John was trying to convey, allow me to "help" a bit more by being a bit more direct: Do you have access to a report that's more accurate than the one the FBI did?

Originally posted by The Verminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv View Post

"Other agents on the surveillance who were not involved in the shooting were armed with M16 rifles and submachine guns."

The fact that they were referred to in plural would suggest to me that, at some point in the investigation there were at least two of each.

It doesn't "suggest" that at all.

The report is clear.

It specifically lists the agents (names redacted) who had an automatic weapon.

TWO agents.......one had an M16 and one had an MP3.

Wait a minute, didn't you yourself say that the report was "flawed" and that "a lot came out later" and also point out that it's heavily redacted? Do you realize that the investigation into Platt and Mattix's previous crimes had been going on for some time before April 11, 1986? Did you notice in the report that "previous surveillance" was mentioned? Unless we are to assume that the agents conducted all previous surveillance completely unarmed, then I see no reason to think that perhaps the M16 rifles and submachine guns might have been the armament of agents engaged in surveillance prior to 4/11/1986.

However, let's assume for a moment that referring to those guns in the plural was just a typo. What in the FBI's report, or any other source you may have, should lead us to the conclusion that because the agents involved in the Platt/Mattix investigation only armed themselves with one M16 and one MP-5 that those were the only two such guns to which they had access? Do you perhaps have the inventory of equipment for the Miami field office at that time? Do you have a quote stating such from someone who would be in a position to know? I find it interesting that, in addition to those present at the shooting, there were also four more Remington 870 shotguns being carried by the agents not involved and those shotguns as well as the M-16 and MP-5 were all, unlike McNeil's shotgun, loaded and in the passenger compartments of the vehicles. Do you have any explanation, backed up with supporting documents of course, as to why the task force seemed so flush with shotguns yet so bereft of rifles and submachine guns?

Also, your claim that "no one was prepared for battle in the 80's" would seem to be at odds with the armament and state of said armament of the agents not involved in the shooting. In fact, of the six vehicles not present at the shooting, five had longarms of one sort or another loaded and in the passenger compartment, that would seem to me "better prepared for battle" than having no longarm at all or having one unloaded and/or in the trunk.

The notion that the need to be more heavily armed in certain situation was foreign to the FBI in the 80's is, quite frankly, laughable as the Bureau has a long history going back to the aftermath of the Kansas City Massacre in 1933 of arming themselves in just such a fashion. Weapons such as Thompson submachine guns, Winchester Model 1907 Self-Loading Rifles, Remington Model 8 and 81 semi-auto rifles, Colt Monitor, M3 and M3A1 "Grease Guns", and MAC-10 submachine guns were all acquired by the FBI at various times prior to their acquisition of MP-5 submachine guns and M-16 rifles as you can read about in this article written by a former FBI agent.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211011064613/https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/bring-enough-gun-a-history-of-the-fbi-s-long-arms/

The Bureau learned in the 1930's that, when chasing armed bank robbers, you should have something more substantial than a handgun and that's a historical lesson that many of the FBI agents involved in the 1986 Miami Shootout failed to learn and paid dearly for.

 

[JohnKSa]

Did I say that? Please show us where. Quote me.

You said: "When it was written up they hadn't even interviewed all the survivors of the fight and a lot came out later."

This implies that you have access to some sort of reported information that is more recent than what is in the official FBI record.

If it is not a report, what is it? How much more recent is it?

There is no record anywhere that all the agents wore vests.

My question was rhetorical/sarcastic.

The FBI came out with a policy change in June of 1986 requiring all agents to wear vests if they were knowingly going into dangerous situations. Why would they do that if agents were already wearing vests in dangerous situations?

The answer is that the policy change would make no sense if all the agents were wearing vests.

And YES, you are correct. There is no record that all the agents were wearing vests, because they were not. As indicated by the official FBI report. Which I quoted. Which quote you responded to by claiming the report was flawed.

So which is it? If my information was accurate and not all the agents were, in fact, wearing vests, why did you respond to that by stating the report was flawed?

I asked you before if you had any confirmation for your claim that they could have had automatic weapons.

We know they could have had automatic weapons because some of the task force did. Just not the specific ones who happened to be involved in the shootout. McNeill was the task force supervisor for the group. He certainly could have had his pick of weapons. Instead he didn't even have a shotgun.

I have.

It is painfully obvious that either you had not or that you were entirely unaware of the FBI's history. Trying to imply that the FBI wasn't experienced in dealing with crooks that were heavily armed with machineguns and other similar weaponry is pure nonsense. That was how they made their bones when they first branched out in to Law Enforcement from doing primarily federal investigations.

