References to the infamous Miami shootout in another thread got me to contemplating. I'm not now, nor have I ever been in law inforcement. Neither have I served in the military or at any time experienced combat, real or imagined. With those disclaimers, I offer the following for discussion:

The most common references I read to lessons from Miami link to ammunition/cartridge performance and the vaunted FBI standards. I'm grateful for all that, of course. Still, I'm wondering if the more important lessons to learn from that tragedy ought to be about the dangers of complacency, presuming actions or reactions from dangerous persons, reminders how quickly a person can get "over their head" in a situation, etc. These lessons, it would seem to me, are as relevant to legally armed civilians as to law enforcement professionals.

I'm especially interested in hearing from members who've been "over the mountain and seen the elephant." What wisdom can you share with the rest of us?

PC

From a two-tour Vietnam veteran and retired cop, here is my two cents worth:

Avoid areas where your personal safety is in question.

Always be aware of what is going on around you.

Avoid confrontation.

Walk away if you can.

Run away if you must.

When all else fails, do what you have to do to stay alive.

If forced to defend yourself make a report to authorities something like this: "I was in fear for my life and defended myself. I need to consult with an attorney now". Then shut up, lawyer up, and let your lawyer do all of your talking for you.

There will be nothing pleasant in your life for many months, perhaps several years, from that point. Keep reminding yourself that what is happening to you now could not have happened if you had failed to survive.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

Peter, the only elephants I've ever seen were at the zoo, but I agree with you. There were many mistakes made that could have been avoided and should have never been made in the first place. I can't really say that there was anything to be learned that hadn't been found out before though, but to blame the ammunition and firearms used is almost criminal. Instead of trying to teach people things that may keep them alive, they clouded the issue with dribble about firearms and ammunition that should have never been used in the first place.

I believe the FBI looked at the entire incident and tried to learn from the mistakes made. A part of this was to look at the equipment used as well as the tactics etc...If the performance of the issued equipment does not meet the standards desired then it only makes sense to re-evaluate it. In '91 I went through an FBI firearms instructor course and this was very much the attitude they had. They by no means tried to blame it all on the firearms and ammunition.

Practice till your good enough to make head shots.

In a shooting school I attended they discussed mistakes made in the Miami shootout. One of which was some of the agents placed their firearms on the seat in anticipation of the shootout. Just before the shooting started one of the cars was rammed. The sidearms went into the floor board of the vehicle.....

This.

Especially this:
When all else fails, do what you have to do to stay alive.

I absolutely cringe at the CHL students who want to talk about "stopping crimes" and "intervention."

Thanks for that. I'm sorry if my post seemed to infer that the Feds hadn't thoroughly debriefed that incident. That was not my intent.

PC

Fair enough. It's important to distinguish between the armed civilian who may hopefully have the luxury of running away from trouble and the LEO who often cannot. I do not question the distinction between those two roles.

PC

What I learned from the Miami shootout was...

If you're ~going to a gunfight~ for heavens sake, don't take a handgun or a shotgun. Take a full power rifle. That shootout would've been over in 30 seconds if the agents had been using Garands.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Disagree.
It would have been over in 30 seconds if they had ONE Garand.

What Photoman said, except shotguns in all the agents hands would have been decisive as well.

IMO, the 9mm ammo could have worked better, but that wasn't the real issue. I will add that the often criticised Dove bullet did exactly what it was supposed to and did penetrate reasonably well. It just wasn't quite as deep as us Monday morning quarterbacks would have liked to see. The real issue, in my mind, is that whoever was behind a policy, or policies, that had law enforcement officers trying to capture bank robbers who were known to be ruthless murderers armed with long guns, yet kept them from being as well armed, ought to have gotten their ***** roasted. That was downright criminal, IMO. So the first lesson is use a long gun if possible. Look at the very decisive results Doc Holliday got at the O.K. Corral using a side by side 12 gauge.

I've studied the Miami shootout pretty thoroughly and feel that the agents marksmanship was commendable given the circumstances (bad guys in shadows, FBI in the sunlight, dust from the car crash, gunsmoke, cars driving through the middle of the shootout while it was going on , injuries/bloodloss, having to rely on snub backup guns, shooting at moving targets and distance in the case of SAs Orrantia and Risner), and yes, the FBI landed headshots as well. SA McNeil rendered William Matix combat ineffective with one at the beginning of the fight.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Matix and Platt were very experienced, well trained infantrymen. I don't know the caliber of the training of all the FBI agents, but in the past when I took part in training excercises that pitted experienced grunts against support troops, the infantrymen usually beat the noncombat soldiers very decisively. Given the fact that the G men weren't as well armed as Platt and Matix, plus the BG's background, I think the FBI agents did well.

