40S&W…Have you seen the deals?

[The Verminator]

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:

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.

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.

No, as I recall, the original (and rather silly) claim (in your post #250) was that all the agents COULD have had automatic weapons and by refusing to take them it was their own incompetence that got them killed and wounded.

That silly claim was part of the original trashing of the agents and blaming them for their injuries and deaths. I found that claim not just offensive but totally false--so.........

I simply asked for a valid link to a source that would prove the silly claim.

Nobody has ever provided it so it's still just a silly claim (and false until proven).

The notion that the FBI would issue 14 automatic weapons to a 14 man task force is ludicrous when they were so afraid of bystanders getting shot that there were specific instructions as to how to avoid collateral damage even with just the TWO automatic weapons.

 

[The Verminator]

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.

No.

What I have clearly said all along is in line with everything readily available on the abundant records available.

All agents had been issued ballistic vests.

Two of them put them on for the gunfight but one of them didn't have time to fasten the velcro strips and the vest was flopping around half on and half off.

A third (I don't know if I mentioned him) who arrived after the fight started, also had his vest on for the fight.

That was my understanding of the vest question from all my reading about this gunfight for going on forty years now.

If you were confused about what I stated quite clearly--that is in no way my problem.

 

[The Verminator]

The point (which you have almost managed to obscure) is that the FBI agents made mistakes in their preparation.

Amazing.

You're just doing it again.......blaming (in flawed hindsight) brave men for their deaths and injuries........when you have nothing but your own UNLIKELY ASSUMPTION that ALL FOURTEEN OF THEM could have had automatic weapons and willfully refused to take them.

Shame on you.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
No, as I recall, the original (and rather silly) claim was that all the agents COULD have had automatic weapons and by refusing to take them it was their own incompetence that got them killed and wounded.

Yes, I stated that they could have all had automatic weapons based on the undisputed fact that some of them already did. It was you, sir, you then claimed that one M16 and one MP-5 were the only automatic weapons to which the entirety of the taskforce had access. I find this highly unlikely for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, Special Agent McNeil, who was the taskforce leader, was present at the shooting and did not have either of the automatic weapons. Now, I would think that as the taskforce leader, McNeil could have had the pick of whatever weapons he'd like from those available. If McNeil did not, as you claim, underestimate Platt and Mattix, then why would he not have taken one of the two available automatic weapons for himself?

Secondly, Special Agent Grogan was not only a 25 year veteran of the Bureau (the most senior of all those involved in the shooting), but also renowned as an excellent marksman as can be seen in this link:

https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-inside-miami-shootout-anniversary.mp3/view

Grogan was a 25-year veteran, a serious man and one of the Bureau’s best shots.

When McNeil was assigning who would be armed with what, it would seem to make the most sense to arm the most senior member of the taskforce who was "a serious man and one of the Bureau's best shots" with one of the two automatic weapons. Yet not only was Grogan bereft of a machine gun, he wasn't armed with any sort of long gun at all.

Finally, according to this link, "By the early 1950s, Miami was staffed by more 150 special agents and support personnel."

https://www.fbi.gov/history/field-office-histories/miami

Given that that number almost certainly went up in the intervening 30+ years, two strikes me as a rather low number of automatic weapons for a field office with so many agents.

No, I find it far, far more likely that the taskforce did not have more automatic weapons because they did not elect to take them. This is notion is reinforced by the fact that they demonstrably failed to take numerous other preparatory steps like already having their vests on, having speed loaders for their revolvers (we know they were available, two were found in one of the FBI cars), having their firearms secured on their persons so as not to be lost in a car crash, or, in the case of McNeil specifically, having his shotgun loaded and in the passenger compartment of the vehicle where it could be readily accessed. No, I'm inclined to agree with John that it was some sort of complacency.

That silly claim was part of the original trashing of the agents and blaming them for their injuries and deaths. I found that claim not just offensive but totally false--so.........

