FBI Miami shootout: Better Handgun Caliber or better Tactics

[njtrigger]

Why didnt they call for backup when they realized a situation existed?

In my neighborhood, when I call the police, they show up within a very short time. I would say less then 3 minutes In the Miami area, Im certain that if a law enforcement agent called for backup there would be at least 10 cars converging on the scene.

I wasnt there and dont know the cirumstances. However, I do know that when one calls the police in most urban areas, they will show up within a few minutes.

Also, the destructive effects of a rifle are well known. If they knew they were going to face rifle toting bad guys, why did they not have the right gear accessible. If it was in the back seat or in the trunk, then thats unacceptable. Any soldier out of basic training knows that there is only one place for your rifle or pistol and thats always within an arm's reach away. A weapon that is locked in the trunk is just as good as having no weapon at all.

So its clear to me that they were not well prepared and believed they could face the situation themselves when back-up units were clearly warranted.

 

[ISP2605]

Why didnt they call for backup when they realized a situation existed?

They did call for assistance before the stop and the shooting started. By the time the assistance got there it was all over. 3 minutes is a very very long time in a shooting.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Doug,
Denny works for me. Mr. Hansen was my dad.

Where I come from, when you have been told someone's full name, you call them by their last name until you know them or unless they tell you otherwise. (in short, I wasn't thinking of you as an "old man" just a jesture of respect) ('course what does it matter on the internet since most of us ID each other as Bob, Joe, Doug with a number or nickname attached.)
That being said since Denny works for you, Denny it is.

In regards to a better handgun caliber:
We need to keep in mind that the bad guys were driving a vintage Monte Carlo, and almost three decades ago cars were not the cheap sheet metal found in automobiles currently. By modern standards that Monte Carlo was a tank. No handgun round can be expected to get through glass and steel and reliably reach a target inside a vehicle. I have my doubts that the .223 and 9mm rounds out of ARs and MP5s carried by other agents that day, though not at scene of the incident, would have fared much better.

Denny,
Well that's true, cars back then were not the fragile plastic "environmentally friendly" toys they are today. Still I argue that 1) metal in cars made 30-50 years prior to that were even heavier and stronger than the Monte Carlo or any other 80s era car. I've read of a story back in the 1950s where two secret service agents were in a gun fight with a gang of counterfieters firing on the agents from their car. One agent was using a snub nose .38 spl. standard 158 gr LRN. He soon realized that his bullets were not penetrating the auto body and hitting his target. HOWEVER, his brother in arms near him at the same distance who was using a standard issue 4 inch .38 special shooting the same ammunition DID penetrate the auto body and kill the gunman. The agent with the snubbie later, after being reassigned to protect the President of the United States, went all the way up and bought a four inch .357 magnum revolver (nothing but the best to protect the president). I have heard it said that .38 Special standard did fail to penetrate auto bodies from service guns as far back as the late 60s (one story I heard said a car looked like it had been dented up in a hail storm) I have also have heard it said that the pressure of standard .38 special rounds has been quitely downgraded over the decades. I think a .38 Spl.+P 158 gr round (which some say is equal to or greater than standard 38 spl. 158 gr LRN from 30-40 years ago.) would penetrate an auto body of the 1980s.
2) As far as the .223 round and 9mm rifles go, if a .38 special is capable (with strong enough ammo) of penetrating cars from 50 years ago I would think a high powered rifle or carbine would be able to do the same to an average car from the 80s. 3) The gunman's.223 Ruger Mini14 was pretty effective against the FBI agents that had him outnumbered as they took cover behind their cars.

 

[News Shooter]

One thing I never understood about this

Was why they didn't call for PD backup. Way back in the 70's in Tucson the FBI guys had TPD on their radios and I remember many times hearing an agent calling TPD for a stop or SWAT situation

 

[njtrigger]

Here are the facts of the Miami shootout that no one ever seems to mention.