 

[The Verminator]

I do......actual FBI agents who were employed when the Miami Shootout occurred. Both agreed that there was absolutely no reason that those agents were not all armed with shotguns.

Unfortunately for you, you DON'T.......that's not an answer to my question.

You failed to answer the question, which was: Do you have any verification for the claim that...."the people in those cars specifically chose not to put them (automatic weapons) in the cars they would ride in."

NOBODY has answered that question and provided the requested verification, although it's been requested a couple of times.


Tom again:

Local, state and federal LE have been receiving surplus military equipment and firearms since day one, not just in the last 20 or 30 years.

Wrong again.

I referred to the INTENSE militarization of RECENT years. Like this incredible escalation after the relative calm of the 70s and 80s:

In fact, between 1998 and 2014, the dollar value of military hardware sent to police departments skyrocketed from $9.4 million to a startling $796.8 million.

Just a quick look at Google will educate you.

Here's some help.
https://fee.org/articles/the-militarization-of-americas-police-a-brief-history/

The rest of your response is just uncalled for hostility and snark.

When I disagree with your opinions I am not "freaking out" nor am I "putting my head in the sand." "

bt

 

[The Verminator]

You said: "When it was written up they hadn't even interviewed all the survivors of the fight and a lot came out later."

This implies that you have access to some sort of reported information that is more recent than what is in the official FBI record.

No........it didn't "imply" anything of the kind.

It clearly stated that "a lot came out later."

Google is your friend. There are literally dozens of information sites on the Miami Shootout that have come out after that initial incomplete report including interviews with agents who were there (one has been cited above in the thread).

THAT is what I was talking about. You just made a wishful interpretation of your own--which was wrong.

My question was rhetorical/sarcastic.

In the interest of having a polite and clear conversation it is probably better to avoid sarcasm.

We know they could have had automatic weapons....

You continue to make that claim but also you continue to fail to answer my question when I continue to ask you for a link or citation to confirm your claim.

You should either retract the claim or back it up with a link.

Trying to imply that the FBI wasn't experienced in dealing with crooks that were heavily armed with machineguns and other similar weaponry is pure nonsense.

I did not ever "imply" that or write that.

Again you are making things up.........the nonsense is purely your invention.

Are we having a discussion or are you just creating straw men?

If you want me to continue the discussion you need to honestly discuss.

Ed Mireles answered a lot of these questions.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-special-agent-ed-mireles-on-1986-shootout

Yes, he did.

Especially the basic question that some don't seem to believe........that the shootout was a watershed moment that changed everything about police equipment, weapons and tactics.

 

[Pumpkin]

There is some interesting information in the Fox News interview.

Still, by the end of the article, the 9mm comes off to me as the primary reason for the failure and unfortunate loss of life for our FBI agents.

The 9mm is still the scapegoat when many other details about the incident could have been just as or more responsible for the the outcome.

 

[JohnKSa]

No........it didn't "imply" anything of the kind.

It clearly stated that "a lot came out later."

Google is your friend. There are literally dozens of information sites on the Miami Shootout that have come out after that initial incomplete report including interviews with agents who were there (one has been cited above in the thread).

THAT is what I was talking about. You just made a wishful interpretation of your own--which was wrong.

Ok, let me try this a different way because at this point you've almost been successful in completely twisting the focus away from whether all the agents were wearing vests to wrangling about peripheral issues.

So let's get back to the reason for quoting the report in the first place.

1. What part of the quoted information from the report (i.e. which agents were wearing ballistic vests) was inaccurate and motivated you to claim that the report was flawed and out of date?

2. What source(s) are you using to make that assessment?

You continue to make that claim but also you continue to fail to answer my question when I continue to ask you for a link or citation to confirm your claim.

You should either retract the claim or back it up with a link.

You continue to keep harping on this. Links are not the only possible way to support a claim unless a person is unable to use logic and existing facts to reach a valid conclusion.

We know the agents could have had automatic firearms because some of the members of the taskforce did have automatic firearms.

We know the agents could have had shotguns because some of the members of the taskforce did have shotguns.

The task force supervisor was involved in the shooting but did not have either one in spite of the fact that he was in charge.

However you break that down, using simple logic and self-evident facts, it amounts to agents that could have had automatic weapons and long guns going into a fight without them. And, in at least one case, an agent actually having a long gun accessible and yet not using it.