The second lesson is to carry multiple guns. SA Manauzzi had to withdraw from the fight for lack of a BUG. Agent Hanlon stayed in the fight because he had one. IIRC, SA Dove's piece was disabled by gunfire and he didn't have one. SA Mireles transitioned to his 686, and fired the closing shots of the fight, after his 870 Wingmaster went dry. SA McNeil was shot and disabled trying to get to his 870 in the back of his car. His piece was empty and he couldn't get it working because of bone chips under the extractor. Michael Platt used his S&W 586 at one point, but dropped it after taking a bullet through the forearm. He later took Matix's Dan Wesson .357 and fired it as well. One gun may not be enough and there are many fights other than this one that prove the point.

1. Use long guns.

2. Use multiple guns.

I can asssure you that lesson was learned. Every agent who wants one gets an M4. I prefer the MP5/10mm, but I'm in the definite minority.

There was a shooting recently at an Air Force base in Florida. An FBI agent happened to be at the main gate on other business when it happened. M4 in the trunk, got it out in plenty of time, bad guy was DRT.

Army Veteran Fatally Shot at MacDill AFB in Tampa - ABC News

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I was a lousy runner as a 21 year old Second Lieutenant. At 52, I'm not one iota faster.

In Ohio outside of my home, I'm required to ATTEMPT to withdraw, if I can do so IN PERFECT SAFETY. Turning my back on somebody with a gun and trying to outrun a bullet doesn't meet that standard. The US Army was REALLY insistent that I couldn't outrun a bullet. Hell, I can't outrun the guy with the gun.

I learned three things, which I was already aware of:
1. accuracy counts.
2. decisive immediate action is paramount.
3. never underestimate the shooting skill and drive of the opponent.

I agree with this completely. If God forbid I'm ever in a gunfight if I drop the badguy I don't want to wonder if he's gonna roll over and shoot me. If I see his brains come out the back of his head I'll know it's over.

#3 hits hard. I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read comments about the poor marksmanship and/or cowardice of this or that segment of miscreants. That may be true...except when it's NOT. It's a great lesson to take from Miami.

PC

Lesson #1--Once the first shot is fired, adrenaline kicks in and gives the body strength and stamina far beyond normal. The only way to stop someone pumped up on adrenaline is to hit the computer (brain) or disconnect the wires (CNS) that are running the show. You can blast somebody into hamburger with good, solid, sure-to-be-fatal hits but until the blood supply is exhausted, like a chicken with its head cut off, the person who is dead but doesn't know it yet will continue to function as if on autopilot.

Caliber and muzzle energy matter little at this point--hitting the Central Nervous System is only way to stop them before they can do more damage. If anything, expanding bullets are a detriment to finishing the job. What you need now is penetration, in the hopes that a bullet will penetrate enough to hit some part of the CNS. Destroying tissue is of no help once the bad guy is running on adrenaline.

THIS RIGHT HERE!!!!!! Answers the original question in a very concise and quick manner. 100% dead on.

I am not a LEO, not military, or any type of security personnel. However I have spent a tremendous amount of time with LEO and Military (lots of time with the SpecOps people) and this sums up what they have told me over and over again. Situational awareness is the best defense we can have.

This is indeed what we should carry from any deadly encounter. Do what we can to avoid the encounter. Because it can all go horribly wrong. When we make the decision to carry these are the issues we have to have in the back of our minds all the time.

I've needed a gun once. Thank God I had one. But I could have without doubt avoided the situation.

Running away isn't always a good idea, you aren't going to outrun a bullet and as Charles Askins said, the best place to shoot a man is in the back. It also might mean moving away from a problem that really someone ought try to deal with, and if that someone has to be you, shrug...

Wear your vest if you have one and it is remotely warranted. It's a lousy time to bleed out in the street thinking how you left it at home. Learn how to treat a GSW too, at least to apply your Izzy bandage and maybe a tourniquet.

This has been discussed before. I reiterate: POOR TACTICS and poor preparations were the primary faults in the Miami incident. And, if no one ever listens, the proper position of a handgun is ON YOUR PERSON. in a holster. No other place. (Please don't get me started on the guns on the seats, shotguns in the backseat/trunk, vests not in play, etc.)