Oh I think it pretty obvious to everyone that you're offended. However, the numerous mistakes made by the agents that day pointed out by myself and others are certainly not "totally false." It is an undisputable fact that Manauzzi lost his revolver in the collision because it was sitting unsecured on the seat of his car rendering him incapable of returning fire to Platt and Mattix. It is a matter of fact that Hanlon lost his service revolver because, while in the holster, he did not have the hoster's retention engaged and thus had to resort to his S&W M36 backup gun to return fire. It is documented that, while all the agents present had bullet resistant vests, only one managed to put his on and fully secure it. It is documented that Special Agent McNeil's shotgun was not only never used, but was found unloaded in the trunk of his car. These things are all in the FBI's report. If that report is not completely accurate, as you suggest, then I invite you to either provide us with a more accurate one or take your own advice and retract your claim.

No, what you've done is try to focus on the tiniest minutiae and try to use it to excuse the numerous mistakes that were made that day. You've also accused me and others of speculation and demanded that we cite sources (in spite of the fact that we have) or retract claims when you, yourself have made numerous unsupported claims and, when called out, double down and refuse to retract your own speculation.

You said that one M16 and one MP-5 were the only two automatic weapons to which the taskforce had access. That is a very specific claim, what is it based on? Do you know the inventory of the FBI Miami Field office on 4/11/1986? Let's have it, cite your sources or retract your claim.

You said that "no one was prepared for battle in the 80's" and that the Miami shooting occurred "before the police were militarized" yet you've provided no evidence to back that up. When evidence to the contrary is presented to you, you changed your claim from "before the police were militarized" to "INTENSE militarization of RECENT years". Well how do you differentiate between INTENSE militarization and garden variety militarization? Even the very article you linked to support your claim of police militarization references police among others adopting heavier weaponry, including automatic weapons, as far back as the 1920's and SWAT teams being formed in the 1960's.

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

This completely ignores many historical events of which the FBI was almost certainly aware such as the numerous riots and civil unrest of the 1960's, the Texas University Clock Tower Shooting in 1966, the Newhall Incident in 1970, domestic terrorists like Weather Underground or The Symbionese Liberation Army that were active in the 1970's, or the numerous acts of international terrorism like the Munich Massacre in 1972. The notion that the FBI would not be aware of the possibility of facing heavily armed and determined adversaries in 1986 is, quite frankly, preposterous.

 

[The Verminator]

Yes, I stated that they could have all had automatic weapons based on the undisputed fact that some of them already did.

Ok........let's get this straight........you believe that because TWO automatic weapons were issued--that proves that 14 COULD have been issued?

Rather than an "undisputed fact".......that is an absolutely unlikely speculation.

You continue to claim that because TWO of the 14 were issued automatic weapons that ALL of them could have had them and they FAILED to take advantage of it and thus two of them died and six were wounded.

All you're doing is regurgitating your previous speculation and continuing to insult courageous men who gave their lives to protect and provide safety and security for the people.

You said way back in your post #250.......

The biggest, to my mind, failure of the 1986 Miami-Dade Shootout is that the agents involved were not ambushed or caught off-guard, but failed to adequately arm and prepare themselves...

Over 50 posts later you're still trying to convince us that automatic weapons were handed out like popcorn in those days?

Well, so far you have been unable to provide a link to prove your unlikely theory........and after all these many, many posts I have to believe you never will because it does not exist.

You have only imagination and speculation.

Since you obviously are unable or do not intend to provide any evidence........I'm done with you.

And shame on you for denigrating the memory of these brave men who gave their lives.

 

[Pumpkin]

Not all the FBI agents chose (only 1) to use their vests when they should have.
So why is it so hard to believe they would make bad choices concerning their weapons choices?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
Ok........let's get this straight........you believe that because TWO automatic weapons were issued--that proves that 14 COULD have been issued?

I believe that because two automatic weapons were issued and the FBI is a prominent, not to mention well-funded, federal agency that more could have been issued, maybe 14, maybe less but certainly more than two. You claimed that two is all they had available, I've asked repeatedly and I will ask once more: what is this claim based on?

