Butler Shooting: Post-Event Tactical Analysis – Cover vs. Concealment

During the several minutes between the the moment the shooter was sighted and when he began shooting at president Trump, the Butler police had a safe, easy and obvious tactic to neutralize the shooter lying prone on the roof of the barn. 

    Every combat infantryman is taught the difference between “cover” and “concealment.” “Cover” is any obstacle providing protection from direct small-arms fire to indirect fire such as mortars and artillery fire. That’s why infantrymen dig the incessant foxhole – and why there is a task standard for its’ construction. This includes a certain depth, width, and length; a dirt berm around its perimeter; sufficient overhead protection and a grenade “sump” in which to kick an incoming grenade into. The enemy may know exactly where you are but has difficulty neutralizing you due to your cover.

     “Concealment” on the other hand, is any material or object which prevents the enemy from seeing you.  The only protection concealment provides is being unseen. Once he sees you the gig is up unless you can take cover immediately. That’s why concealment is so heavily emphasized at sniper schools (at the least in the Marine Corps). 

Point #1: The Butler Barn shooter was not wearing body armor. But even if he had been a round from a pistol would definitely have distracted him from an aimed shot – even a hasty shot at the shooter would have alerted the Secret Service to the presence of threat.
Point #2: There were Butler police officers occupying the barn itself at ground level underneath the shooter. Anecdotal reports state the officers were assigned to the roof but did not go up there because it was “hot up there.” That statement is revealing in itself. It may indicate Butler police officers had  been up there at one point to know it was hot and then decided to find a cooler, more comfortable position to occupy. It was also out of contact with the public “up there” meaning law enforcement officers love parading in front of the public at high visibility events such as a presidential visit. Almost everybody wants to be part of the “action” at such events. The Butler police officers apparently unanimously failed to properly assess the tactical importance of the barn’s roof or one of them would have occupied it. Tactical apathy / ignorance plus ego or self -comfort prevented any of the Butler officers from denying the shooter the most viable shooting vantage site. at the event. 
Point 3: It is human nature to “rubber neck” at accidents while driving by. Many secondary accidents happen this way. It is not unreasonable to suspect the police officers attention were drawn to president Trump himself, searching the crowd for hot looking women rather than canvassing the secondary area for threats, or just pre-occupied shooting the shit with a fellow officer. Any distraction other than focusing on the assigned task.
Point #4: The shooter was lying prone on the roof of the barn. This afforded him only minimal concealment – not cover.  This young man’s tactical naivete’ is astounding considering the mission he adopted. The fatal outcome was obvious to any experienced shooter. For him to believe he could accomplish such a task on his own – combined with the gross tactical negligence of the Butler police officers begs the question how he conjured up the idea in the first place.
Point 5: The barn itself was made of corrugated tin. Any owner of a gun knows (or should know) almost any caliber bullet will penetrate corrugated tin like a hot knife through butter – particularly a fully jacketed, hollow point.
Point 6: Rather than wasting time trying to contact the Secret Service about the shooter’s existence and running around trying to find a safer approach, if any Butler police officer on the ground eyeballing the shooter had told the “cool” officers occupying the inside of the barn where to shoot through the roof, the shooter would’ve been dead or incapacitated and unable to kill an innocent civilian, wounding three others including president Trump.
Point 7: I’m amazed at how often I witnessed police officers and sheriff’s deputies at academies and on the street who hesitate to fire first when the situation clearly justifies doing so.  Every law enforcement academy trains its officers on “shoot-don’t shoot” situations.
     For example, at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), Glynco, Georgia, a training scenario involved responding to a “shots fired” inside an office building. as the officer enters the office another shot is heard through an open doorway to an adjacent office. Shortly after the shot, the armed suspect walks through the door and into the room with a weapon in his right hand. Two female trainees didn’t even draw their weapons. One D.E.I. hire, who slept through most of the 17-week academy, engaged the armed suspect in conversation even as the suspect repeatedly pointed his weapon at the trainee.  The trainee never shot the suspect. He tried talking the armed suspect to death. All three graduated.
Point #8:  In order to be psychologically prepared to take that shot requires constant mental rehearsal for such a situation for every call received on the radio. Many officers don’t do this and they hesitate at the moment of decision when there is no time to decide. It requires a prior mental and emotional commitment to deal with a possible worst case scenario every call. It can save your life. Apathy, fear and ego cause hesitation and costs many officers their lives. 

In Butler, PA, it appears to have cost former fire chief Corey Comperatore his.