I did some active shooter simunitions training with the local PD SWAT guys and they were instructing the new recruits that cover fire is a no-no. Now obviously they are cops and have to account for every shot fired, eliminating the option of "covering fire" like the military has. They said what they are allowed to do is called "directed fire" which they basically described as follows:
If there is a shooter (in this case a gunman shooting at cops from a third story window of an occupied office building) who the police cannot get a direct bead on, they are not supposed to use suppressive fire, but instead are instructed to try and land bullets around where the suspect is covering, i.e. the window frame area, or the frame of a door in the event that a suspect was firing from the cover of a room. The idea, in theory, was to force the suspect back and hold off his fire.
In theory and on paper, this sounds like a good idea. Obviously the police have to worry about shooting innocent people, so it makes sense that cover fire is not an authorized tactic. But at the same time, this "directed fire" seems sort of hokey. Now I'm obviously neither military or LE, but it seems to me that this idea would detract from focus on the actual target. We all know how cops have to worry about covering their own rears legally, especially when the bullets start flying. Is this "directed fire" thing a tactically-sound practice or just the product of misguided thinking by PD's who are wanting to cover their own arses?
I learned a lot of cool stuff during these training sessions, but this was one of the things that confused me. Any insight is apreciated!
If there is a shooter (in this case a gunman shooting at cops from a third story window of an occupied office building) who the police cannot get a direct bead on, they are not supposed to use suppressive fire, but instead are instructed to try and land bullets around where the suspect is covering, i.e. the window frame area, or the frame of a door in the event that a suspect was firing from the cover of a room. The idea, in theory, was to force the suspect back and hold off his fire.
In theory and on paper, this sounds like a good idea. Obviously the police have to worry about shooting innocent people, so it makes sense that cover fire is not an authorized tactic. But at the same time, this "directed fire" seems sort of hokey. Now I'm obviously neither military or LE, but it seems to me that this idea would detract from focus on the actual target. We all know how cops have to worry about covering their own rears legally, especially when the bullets start flying. Is this "directed fire" thing a tactically-sound practice or just the product of misguided thinking by PD's who are wanting to cover their own arses?
I learned a lot of cool stuff during these training sessions, but this was one of the things that confused me. Any insight is apreciated!