You continue to claim that because TWO of the 14 were issued automatic weapons that ALL of them could have had them and they FAILED to take advantage of it and thus two of them died and six were wounded.

Yes, we know that they had at least two automatic weapons, and possibly more considering the wording of the FBI's report. The notion that an FBI field office in a major metropolitan area like Miami, which has long been a hub for smuggling and human trafficking, would not in 1986, at the height of the "War on Drugs", have more than two automatic weapons is ridiculous.

All you're doing is regurgitating your previous speculation and continuing to insult courageous men who gave their lives to protect and provide safety and security for the people.

Again, spare me the moral indignation because, quite frankly, I don't care. When those "courageous men" chose to take their jobs as FBI agents they knew or should have known that such a career opened them to public scrutiny and criticism should they be involved in an incident like this. The fact that they were courageous or acted heroically does not place every action they took during the incident or in the time leading up to it beyond reproach.

Over 50 posts later you're still trying to convince us that automatic weapons were handed out like popcorn in those days?

You know, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Given that you had a proverbial conniption over a question that you took as putting words in your mouth, you're doing exactly that to me. I never claimed that automatic weapons were "handed out like popcorn." However, I don't think it should be too difficult to understand the difference between a Special Agent going about his day-to-day duties investigating white-collar crimes being unable to get a machine gun and a Special Agent who is on a taskforce that's actively hunting armed, murderous bank robbers. It's perfectly logical that the FBI wouldn't issue automatic weapons to personnel that cannot demonstrate a need for them, but I think we all know, and the FBI knew since the 30's, that chasing armed bank robbers demonstrates an obvious need for heavier weaponry including machine guns.

If we leave aside your fixation on automatic weapons for a moment, why did the Agents in the shooting not all have shotguns? Was the FBI so stingy with those too? Afterall, even you stated that shotguns were commonplace with police during the 80's and had every agent had a shotgun they'd have been far more evenly matched with Platt and Mattix than they were.

Well, so far you have been unable to provide a link to prove your unlikely theory........and after all these many, many posts I have to believe you never will because it does not exist.

I have explained, at length, why the fact that they had automatic weapons available at all combined with the particulars of the taskforce make it highly unlikely that the single M-16 and single MP-5 were the only automatic weapons to which they had access. You, however, claimed that they had two, and only two, automatic weapons and continue to be unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your own unsupported theory. I'm beginning to think that the title of the thread should be changed to "Cognitive Dissonance and why some do not experience it."

You have only imagination and speculation.

I think I hear glass breaking

Since you obviously are unable or do not intend to provide any evidence........I'm done with you.

You'll have to pardon me if I'm not all broken up about that...

And shame on you for denigrating the memory of these brave men who gave their lives.

Nor broken up about personal attacks like that

 

[JohnKSa]

If you were confused about what I stated quite clearly--that is in no way my problem.

Now you agree with what I posted and the report I provided? Then why did you object to what I said and the report?

Amazing.

You're just doing it again.......blaming (in flawed hindsight) brave men for their deaths and injuries........when you have nothing but your own UNLIKELY ASSUMPTION that ALL FOURTEEN OF THEM could have had automatic weapons and willfully refused to take them.

Shame on you.

1. That is a blatant mischaracterization of what I'm saying. There were more mistakes made than just not having heavier weaponry available to all the members of the task force. So there is a LOT more than just that one issue to make the case. Your attempt to make it seem like that's the only relevant issue is going to fail.

2. The focus of this discussion isn't even the details of the flaws of the FBI's analysis, it is very specifically their decision to focus on the performance of one single bullet when there were obviously many more areas for improvement. Your attempt to try to bog down the argument and draw the focus away from the real point of the discussion is going to fail.