The criminals were better trained and armed then the FBI agents. The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention and their tactics were superior to that of the agents.

The agents, on the other hand, were ill-prepared. They lost control of their weapons and violated a simple rule that we all know. That rule is not to bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Someone said that the agents had shotguns in the trunk or the backseat, but the criminals didnt have their weapons in the trunk.

The way they stopped the criminals was very questionable. They did not have any backup and were stopping persons who were known to be armed and dangerous. Before stopping the perps, they should have had an army of the local police department in tow. Stopping two guys who were known to carry magnums and rifles (with military experience) without backup is questionable. I dont know of any police department that would stop such a crew without at least 25 other assisting officers and SWAT. The FBI agents thought that their small group with pistols would be enough to fend off two armed guys with rifles.

So instead of blaming the agents, they pushed the blame on the bullet. When you look back through military history, there have been plenty of soldiers who took several rounds before being killed. In fact, some of these soldiers even put up a good fight despite multiple gunshot wounds and won medals of honor.

This was the same concept here.

The FBI should have come forward to say that it was their tactics that was at fault and not have readily pushed the fault on the bullet. Im aware that people died and it was indeed a tragedy. However, we need to vent the truth to prevent future tragedies. It was not the bullet that messed up, it was the agents.

 

[David Armstrong]

The agents, on the other hand, were ill-prepared.

No, the agents were as well-prepared as any other LE officers would have been at that time in history.

The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention

Again not quite correct. One BG was immediately disabled and unable to operate during almost the entire firefight.

That rule is not to bring a pistol to a rifle fight.

You assume that anyone knew or anticipated a fight of any type. This was a low-key surveillance operation, without any anticipations of a fight.

The way they stopped the criminals was very questionable.

But also pretty much unavoidable. The BGs figured out they had been made, and that changed the dynamics entirely. The choice was either make a less-than-perfect felony stop or let the BGs out of the box to go where the setup could have been far worse.

Before stopping the perps, they should have had an army of the local police department in tow.

Could, should, would. The local police are not going to give the FBI (or anyone else) an army to follow them around when there is no action anticipated.

I dont know of any police department that would stop such a crew without at least 25 other assisting officers and SWAT.

I'm not aware of any police department that will assign 25 officers and a SWAT team to drive around in a pack hoping they will find a BG.

However, we need to vent the truth to prevent future tragedies. It was not the bullet that messed up, it was the agents.

No, the agents were victims of the time and the situation. So far everything you have suggested they should have done literally could not have been done. The agents made a call in response to a fast-developing situation. They did pretty good considering the facts.

 

[Sarge]

I have looked at this thing upside down, sideways, etc and read Anderson's lengthy and detailed dissection of the event several times. The only thing I too from it was this- if each agent had a slug-loaded pump shotgun in hand when they exited their vehicles, along with 10-15 spares in a pouch or pockets, I do believe they would have solved this problem a lot quicker, and with less (or no) loss of life on the LE side.

That's the lesson I took from this. I already knew that on rare occasions, both people and animals are almost impervious to hits from respectable handguns. It's a shame whenever good officers are killed in the line of duty. It's also a shame if we don't try to learn soimething from it.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Basicly one should learn this from the shootout:

a) When you are after high risk felons, load for bear (they didn't.) This includes bullet proof vest as well as long arms.

b) If you have bad eye sight, but an excellent shot, make sure there is no way to loose your glasses!

c) It's better to have lots of ammo and not need than to have to little ammo and need it.. bad.

d) If all you have is a revolver, carry two!

I really don't care about the feds upgunning from 9mm to 10mm to .40S&W. It's ho-hum. The failure was not the weapons, but the handling of the situation (but, like david said, for that time period that was done alot.) Hopefully the learning curve has kicked in and when they get an alert for a high risk situation, they prepare for that.

 

[Jager1]

No, the agents were as well-prepared as any other LE officers would have been at that time in history.