Which part of that reasoning is invalid? Which stated fact that forms the foundation of the reasoning is false?

I did not ever "imply" that or write that.

Again you are making things up.........the nonsense is purely your invention.

Are we having a discussion or are you just creating straw men?

If you want me to continue the discussion you need to honestly discuss.

You stated that no one was preparing for battle in the '80s. The fact was that the FBI had a long history of dealing with heavily armed criminals--starting from their initial foray from purely investigative work into law enforcement.

They, more so than most LE should have understood what it takes to deal with heavily armed criminals who have demonstrated a willingness to kill indiscriminately.

As far as my wanting you to continue the discussion, frankly this isn't much of a discussion. You are making claims that don't make sense and then flailing around to try to support them after the fact when the errors are pointed out. If you intend to persist in that approach I suspect that no one will be unhappy if you decide not to continue the "discussion". I'm certainly not going to encourage a continuation of those tactics.

...the shootout was a watershed moment that changed everything about police equipment, weapons and tactics.

Of course it was. Nobody is claiming otherwise. The point is that the FBI decided to focus on caliber as the main culprit for the negative outcome instead of properly noting that there were a lot of factors (including bad decisions made by the agents) that contributed far more heavily.

 

[The Verminator]

There is some interesting information in the Fox News interview.

Still, by the end of the article, the 9mm comes off to me as the primary reason for the failure and unfortunate loss of life for our FBI agents.

No.

Mireles did not say that at all.

In fact, he called it a "Devastating hit."

He commented on the great mystery of how Platt kept going for three to four minutes when he was so badly damaged.......but he did not condemn the 9mm.

Others have condemned it, I'll grant you that. But not Mireles.

The most interesting thing is that he says the Miami shootout was a "watershed" moment--the thing that changed the law enforcement strategy on weapons, equipment and tactics completely.

That's a fact that some here are still rather unsuccessfully arguing against.

 

[The Verminator]

Ok, let me try this a different way because at this point you've almost been successful in completely twisting the focus away from whether all the agents were wearing vests to wrangling about peripheral issues.

Seriously? Actually, I've been very successful in keeping the focus where it belongs.

This discussion was never about whether "all the agents were wearing vests."

Please try to focus and stay in the same conversation.

Does automatic weapons and your claim that all the agents could have had automatic weapons if they wanted them and your claim that they failed to take advantage of that fact........does that ring a bell?

Does your failure to cite any proof that your claim has merit ring a bell?

I repeat........either offer up some actual proof or retract your claim.

 

[JohnKSa]

This discussion was never about whether "all the agents were wearing vests.

No?

All the agents had light bulletproof vests of the era (meaning they would stop some handgun bullets).

So what is your game here?

You make a statement about all the agents having vests. I point out that it is incorrect and quote the official report.

You claim that the report I quote from is flawed and out of date. I ask what you are basing that on.

You refuse to provide sources (which is ironic, even amusing, given your fixation on them in other cases) and then claim that it was never about the agents wearing vests at all.

????

Does your failure to cite any proof that your claim has merit ring a bell?

I can only conclude from this that you are either trolling or don't understand logic. I provided a very clear breakdown of how the claim was supported. I provided you with a way to try to disprove the claim.

Instead you re-iterate a pointless demand for superfluous information.

The most interesting thing is that he says the Miami shootout was a "watershed" moment--the thing that changed the law enforcement strategy on weapons, equipment and tactics completely.

That's a fact that some here are still rather unsuccessfully arguing against.

No one is arguing against that fact. I stated that in the post directly above yours.

Why are you doing this? You know it's not true, why would you claim otherwise?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
Does automatic weapons and your claim that all the agents could have had automatic weapons if they wanted them and your claim that they failed to take advantage of that fact........does that ring a bell?

We know that automatic weapons were available to the taskforce because at least two member of the taskforce DID have them on the day of the incident. What reason do we have to believe that the same sorts of weapons that members of the taskforce already had were not available to the agents who were present at the shooting including McNeil who was the taskforce leader?

What about shotguns? Were they in short supply too? There seemed to have been plenty of Remington 870's sprinkled throughout the taskforce except among the agents at the shooting.

 

[The Verminator]

You stated that no one was preparing for battle in the '80s. The fact was that the FBI had a long history of dealing with heavily armed criminals--starting from their initial foray from purely investigative work into law enforcement.

They, more so than most LE should have understood what it takes to deal with heavily armed criminals who have demonstrated a willingness to kill indiscriminately.