3. People can be brave and still make mistakes. It's important to learn from those mistakes and not let their deaths be wasted. It's same the reason that every airplane crash is carefully studied and the results published, even if they reflect poorly on the crew. Your attempt to shut down any criticism of the FBI is going to fail.

4. If you don't want to discuss real world scenarios, what went right and what went wrong, what could be done better, what was done very well, then you're free to abstain from the discussions. But those discussions are going to take place on TFL in spite of any objections you raise. If you persist in trying to shut them down, particularly if you attempt to do so by denigrating those who participate in them, appropriate action will be taken. Your attempt to mold TFL into your idea of how it should work is going to fail.

Ok........let's get this straight........you believe that because TWO automatic weapons were issued--that proves that 14 COULD have been issued?

That's ridiculous.

He posted a very clear explanation with supporting evidence. Your strawman is clumsy and inaccurate.

If you want to participate constructively, then do so. If you are going to continue to respond to strawman arguments of your own construction, then you are wasting not only your time but everyone else's.

Additionally, although you may think you're being very clever, in spite of your attempt to focus exclusively on this single issue, it's quite obvious that was only one of the many mistakes that were made. Your position is unsupportable. Even if it were somehow possible to prove that the huge Miami field office couldn't equip the entire 14 man taskforce with automatic weapons, that wouldn't begin to prove that no mistakes were made.

I'm done with you.

We can only hope.

So why is it so hard to believe they would make bad choices concerning their weapons choices?

Exactly. Especially when we can see that the agents involved in the actual shootout had only 2 long guns amongst them and only used one of them even though no one would be so foolish as to suggest that the Miami field office of the FBI only had a couple of shotguns available.

If I'm reading the report right, McNeill went into the fight without his normal backup gun because it was being serviced. If he had chosen to draw another backup instead of going into the fight with only his primary, that could have made a huge difference to him since he ended up being shot in the neck and temporarily paralyzed while trying unsuccessfully to reload his primary sidearm.

Furthermore, the other members of the task force were in the area. Waiting until more agents could converge to initiate the felony car stop could have made a huge difference.

The bottom line is that an objective assessment of the shootout should not have focused so heavily on the performance of one single bullet out of over 100 fired. The flawed decisions, preparations and tactics were much more significant contributors.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
People can be brave and still make mistakes. It's important to learn from those mistakes and not let their deaths be wasted. It's same the reason that every airplane crash is carefully studied and the results published, even if they reflect poorly on the crew. Your attempt to shut down any criticism of the FBI is going to fail.

This is exactly right. I would further add that the best way to honor the memories of Ben Grogan and Jerry Dove is to learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others involved in the incident so that we might help prevent others from making the same mistakes and suffering similar consequences. The notion that pointing out or discussing their mistakes is "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" or that it somehow "denigrates their memory" is not only, to put it politely, misguided hero worship but also, I would argue, deleterious to future generations because it deprives them the chance to learn from their mistakes without the need to make the same mistakes themselves.

The bottom line is that an objective assessment of the shootout should not have focused so heavily on the performance of one single bullet out of over 100 fired. The flawed decisions, preparations and tactics were much more significant contributors.

Thank you, that was the entire point I was trying to make to begin with. The near myopic focus on one bullet that "failed" to do something it wasn't designed nor ever intended to do shifts the focus away from other more important factors that likely had a much larger impact on the ultimate outcome of the event.

 

[jetinteriorguy]

This discussion reminds me of the old adage of wrestling with a pig.

 

[The Verminator]

Not all the FBI agents chose (only 1) to use their vests when they should have.
So why is it so hard to believe they would make bad choices concerning their weapons choices?

Actually, THREE chose to wear their light ballistic vests.

Was not wearing one a bad choice?

Let's examine why eleven out of 14 would vote against the vest.

Tell me........how many were hurt as a direct result of the lack of a vest?

How many were killed or even wounded by handgun bullets?

How many were actually out of action due to hits outside the protection of a vest?

None or almost none that I've heard of.

Maybe the decision was rational and practical at that time.

