Some Frequently Asked Questions
This has been a question that has come up in almost every course we've ever taught. There are many different arguments to this question. Although "theoretically" it is safer to have the suspect come out to you, you run the risk of alerting him/her to your presence. This will allow the suspect to fortify him/her self and begin to plan. Now you're stuck outside with no way in!! Now you have to approach the door without the element of surprise. This is only one argument/opinion.
We feel training is put into two categories. First is, training to learn. By this we mean, teaching someone something they have not yet seen or done. This type of training should be stress free and an exchange of information while the student is learning. Second is, testing "operational capabilities". This is where scenario based "force on force" should be used. This type of training is under stress of decision making and failure. The most important thing is, you cannot do the second type of training until you've done the first. Otherwise you are setting up for failure!!
Several things dictate the "speed" in which we move through a house. One thing we consider is the structure. But not necessarily the size as much as the complexity of the floor plan. Another major consideration is, what is our "mission"? If we have no reason to move forward than we simply don"t unless its safe to do so. With regards to "warrant service", which is most teams "bread and butter", we move until something stops us. For example, terrain, multiple contacts, uncooperative suspect etc.
When it comes to movement, we find that simple is better. We teach and practice (through hundreds of callouts per year) the "3" person movement style. The difference is the speed in which we move using this style. So to answer the question, you could say our "movement style" stays the same, its the mission and the speed that we "decide on".
Our supervisor is a sergeant. He is positioned in the number three position during entries. He basically acts as member of the entry team but with two additional duties. First, he "documents" the entry into the location. Second he is the "liaison" back to the CP with regards to progress of the operation.
This is a question for the individual person vs agency policy. Anyone who does what we do for a living knows...we are all operating at different levels. Some people are just "natural" tacticians . For most, it takes hard work, a lot of training and dedication. In most cases, training time is limited and sometimes done on your "off" time. So my "thoughts"...if you feel that you have trained enough, you are proficient enough and the operation warrants a "full auto" response, then yes its an option were given the privilege of having. But don't abuse it! One person could lose that privilege for all of us.