Bless their hearts, but the agents involved in the Miami incident: 1. Knew what they were looking for; 2. Found it.; 3. Weren't prepared when they found it; 4. Acted improperly (tactically) when they found it; and, 5. Two (2) Special Agents died.

#5 is obviously the worst.

Be safe.

Post #2 by Lobo pretty much says it all. I'd add "The way you train is the way you'll react." Prior to the Miami shootout, one of the most studied shootings was the Newhall CHP gunfight in 1970. Two guys killed four California Highway Patrol officers in a parking lot traffic stop in Newhall, north of Los Angeles. One of the dead officers was found with his empty brass in his pocket. Turns out that when he went through the academy they would eject the spent cases into their hands and pocket them so they wouldn't have to police it up later. Probably impossibe to say whether the outcome would have been any different with a quicker reload, but the review of that incident revolutionized training in many departments.

The theory that "The way you train is the way you'll react" has been disproven a whole lot more than the one time of the Newhall Incident. As I recall the deceased officer was holding his empty brass in his hand, not in his pocket. It is true that was a common practice in training at the time, I always took mine and threw it directly in a coffee can so I didn't have to pick it up later. But so did a lot of other officers and there were many that got into gunfights that did not do this, so why didn't they do as they were trained? Unfortunately it is a common practice of the Easychair Experts to make presumptions based on ignorance instead of fact, but because of their popularity the ignorance is repeated. There were other techniques in use at the time that could have explained why he had his brass in his hand, but since he was deceased we will never know the real reason.

Isn't the correct version of that "you sink to the level of your training"?

You train how you will fight. You fight how you train? You will not exceed your training?

Jellybean,

One of the things I've always liked about this forum is that people can disagree about something yet still remain civil. Not to be overly sensitive, but is it really necessary to call me an "Easychair Expert" and ignorant? You may be right about the officer having the brass in his hand rather than his pocket, but it's still consistent with not being trained to simply eject the empties onto the ground.

As to the broader point, I'll go with the "Easychair Experts" who trained me at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. If people never revert to training in a stress situation, why train at all?

yaktamer, let me start off by apologizing for the misunderstanding, I never called you, or your instructors at LAC an 'easy chair expert' nor in any way implied you, or they, were ignorant. I was referring to the magazine writers, and others, around that time that quickly jumped at the chance to tell the world all the mistakes the CHP officers made, based on their years of imaginary service.

Most handgun shootings are over before the defender has a chance to revert to anything. What he needs to do is react, and that is what he should be learning in his training. There are things he should learn if he lives long enough to use voluntary thought processes, but even these are not being taught like they should. And far too many police officers think that because they shoot once a year, read a book or sit in a classroom they are "learning" something. I have seen far too many officers stand on a requalification range stop and stare at their handgun if it has a failure, trying to think what they were supposed to do. They never "learned" anything they were taught.

I have been studying police training, combat shooting and gunfights for 30 years. I'm in no way trying to berate you or your teachers, the fact is I'd like to sit down and pick your brains for what all of you know.

D, I'm curious as to what you are thinking regarding bad tactics. My understanding is that the FBI used several units to stakeout some banks they felt were likely to get robbed by Platt and Matix just off the South Dixie Highway in Kendall, Florida on the morning of April 11th 1986. SA McNeil, the agent in charge of the operation, believed that based on past behaviour, the two BGs were likely to commit a robbery in that locale at that time. Shortly after the stakeout began, agents Dove and Grogan spotted the suspect's vehicle and began to follow it. As other units were converging, the perps made three right hand turns, so there was at that time no doubt that they knew they were being followed. IIRC, SAs Manauzzi in one car, Mireles and Hanlon in another, McNeil in his car, and Grogan and Dove in theirs, at that time ran the BGs off the road. SA McNeil decided to make the stop because he felt that with the stakeout having been "made", the perps would change their MO, thus sending the FBI efforts to apprehend them back to the drawing board. In the meantime other robberys would occur and innocent lives would be lost.

Obviously we both know that SA McNeil understood that the situation was less than ideal to stop Platt and Matix. I'm not a cop, so while I tend to support SA McNeil's judgement, realizing that he didn't have hindsight on his side, perhaps I'm missing something. Is there a law enforcement principal, or protocol that he broke that could have prevented this tragedy?

Jellybean,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was having a tough morning and over-reacted. My fault, not yours. Memo to self: Check blood pressure before posting.