Wrong. The FBI had much better firearms available to agents, considering the objective of the surveillance, that were not used. You don’t send 50 agents to Florida specifically to locate 2 males known to be heavily armed with semi-automatic long arms and that have a propensity for violence and conduct an operation (even a surveillance) armed only with revolvers, 9mm’s and one shotgun. A bad choice was made by whomever was in charge of this operation both in planning and equipment.

Again not quite correct. One BG was immediately disabled and unable to operate during almost the entire firefight.

What does that have to do with weapon retention? Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled? We’re talking about the time period leading up to the moment the first shot was fired. That is where the agents made noticeable blunders.

You assume that anyone knew or anticipated a fight of any type. This was a low-key surveillance operation, without any anticipations of a fight.

Again, the FBI sent 50 agents to Florida specifically for this operation. The description of the perpetrators they were attempting to locate and their M.O. was well known by the agents. If the agents didn’t anticipate a fight, as you claim, then what does that say about their decision to engage the suspects, known to have just a little bit of a fight in them? Ignorant bliss? If you are conducting a surveillance – you don’t go crashing in like a bull in a China shop because you just realized the heavily armed suspects “made” you are attempting to flee. With no commo with local PD, what other outcome could there have possibly been? The agents made a strategic blunder from the outset and a horrific series of tactical blunders in being forced to engage.

But also pretty much unavoidable. The BGs figured out they had been made, and that changed the dynamics entirely. The choice was either make a less-than-perfect felony stop or let the BGs out of the box to go where the setup could have been far worse.

How could it have been any worse than it turned out? Pretty much the worst "getting your ass shot off by the bad guys" episode in the Bureaus history is somehow preferable to allowing the suspects to move off while trying to maintain contact from a distance to allow BU units to converge or breaking off contact altogether and hoping for a better chance another day?

It was absolutely avoidable. It was a surveillance operation, yet no accommodations were made for the very likely contingency that the suspects might identify the agents following them? No thought was given to what might happen if the suspects opted to flee or fight? It was the agents insistence upon engaging once they realized their stealth posture had been compromised that got them shot up.

Could, should, would. The local police are not going to give the FBI (or anyone else) an army to follow them around when there is no action anticipated.

That is precisely what the FBI should have done. Coordinate with local LE to ensure that either they, or the FBI had a team rolling at all times to back up the surveillance officers. Under no circumstances should the surveillance officers have attempted a head-on confrontation with these suspects. Or they should have been more heavily armed. There HAD to be action anticipated. Read up on Platt and Mattix's criminal activities leading up to this shootout.

I'm not aware of any police department that will assign 25 officers and a SWAT team to drive around in a pack hoping they will find a BG.

I’m not aware of any police department or agency that prefers to have several of their officers slaughtered, either. The point is that a TEAM should have, at a minimum, been on call – with the surveillance team under strict orders to not engage.

No, the agents were victims of the time and the situation. So far everything you have suggested they should have done literally could not have been done. The agents made a call in response to a fast-developing situation. They did pretty good considering the facts.

The agents were victims of poor management, planning and decision making in the field. What they should have done was not engage the suspects in such a brazen fashion being armed so lightly in an uncoordinated and impromptu assault methodology. Others have alluded to a mindset or mentality on the part of the agents that was deficient also. I agree that this at least partially contributed to their inability to effectively engage suspects they chose to confront head-on. The facts are that when you have this many agents dead or shot to hell, somebody on the planning end screwed the pooch.

They did pretty lousy, up against one man with a semi-automatic rifle confined to an area of less than 50 feet.

 

[David Armstrong]

Wrong. The FBI had much better firearms available to agents, considering the objective of the surveillance, that were not used.

Nonsense. The Feds have always had lots of neat toys to play with, but usually they are left in the safe. The FBI agents, as stated, were armed as was typical for officers on surveillance or usual street duty--handguns and shotguns. Some agents did apparently have subguns, but were doing surveillance in another part of town.

What does that have to do with weapon retention?