Since the light vests offered no protection from rifle rounds but still encumbered them, made access to shoulder holsters and ammo more difficult........maybe the majority had good reasons for not wearing them.

Are you really wiser than them all these years later?

 

[Pumpkin]

Am I wiser?? Where did you get this?
The proper wearing of vests would have shown a mindset of being better prepared for the situation.
This mindset might have also led to the decision to use more lethal firearms.
It appears the anticipated dangers might have been underestimated.
Human nature.

 

[The Verminator]

Now you agree with what I posted and the report I provided?

How does what I said.........which was.........

"If you were confused about what I stated quite clearly--that is in no way my problem."

How does that interpret to you mistakenly concluding that I agree with you?

It actually proves that you're still confused.

Since this has stayed the same through the entire discussion even after I have provided a lot of excellent historical fact......I must now say that I'm done with you as well.

Further discussion would obviously be just a waste of time.

At least this massive off topic discussion has been an interesting diversion from the original topic and no doubt some here have learned a little about a famous event in law enforcement history.

 

[The Verminator]

Am I wiser?? Where did you get this?
The proper wearing of vests would have shown a mindset of being better prepared for the situation.
This mindset might have also led to the decision to use more lethal firearms.
It appears the anticipated dangers might have been underestimated.
Human nature.

Ah, but so many years later and without much actual first hand knowledge.......you accuse the agents who were actually there --of making mistakes.

You must see yourself as wiser than them.

Such virtue-signaling and claiming of wisdom without justification is the real human nature that I notice here.

 

[Mike Irwin]

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

He's Monday Morning Quarterbacking the OFFICIAL FBI record...

That's some impressive Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Ah, but so many years later and without much actual first hand knowledge.......you accuse the agents who were actually there --of making mistakes."

One only needs to read the official report to understand exactly what mistakes that team made, and how those mistakes resulted in the the deaths of two agents.

In your desire to portray these men as selfless, sainted knights, martyrs of the cause of all that is good and holy and true, you're accusing the FBI of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and besmirching these holy martyrs because they dared, DARED to comprehensively overhaul their rules of engagement, tactics, and training as a result of the Miami shootout.

After all, how could anything be learned from such perfect, faultless performance in the field?

This conversation is quickly going both circular and ludicrous with some of the claims that you've made.

This happened before the police were "militarized?" You have no grasp of the history of policing.

The FBI team was absolutely faultless in the execution of its mission? The only one who believes that is, apparently, you, because not even the FBI believed that, or believes it today.

And it just goes on and on.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
Actually, THREE chose to wear their light ballistic vests.

Again, whether two or three agents were wearing vests is minutiae and doesn't change the point which is that all eight should have been wearing them. Also, all three of the agents who were wearing vests only put them on at the site of the shooting. They should have had them on ahead of time, as one of the unnamed agents in the taskforce who was not at the shooting did. The opinion that all the agents should have been wearing vests ahead of time is not only that of the posters in this thread, but also the FBI themselves as evidenced by their change in policy shortly after the incident.

Tell me........how many were hurt as a direct result of the lack of a vest?

How many were killed or even wounded by handgun bullets?

How many were actually out of action due to hits outside the protection of a vest?

None or almost none that I've heard of.

Maybe the decision was rational and practical at that time.

Since the light vests offered no protection from rifle rounds but still encumbered them, made access to shoulder holsters and ammo more difficult........maybe the majority had good reasons for not wearing them.

Well even a light vest certainly isn't going to provide less protection than no vest at all. Also, just because a vest wouldn't have stopped Platt's .223 rounds that doesn't mean that they provided "no protection" at all. Have you ever watched a video of body armor being tested to NIJ protocols? Even when an armor panel fails to stop a round, the resulting "wound path" in ballistic clay is often a small "ice pick" type rather than the large cavitation from the energy of the bullet. Also, because a great deal of a bullets velocity and energy is expended in penetrating an armor panel, the resulting penetration in the target is often significantly less than what it would be in an unarmored target. Even against Platt's rifle, a vest may have made the wounds less severe and, in the case of Grogan, might have been the difference between a fatal and non-fatal wound.