Thanks to all who've responded to my OP. I'm grateful to you for the perspectives you've offered and I've learned from you. (For example, I don't recall reading that some agent's weapons were initially lost on the floorboards after the impact of vehicles!) I also hope my question in no way violated the memory of the men who lost their lives in the service of all of us. As for me, the weapon with which I have the most enduring struggle is between my ears. So I keep working on it. Maybe someday, it will save my life.

PC

This is the single most intelligent thing I've ever read on the internet regarding the 4/11/86 shootout.

All of the 20/20 hindsight in the world can't change the fact that SSA McNeill and his crew put together a plan to find two hardened killers, and it worked. When they found them, they decided they wouldn't let them go. They stopped them and killed them both, at a terrible price.

I remember with great distaste the reaction of many in LE when this happened - a smug feeling that the vaunted FBI got in over its head and got its *** handed to it by some real live bad guys. I see it still sometimes, often by folks who would have hit the brakes and turned around upon seeing Platt sticking that 30 round magazine in this Mini-14.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Good points, Flop...allow me to explain. (Keep in mind that I wasn't there and "second guess" with an eye to keeping such from happening again.)

The agents were looking for a specific vehicle...they found it. Soon thereafter S/A's Grogan and Dove were "made." With the number of vehicles the FBI had deployed, the "made" factor could have been obviated by simply disengaging...make Platt and Mattix believe they were not being followed. They did not. Soon after being "made," Grogan said "felony car stop." However, they intentionally collided with the suspects. That is not how the stop should have proceeded. (Whenever cars collide, pit maneuvers notwithstanding, there is no way whatsoever to know how the vehicles will be located post-collision.)

The stop was wholly unmanaged thus vehicles ended up too close to the bad guys, guns left unsecured on car seats "disappeared," agents with long/auto weapons never got to the scene 'til it was over, etc. S/A Grogan lost his eyeglasses and was essentially blind, too. Bear in mind the FBI knew the suspects were heavily armed and had used deadly force. None of the agents involved in the shootout had a rifle available. Other agents in the surveillance did but they were among those who arrived after the fact.

The agents ended up in a neighborhood and witnesses called 9-1-1 not knowing LEO's were involved. Ditto Miami-Dade PD who should have been involved but were not.

I could go on and on. Two Special Agents were killed; others were seriously wounded. Absent S/A Mirales' truly heroics efforts, Platt and Mattix could have "won" the battle and escaped though both would likely have died soon thereafter.

This was a battle that should not have been lost but was.

Be safe.

yaktamer, No problem, I don't get mad anymore, especially with stuff I read on the internet.

Sig' there is no doubt that the plan to find the killers was effective. But the "after contact" plan was flawed from start to finish. There is no bringing the dead agents back and they did die a heroes death. There is no question about that as they followed the orders given to them instead of bellyaching about having to work overtime or etc. But, there were mistakes made that need to be understood so that they are not made again. Yes, tracking and apprehending armed killers is dangerous and there is no guarantee that everyone will go home at the end of the day. But, if you have the opportunity to formulate a plan, based on extensive knowledge of the suspects, you should have a much better chance of survival as opposed to an accidental, chance meeting or an ambush situation. We can't just sweep this under a rug and forget about it with the excuse of 'well, they did their best and that's that'. History repeats itself, as it did on that day, and there is no doubt it will happen again, but hopefully not very often.

What I learned (the FBI hasn't yet) is that giving a lawyer or accountant
a badge and a gun doesn't prepare him/her to make a traffic stop with
armed felons. Gung-ho can get you killed. I'm not questioning the
bravery, but the preparedness. I know I wasn't ready for combat, the
visions that will forever be in my head or watching my friends being killed
and maimed. I hope the FBI has done more than just invent a new
cartridge or two.

Twenty four years ago, the 9mm ammo was not nearly as good as Federal hydra shock 147 grain is today, Would today's ammo make a difference ?

Here is something I would add to what is said here. "I was in fear of my life," sounds a bit too plain and almost too "police jargon technical" I would say something of this nature..."I thought he/she was going to kill me , so I had to defend myself...I don't feel very well, I need to go to the hospital and be checked out, Im too upset to talk" Then go to the hospital, tell them how upset you are, how sick to your stomach you are and after you are treated and released, get to that lawyer as soon as possible and follow the advice above. My personal opinion but saying you thought you were going to be killed, sure sounds a lot more like a person who had was really in danger than saying so coldly like an academy recruit, "I was in fear of my life....." be raw and be real....