It has everything to do with: "The criminals had full control of their weapons at all times. They (criminals) had no problem with weapon retention." Hard to be in full control of your weapons when you are unconscious during most of the incident.

Care to comment on the agents weapon retention after they were shot or disabled?

Why? Do you think it was an issue?

Again, the FBI sent 50 agents to Florida specifically for this operation.

Yep, and Florida is a pretty big place. In this particular place there were 14 agents covering a 60 block urban area.

then what does that say about their decision to engage the suspects,

Sigh. For about the umpteenth time, the agents didn't go out planning to engage the suspects, they were made by the suspects and that changed the dynamics significantly. The agents were out looking for potential hit sites and with the intentions of tailing the BGs back to their home. Actually encountering them was a bit of a surprise at that time, and one they were trying to work with. In fact, contrary to what some here have claimed, the agents on the scene were trying to get some help from marked units to conduct the takedown. The BGs pushed the situation too fast.

The agents made a strategic blunder from the outset and a horrific series of tactical blunders in being forced to engage.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how much it seems to disagree with the facts.

If you are conducting a surveillance – you don’t go crashing in like a bull in a China shop because you just realized the heavily armed suspects “made” you are attempting to flee.

I'd agree. But as that scenartio has nothing in comon with what happened here, I fail to see its relevance.

How could it have been any worse than it turned out?

The BGs could have escaped, there could have been civilians injured, more agents could have been killed, etc.

Pretty much the worst "getting your ass shot off by the bad guys" episode in the Bureaus history is somehow preferable to allowing the suspects to move off while trying to maintain contact from a distance to allow BU units to converge or breaking off contact altogether and hoping for a better chance another day?

Your ability to 2nd guess after the fact and perform the Monday morning quarterback drill are duly noted.

That is precisely what the FBI should have done.

Again, could-would-should. The reality is that stuff didn't happen then and wouldn't happen now given the same situation.

What they should have done was not engage the suspects in such a brazen fashion being armed so lightly in an uncoordinated and impromptu assault methodology.

Again, it might be nice if your accusations and claims had some relationship to reality. The agents were not lightly armed FOR THE TIME. The assault was not uncoordinated or impromptu, it was done in a coordinted manner at a time the agents thought was best in that situation.

They did pretty lousy, up against one man with a semi-automatic rifle confined to an area of less than 50 feet.

Let's see now...they got several hits on that man, some fairly early in the fight, which were fatal. They did this in an environment with lots of cover and concealement, obscured by a fair amount of smoke, lots of dust, and a huge difference in light levels. All while being shot at. And the area included much more than a 50 foot limit. Perhaps you could have done better. Maybe you will share with us your experience in similar situations?

 

[K.J.]

Better tactics. When possible wear body armor, have shotguns, and learn how to make a felony car stop.

Having said that, it's been noted that they were originally not out to engage and were trying to get help from marked units. Things happen; situation tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

But would Platt have gone down sooner if his wounds had been inflicted by a 10mm? No one can say, but I doubt it.

 

[Rifleman 173]

When police officers review the Miami Shootout, most learn that shot placement, the RIGHT (bigger bore size, millimeter and caliber) firearms, communications, forethought and tactics come together as equals. If any one of the items is not right, then police officers die. Same thing applies to civilian shooting incidents too. All too often, police officers and FBI agents are mandated by their agency's in-house rules as to what they CAN and CAN NOT carry on their persons or in their cars. I suspect that the FBI agents in Miami were also so limited to just their duty weapons in spite of what they were trying to do: arrest a pair of armed robbers. In some cases, if you're caught carrying "an unauthorized weapon" then you can be suspended or fired. Most state police agencies and federal agencies are so by-the-book that I wouldn't be surprised if they even have a section that requires the officer to only use very certain names for their newborn children. One agency I knew of even had a VERY specific way to answer the telephone. I've always thought that what killed the FBI agents that day in Miami was NOT something that they did but, instead, something in their agency's local, regional or national rule book forced them into a shootout without the firearms that they really needed. Sort of like the North Hollywood Shootout. Prior to that incident the field cops were NOT allowed to carry rifles, especially scoped ones, in their squad cars. Now they can but look at what it took to force the change to be made...

