While you are cutting-and-pasting find where I said the QP technique was anything but a SEARCH technique.
You are pushing it as a technique to go after active shooters. You have said how it would be of value in that effort. Seems like a whole lot of folks involved in actually doing that job have said you are wrong.
Whle you are at it, when you are SEARCHING just what are you looking for.... duh... the active shooter, right david?
Sometimes, deaf, your lack of knowledge about some of these things is downright embarrassing. And no, as a general rule, you are not SEARCHING for an active shooter. You know roughly where the shooter is and are moving as rapidly as feasible to get to him and engage him.
Trying to discuss police work and tactics with you is like trying to discuss sex with a virgin.
But here, let's see what others in LE or the military have said to you previously in reference to this same issue:
"Suarez says you're wrong. Ayoob says you're wrong. Armstrong says you're wrong. All identifiable guys with known backgrounds. Multiple guys with real-world experience (Spade, Foster, Rex, more) who're more anonymous but still in the trenches say you're wrong."
"I don't see the quick peek as a generally viable technique for the active shooter."
"In an active shooter scenario, a quick peek around the corner to assess the situation is a wasted time. "
"The problem with drawing tactical anecdotes from IDPA is that few of us will ever be attacked by cardboard. I have nothing against gun games. I think they are fun and serve a good purpose, but in this instance, as others have said, Take the ground and hold it. "
"IMO, you're extrapolating a drill into a situation where it really doesn't fit very well. I don't see the quick peek as any real advantage in your scenario. I do see huge problems with it. "
"Quick peek is set up for a methodical search of a structure that may or may not be occupied by a bad guy. If you respond to a scene and hear gunshots, quick peeking your way to the shooter is gonna result in a lot of shot up people. I don't think NTOA is teaching that either and there is a reason for that - wrong tactic for the wrong time."
"Quick Peek is inappropriate for use in an active shooter response. You understand that active shooter response is *exactly* an "aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible", right?"
"Other areas where you're showing severe lack of knowldege---such as the thread where you wrongly commented on SWAT's active shooter SOPs---show that you're not prepared to advocate tactics in this area."
"After a while it gets tiring listing to Deaf, whom as far as I know has no military or police experience and has never been in what the bureaucracy likes to refer to nowadays as a 'critical incident', pontificate on the right way to do this or that with regards to tactics."
"When I 1st landed (here), Deaf's post would have made a lot of sense. Today, a post like that, and his continued vacillation in this thread is a clear indication that a lot of where he is coming from has no basis nor foundation in the real world."
"In an active shooter situation, as much as I hate clearing rooms alone, or even in a pair, I would rather pie a corner, or do a dynamic entry (being a moving target with a gun is better than a popup target) and dominate the room, not peek in and announce "here i am!" to a possible shooter, and thus be either ventilated through the wall, or as I came in after, since no single peek will let you see a entire room. "
None of those statements are from me, deaf, but they are all from BTDT guys responding to you advocating the QP for going in after an active shooter. So it's not just David, or just in David's mind, it is from a whole lot of folks who have played this game for real.