That may not have been a good idea. I could very well be wrong though. If the BGs escaped, they would likely ditch the black Monte Carlo, then go murder someone else for their vehicle. At that point the FBI would possibly be back to almost square one in their search. The BGs would also likely change their MO after realizing they had been patterned. I also think, IIRC, that the reason the FBI cats pressed the attack was that they felt the area they were in was preferential to more built up, dense areas nearby. As I recall the FBI SAs tried to box Platt and Matix in, one vehicle in front, one behind, and one on the side, but things quickly went downhill from there. Originally the FBI never intended the car stop to turn into a demolition derby. No matter what the G men did, the crooks were willing to up the ante.SAs McNeil and Mireles had shotguns, but yes, it did turn into quite a charlie foxtrot. As I've said, the FBI's long gun policy was criminal, and I'm glad to hear SIGP220 say that said policy has joined the dodo birds.They may have made it a short distance and I'm sure would have run over SA Hanlon. IMO both of their wound weren't surviveable. I agree about Mireles. The man has some serious "stones".I don't believe it was a lost battle. The FBI achieved it's objective by getting those two sphincter muscles off the streets. I do agree that the price paid was tragic.

Perhaps, since I'm a grunt and not a cop I'm of a mindset that a slugfest even with heavy casualties was a reasonable way to achieve the goal of stopping those two if nothing better was available. Certainly the FBI agents never intended things to become such a mess, but just like when the Titanic sank, Murphy ruled the day and anything that could go wrong certainly seems to have. I do know that SA Grogan did say that "whoever finds those two first is going to have their hands full". I think the G men knew that these were likely to be the most violent, dangerous felons that they would encounter in their careers and would fight when an attemp was made to capture them. In a way the fight reminds me of when Ali and Frasier used to fight in the '70s. No matter who won, even the winner was guaranteed a prize of several days in the hospital.

I doubt it.

SA Risner was a Vietnam veteran, but I'm unaware as to what his MOS was, or what his service entailed. SA Mireles was a Marine and his performance clearly shows it. I'm not sure about the others.

One other lesson occurs to me that hasn't been mentioned. It's not so much from the shootout itself, but from an understanding of who Platt and Matix were and how they operated. In brief, they went to a relatively remote rock quarry where people would practice shooting. When they needed a getaway car, they would go there, find someone who was shooting alone, gun them down and take their car and weapons. Therefore the lesson would be, don't assume that because you are armed and at a range that criminals won't mark you, or your property as a target.

Many of the mistakes that were made could have been less traumatic if they had corrected one of them. No agent that was involved in the search, or even had a remote possibility that they would run into them, should have been armed with less than an equal to the Mini-14 carbine, and preferebly better. With that "Murphy" guy hanging around the possibility that any one agent could have encountered them alone is very real, in fact they might have all encountered them one at a time, but if they were each armed equal to them they would at least have a chance to survive even the worst of bad luck.


Every PD I ever worked for, and all but one that I knew of, provided shotguns in the cruisers for every officer. But they were hardly ever pulled out of the car regardless of the call or situation. It seems that cop mentality makes their handgun a death ray and it will kill everything it comes in contact with, and this applied to many former military men, of every service branch, too. But then how many depts. train their officers to use a shotgun or rifle as a primary weapon? Requalification in Ohio requires 60 rounds of handgun ammo, 10 rounds of buckshot and 5 slugs, and most officers hate that shotgun because of the recoil.

I think the first, and most important, lesson for civillians is that if you are only armed with a handgun, don't go looking for trouble, and do everything you can to avoid it because your handgun is underpowered and won't guarantee you a decisive victory.

Now that strikes me as unassailably good sense! And it's certainly in harmony with Lobo's first reply.

To my law enforcement friends: I suppose there must be civilians who actually go looking for trouble while armed, though I've never spoken with anyone who was quite that brain dead...at least not any who spoke about such things openly. As for me, I'm more concerned about blundering into an armed shake down at a "stop-and-rob" or, perhaps more likely now, in a pharmacy. Anymore, I make a point of looking though whatever glass is available before I enter the former. Pharmacies (or, in the case of my wife, a stand alone clinic which houses meds) are more troubling. To add insult to injury, the clinic is a "no carry zone" in my state. In some settings, I suppose one should add car jacking and armed break ins to that list. In such cases, it would seem to me, circumstances and/or architecture could conspire to leave one as trapped as the Miami feds...perhaps with the same outcome. I guess the response I'll try to follow is to be as vigilant as possible so as to NOT blunder into trouble and to train as best I can to respond ruthlessly and skillfully if I find myself trapped.

PC