 

[Mannlicher]

if its in wikipedia, its probably wrong. My Brother in Law was a Special Agent in Miami at the time. He knew all the guys involved, and had worked the case. His take is much different than most of what has been presented.

 

[Night Watch]

I wasn't going to post; but, it is interesting to see how history can be selectively rewritten and modified to suit the popular opinions and mental prejudice of the day.

I've got a simple read on this: Platt and Matix were mentally, emotionally, AND physically better prepared to get into a gunfight that day. Those FBI agents involved were - for a variety of different reasons - attempting to go into action from, 'well behind the curve'.

I have to wonder whatever happened to those early debriefing reports that clearly pointed out the numerous personal foibles and tactical mistakes made by the FBI that day? (And, like Mannlicher, some of my closest friends are or have been FBI agents.)

If we're going to make a constructive contribution to keeping lawmen alive in combat, then, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a better way to go than attempting to resort to popular myth and fictitious adulation. Neither sentiment nor rationale are going to do anyone any good in an after-action analysis of this sort.

It wasn't their equipment; and it wasn't the caliber(s) they used. Those agents were, simply, outfought by an intellectually superior, and more determined foe who used better offensive tactics and a stronger mental/emotional attitude against them - OK!







That's as much as I'm going to say. I've spent many hours reviewing this gun battle; and, with my considered opinion stated, anyone else who's interested is welcome to complete his own examination and draw whatever conclusions he might prefer. You've, now, heard mine.

 

[kgpcr]

I know this wont sit well but the 9mm is a piss poor personal defense round. Its fine in a multiple hit weapon ie a sub machine gun but not as a primary weapon.

 

[pt100]

Heres a thought, maybe the agents were dedicated enough to put their assses on the line so these two vermin would not kill any civillians

 

[Starsky]

I am not being a smartbutt here in any way. Could the FBI guys have been better prepared weapon wise? YES. Should they have been? YES, but they for whatever reason weren't so they had to work with what they had. But as a retired LEO and as I have stated many times esp in police training. A paper target that is not shooting back is damn easy to shoot at and hit with precision. In real life shootouts are NOTHING like they are in the movies, TV, books and yes even in police training. I venture to say that VERY FEW on this or any other forum have ever been involved in a actual life or death police shootout or in many cases have never even pointed a gun at anything more alive than a B27 target. Coming from one that has I say all of these FBI guys were heros and the caliber of ammo had little to do with anything that day.

 

[JohnKSa]

I know this wont sit well...

It would sit a lot better if it were supported by facts instead of just stated as fact repeatedly without supporting evidence.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Capt Charlie writes:

If I recall, the original 10mm round as adopted by the FBI was a pretty hot load. Too hot, according to the FBI. They thought female agents had trouble handling it, so they reduced the load to the point that it didn't match the .45 ACP. Somebody finally figured that out and they went to the .40.

The FBI load, as adopted by the FBI, was originally developed (handloaded) by John Hall, then Chief of FBI-FTU.

The claim that it was *reduced* because it was too hot and some agents couldn't handle it is untrue.

A 180gr 10mm bullet has the same sectional density as a 230gr .45 ACP bullet. When both bullets are propelled at similar velocity and percentage of expanded diameter is similar, then penetration is similar. Hence the FBI 180gr 10mm subsonic load exactly duplicated the .45 ACP 230gr load.

More info about FBI selection of the 10mm can be found in notes provided by then Assistant Chief of FBI-FTU Urey Patrick: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

Cheers!

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Thanks for the correction, Shawn. I'd heard what I posted several times, but never was able to confirm it through a reliable source.

I guess that's another candidate for Snopes .