Protective Operations

5

2

Policy and Procedure Considerations

Bravery is being the only one who knows you’re afraid.

Col. David H. Hackworth

While the exact title may differ, just about every professional law enforce-

ment agency in the civilized world has some form of operational guidelines.

In the United States, it is a necessity-given the litigious society in which

cops nd themselves. However, the depth of coverage these policy and pro-

cedure manuals provide varies widely. This is especially true when dealing

with protective operations, which, while having a history in police work,

are not generally considered when the manuals are written. In the follow-

ing pages are described specic ways in which protective details respond-

ing to emergency situations, such as an ambush, can nd themselves in

violation of the procedures or codes of conduct. The goal of this chapter is

to make teams and administrations aware of potential problems and pro-

vide language that may serve as possible solutions. Prior to implementing

any policy changes, always consult with a city or county attorney.

USE OF FORCE

The rst policy that has the most to do with a team’s response to any ambush

is a department’s Use of Force policy. It is generally within this section that

they would expect to nd the rules and regulations to which they are held

accountable during the performance of their job. A common subsection

deals with the issue of shooting at or from a moving vehicle. Many police

PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS

6

departments address in some form or fashion shooting at a eeing vehicle.

Generally, it is discouraged unless the vehicle is being used as a weapon

and shooting at it is for protection of self or others and only when there

is no other means of eliminating the threat. The issue some departments

bring up when shooting at a vehicle is the potential of the driver becoming

disabled. While this would be the obvious objective of shooting at a vehicle

in order to eliminate the threat, should the driver in fact be disabled, the

vehicle could become an uncontrollable deadly weapon.

This issue could certainly come up, however, in protective operations;

it is exceedingly unlikely that an adversary attacking a protective operation

would act alone while at the same time driving a vehicle. However, should

this be the case, and depending on the region the operation is occurring in

and the adversary, the concern may be that the driver is, in fact, a suicide

bomber in a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED). Police of-

cers are always authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves or oth-

ers, but with such policies in place, theoretically, should they be engaged in

a drive-by fashion (a far more likely attack scenario), they would be violating

the shooting at a moving vehicle prohibition if they responded in kind.

One of the reasons for the prohibition is the difculty of successfully

engaging a moving vehicle. Ideally, one should take cover. However, if

caught in the open, there may be little choice. This policy is understand-

able from the point of view of most uniformed ofcers. However, for pro-

tective teams dealing with a carload of adversaries actively attacking with

rearms, it falls far short. While there is no argument regarding the dif-

culty of hitting a moving target accurately, it can be done. For protective

teams, just as with other special operations units, training for this should

be a standard. As such, the policy should accommodate this.

A less common section of a policy and procedure manual on “use of

force” is shooting from a moving vehicle. Given the difculty of accurate

shot placement coupled with the normal lack of training in such tactics, it

is largely prohibited, if covered at all. While it is easy to understand the

reasoning behind the prohibition, for protective details it could present

some liability problems, at least for the ofcer. Statistically, the majority of

ambushes on motorcades take the form of shooting attacks.

1

In response

to such attacks, protective members could easily nd themselves hav-

ing to return re while their vehicle driver is attempting to escape the

area. Rather than prohibiting it altogether, a better option to consider is

to allow shooting from a moving vehicle if properly trained and only in

self-defense or defense of others and when there is no other perceivable

means of avoidance.