Also, you bring up access to shoulder holsters and ammunition. Do you know how all the agents were carrying their firearms and ammunition? If so, do you have supporting documentation? If not, then your comments about vests interfering with shoulder holsters and ammunition carriers is, as you would call it, baseless speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Now you agree with what I posted and the report I provided?
How does what I said.........which was.........

"If you were confused about what I stated quite clearly--that is in no way my problem."

How does that interpret to you mistakenly concluding that I agree with you?

It actually proves that you're still confused.

If John is confused, and I really don't think he is, it would be understandable because you have gone through a great deal of mental calisthenics to confuse the issue as much as possible.

Since this has stayed the same through the entire discussion even after I have provided a lot of excellent historical fact......I must now say that I'm done with you as well.

Further discussion would obviously be just a waste of time.

I suspect that John is likely as un-broken up about that as I am

Ah, but so many years later and without much actual first hand knowledge.......you accuse the agents who were actually there --of making mistakes.

So exactly how much firsthand knowledge do you have? Is firsthand knowledge a requirement to have an opinion on the event? Unless one of the posters in this thread happens to be named Richard Manauzzi, Edmundo Mirales Jr., John Hanlon, or Gilbert Orrantia, then its extremely unlikely that any of us, including you, has firsthand knowledge of the event (McNeil died in 2002 and Risner died in 2004).

Such virtue-signaling and claiming of wisdom without justification is the real human nature that I notice here.

If your moral indignation at criticism of the agents involved in the Miami shooting doesn't qualify as virtue-signaling, then I don't know what does. You may want to stop throwing those stones now, I think I just heard another one of your windows break

Since you brought up virtue-signaling and self-proclaimed wisdom, lets take a look at your own conduct shall we? It is obvious that you are emotionally invested in the credibility of the FBI's actions and opinions specifically, if your posts early in this thread and many others in any indication, their opinions on terminal ballistics. So, when I and others called the FBI's expertise into question based upon not only the particulars of the Miami shooting but also the details of it that the Bureau chose to focus on afterward, you first tried to shut the criticism down with moral indignation. When it became clear that we didn't share your misguided hero worship of the agents involved nor that your pearl-clutching over our criticism of them would dissuade the discussion of their numerous mistakes, you switched tactics to attempting to pluck at the threads of whatever minutiae you could like bickering over the semantics of whether having vests means they were worn or only available or positing unsupported theories about the FBI being inexplicably bereft of automatic weapons or grasping at straws with comments to the effect of "but it was the 80's!"

The fact of the matter is that the only rebuttals you have offered to the numerous well-reasoned, highly detailed, and well-documented explanations of precisely how the FBI failed to take reasonable and sensible preparatory action before the gunfight is to impugn the morality of those you disagree with, make baseless and unsupported claims of your own, and hypocritically demand that others retract their claims because you simply will not or cannot accept the overwhelming supporting evidence that they provided. Now, it is obvious to me that, because you are so heavily emotionally invested in this, that we cannot reasonably expect a retraction of the multiple claims that you seem incapable of supporting with any evidence whatsoever and which have been thoroughly and overwhelmingly debunked by myself and others. Neither can we reasonably expect an apology for the numerous unprovoked personal attacks that you have leveled against myself and others, including some of the moderators. However, I will give you a bit of advice: your conduct in this thread is hovering dangerously close, if not crossing, the line as to what is allowable and tolerated on this forum. John told you this in post #308:

Originally posted by JohnKSa
If you don't want to discuss real world scenarios, what went right and what went wrong, what could be done better, what was done very well, then you're free to abstain from the discussions. But those discussions are going to take place on TFL in spite of any objections you raise. If you persist in trying to shut them down, particularly if you attempt to do so by denigrating those who participate in them, appropriate action will be taken. Your attempt to mold TFL into your idea of how it should work is going to fail.