No, you misquote me again. I said that no one was prepared for battle in the 1980s........even the FBI (who were probably better prepared than any normal police department).

You keep referring to ancient history.......the Babyface Nelson era.

While that did happen, things changed dramatically after the NFA of 1934 banned machine guns.

Dillinger, the Barker Gang, Babyface Nelson, Bonnie and Clyde were wiped out and law and order prevailed. Things calmed down some.

Law enforcement quickly wound down from their fear of machine guns and the .38 revolver and the shotgun became the heavy artillery.

The reason nobody was prepared for battle in the 1980s was for exactly that reason.......militarization had died off and there was no militarization compared to that of today. Read this:

As the roughly 800,000 American troops have returned to the U.S. over the past 20 years, what happens to all of the military equipment they used? Well, it is often transferred to law enforcement agencies.

Federal programs, such as the 1033 and 1122 programs, have provided billions of dollars in military equipment to police departments in the U.S.

The 1033 program allows the Department of Defense to transfer military equipment to police for free.

Billions. Nothing like that has ever happened before. The big increase prior to that was from nine million to about 900 MILLION.......not even one billion dollars.

Now do you understand what I've been saying about being ready for battle?

It didn't happen in the 1980s. It happened after that and some was due to the Miami incident.......but the big change came even later.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-9-11-helped-to-militarize-american-law-enforcement/

 

[The Verminator]

We know that automatic weapons were available to the taskforce because at least two member of the taskforce DID have them on the day of the incident. What reason do we have to believe that the same sorts of weapons that members of the taskforce already had were not available to the agents who were present at the shooting including McNeil who was the taskforce leader?

What reason do we have to believe that they WERE available?

You're still not providing any evidence except your own speculation........just like the others here.

 

[The Verminator]

You make a statement about all the agents having vests. I point out that it is incorrect and quote the official report.

All the agents DID have vests.

They were standard issue for all the agents.

How long are you going to continue pretending I said things that I didn't?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
What reason do we have to believe that they WERE available?

It was you who claimed that the one M16 and one MP-5 mentioned in the report were the only fully automatic weapons available to the taskforce with this statement in post #270:

And the ones who did had the entire issue for the entire task force of 14.

Therefore, the burden is on you to cite a source support your claim. If you cannot provide a source to support this, perhaps you should take your own advice and retract your claim.

You're still not providing any evidence except your own speculation........just like the others here.

No, I'm simply asking why you seem to think that some members of the taskforce had access to full auto weapons while others, including the taskforce leader, did not.

 

[JohnKSa]

All the agents DID have vests.

They were standard issue for all the agents.

Ah! Ok, so you are now saying that your initial claim was that they all had access to vests because they were standard issue, that you weren't claiming that they were wearing them.

Don't you think that you could have clarified your position two days ago since it was glaringly obvious then that I was talking about whether or not they were actually wearing them during the shootout? Instead you merely claimed the official report was flawed and outdated in your response to my comment.

You could have said: "You're talking about whether they were wearing them, my comment was meant to indicate they had access to them."

Instead you said: "Your linked report might be better described as official but flawed." and then proceeded to discuss other issues with the report.

You can see how confusing that is, right?

The reason nobody was prepared for battle in the 1980s was for exactly that reason.......militarization had died off...

And yet we know that members of the task force were issued machineguns for this duty.

The point (which you have almost managed to obscure) is that the FBI agents made mistakes in their preparation. They knew they were up against guys who were heavily armed and would shoot even when they didn't need to. Some of the agents threw on vests at the last moment--some didn't even do that. The FBI later changed policy to make sure that didn't happen again. The members actually involved in the gun fight didn't have any machineguns although machineguns were available to the task force. Out of all the agents involved in the gunfight, only two had shotguns, and only one of the shotguns was actually employed in the shootout.

They knew they were in for a battle, they had access to the gear to prepare for battle, they knew how to prepare for battle, and they took some sort of half-hearted steps, but failed to go far enough. Not because they didn't have the ability to go far enough, not because they didn't know what they were up against, not because the FBI as an organization didn't understand how to deal with heavily armed criminals. It appears to be a sort of complacency. Whatever it was, it was a mistake.

And yet, the FBI decided to focus very heavily on the caliber and performance of one single bullet fired by one of the agents in the gunfight instead of blaming some of the obvious mistakes made leading up to and during the gunfight. That's kind of messed up.

What reason do we have to believe that they WERE available?

Because some agents on the task force had them. That is absolutely not speculation--you know it to be true and have even posted it yourself.