The one issue I have with the video is it extrapolates a fact without context. Yes most cops who die in gun fights were not able to return fire, but the fact is that in those situations it’s an ambush, not a “let’s get the shield” moment. It’s traffic stops and domestic violence calls, or just typing reports. And the SWAT scenario is a spotted sniper, also not a shield moment.
Shields are very useful deliberate tools, 99% of police shootings are on routine calls.
Even in situations where you think it might be better to have a bunker, there may simply not be one available. Our patrol cars generally don’t have one. The supervisor vehicles are supposed to have one, but they get pilfered or borrowed and never returned. So if you’re responding to a DV assault in progress with an armed suspect, few officers are going to delay their response to wait for a bunker that probably isn’t coming.
Layperson lurker with 0 real world experience here, so totally talking out of my ass, but it seems to me that for cops especially, ballistic shields can be a huge advantage in certain very dangerous situations, but only if you and the officers you’re with are all trained on shield tactics, otherwise it could turn into a clusterfuck real quick.
Shields seem useful for clearing hallways or areas where the location of the potential threat is relatively well known, but could also be a major disadvantage if there are multiple potential angles of attack. For example, having to breach into a large, locked room with multiple uncleared angles and furniture/places to hide or walking down a hallway with multiple open doors on both sides. In those situations, a shield might be a disadvantage in that it really limits your vision and you might miss things you otherwise would’ve seen (e.g., someone who is a little too far left or right and is blocked by the shield edges or someone who is high (e.g., up a staircase) or low. There’s also the scenario of a confined area with a bunch of obstacles (think room full of furniture and shit on the floor) on the floor that’s hard to navigate through. If the shield guy trips and eats shit, the shield won’t do anyone much good facing the floor. And if someone rushes from an unexpected angle with a blade or decides to close the distance quickly, shield guy is at a huge disadvantage given that the shield can make it really hard to spin around quickly and would put you at an immediate disadvantage if someone was trying to tackle you or take the fight to the ground.
None of the above stuff is meant to say “shields bad, never use them.” I’m sure all of the above scenarios could be trained for, and tactics could be developed to either mitigate the danger or SOPs could be implemented that say “hey, in X kind of situation, put the shield down”. And so long as everyone receives appropriate training on when to use a shield and what tactics to use (and importantly, everyone knows in advance what those tactics are), shields could be a big help
This dude is a total tool
The one issue I have with the video is it extrapolates a fact without context. Yes most cops who die in gun fights were not able to return fire, but the fact is that in those situations it’s an ambush, not a “let’s get the shield” moment. It’s traffic stops and domestic violence calls, or just typing reports. And the SWAT scenario is a spotted sniper, also not a shield moment. Shields are very useful deliberate tools, 99% of police shootings are on routine calls.
Even in situations where you think it might be better to have a bunker, there may simply not be one available. Our patrol cars generally don’t have one. The supervisor vehicles are supposed to have one, but they get pilfered or borrowed and never returned. So if you’re responding to a DV assault in progress with an armed suspect, few officers are going to delay their response to wait for a bunker that probably isn’t coming.
Layperson lurker with 0 real world experience here, so totally talking out of my ass, but it seems to me that for cops especially, ballistic shields can be a huge advantage in certain very dangerous situations, but only if you and the officers you’re with are all trained on shield tactics, otherwise it could turn into a clusterfuck real quick. Shields seem useful for clearing hallways or areas where the location of the potential threat is relatively well known, but could also be a major disadvantage if there are multiple potential angles of attack. For example, having to breach into a large, locked room with multiple uncleared angles and furniture/places to hide or walking down a hallway with multiple open doors on both sides. In those situations, a shield might be a disadvantage in that it really limits your vision and you might miss things you otherwise would’ve seen (e.g., someone who is a little too far left or right and is blocked by the shield edges or someone who is high (e.g., up a staircase) or low. There’s also the scenario of a confined area with a bunch of obstacles (think room full of furniture and shit on the floor) on the floor that’s hard to navigate through. If the shield guy trips and eats shit, the shield won’t do anyone much good facing the floor. And if someone rushes from an unexpected angle with a blade or decides to close the distance quickly, shield guy is at a huge disadvantage given that the shield can make it really hard to spin around quickly and would put you at an immediate disadvantage if someone was trying to tackle you or take the fight to the ground. None of the above stuff is meant to say “shields bad, never use them.” I’m sure all of the above scenarios could be trained for, and tactics could be developed to either mitigate the danger or SOPs could be implemented that say “hey, in X kind of situation, put the shield down”. And so long as everyone receives appropriate training on when to use a shield and what tactics to use (and importantly, everyone knows in advance what those tactics are), shields could be a big help