John is, in my experience, one of the more tolerant and patient moderators here and is willing to allow discussions like this one, and conduct like yours, to go on longer than some of his colleagues. This statement from him, however, sounds like a warning to me and, if you value your continued posting privilege here, one that should be ignored at your peril.

 

[The Verminator]

One only needs to read the official report to understand exactly what mistakes that team made, and how those mistakes resulted in the the deaths of two agents.

I didn't see the official report listing mistakes the agents made, especially blaming them for deaths.

Maybe you can give us a quote to back up your claim?

Thanks.

This happened before the police were "militarized?" You have no grasp of the history of policing.

I did provide two links that proved that the vast preponderance of this militarization happened well AFTER the 1980s and mostly after 9/11--involving billions instead of a few million dollars.

You missed that?

Maybe your grasp of the history of policing is not quite as secure as you think?

Or you had to jump into the discussion without reading the whole thread?

This conversation is quickly going both circular and ludicrous with some of the claims that you've made.

Well, maybe with your participation the discussion will become less circular and ludicrous.

The ones I've given up on were repeating themselves a lot (still are, but I'm not responding).

I thought my "claims" were factual and I did attempt to back them up by citing various reliable sources.

Maybe you can identify something I said that qualified as ludicrous?

The FBI team was absolutely faultless in the execution of its mission? The only one who believes that is, apparently, you, because not even the FBI believed that, or believes it today.

Did I say they were "faultless?"

I didn't.

Or maybe you can quote me on that?

 

[JohnKSa]

How does that interpret to you mistakenly concluding that I agree with you?

What you said was:

All agents had been issued ballistic vests.

Two of them put them on for the gunfight but one of them didn't have time to fasten the velcro strips and the vest was flopping around half on and half off.

A third (I don't know if I mentioned him) who arrived after the fight started, also had his vest on for the fight.

That was my understanding of the vest question from all my reading about this gunfight for going on forty years now.

None of that disagrees with the report in any significant detail. Three agents wore vests, but all of them donned them upon arrival, they weren't wearing them in advance. In spite of that, you said that the report was flawed and are, in fact, still arguing about it. Just trying to figure out what point you are trying to make or if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Tell me........how many were hurt as a direct result of the lack of a vest?

How many were killed or even wounded by handgun bullets?

Pure chance. Both Platt and Matix had handguns and Platt used his, he just missed. Even the FBI realized it was a mistake for all of them not to have worn the vests and publicly changed policy as a result.

Such virtue-signaling and claiming of wisdom without justification is the real human nature that I notice here.

Absolute, unadulterated BS. Rarely have I seen so much wrongness packed into so few words.

1. This is a red herring you continue to use to try to distract from the real point of the discussion which is the unjustified decision by the FBI to focus on the performance of one single bullet out of over 100 fired, when there were many other obvious problems with performance and preparation.

2. It is very obvious that no one here is claiming that they are better than the agents who were injured or died, so the crack about virtue signaling is just stupid.

3. There's very obviously plenty of justification for asserting errors were made.

4. Hopefully the law enforcement and gun community gets collectively wiser as the result of every LEO that is killed or injured. The real shame would be if they bled and died and no one learned anything as a result.

 

[JohnKSa]

Did I say they were "faultless?"

I didn't.

Or maybe you can quote me on that?

So, this looks like possible progress. In your opinion, what are some of the faults in preparation and performance made by the agents? Or is this another case where you are going to appear to disagree while actually agreeing?

I didn't see the official report listing mistakes the agents made, especially blaming them for deaths.

Come on, no one is that stupid. That is not only a strawman, it is a very bad one. The whole point of this part of the discussion is that the FBI went out of their way to avoid pointing out errors made by the agents. The errors made are there for anyone with eyes to see them, and many have been pointed out in this thread, but there isn't an official list of errors in the report--that's exactly the point--the FBI chose to focus on the performance of one bullet instead.