Force protection and armed CAP members

[RRLE]

It might be of interest to know what the USCG policy is for USCG Auxiliarists and weapons handling.

From the Auxiliary Manual (AuxMan - a USCG publication)

AuxMan 2.B.19. Support Missions for the Coast Guard

Auxiliarists shall not be vested with any titles or duties which imply or entail law enforcement responsibilities nor shall they carry, handle, repair, or fire weapons of any sort while assigned to Coast Guard operational missions or Coast Guard Auxiliary activities. This includes civilian or government employed law enforcement personnel while acting as an Auxiliarist. A waiver to this policy may be obtained for the purpose of utilizing qualified Auxiliarists as range coaches. Waiver requests shall not be submitted by individual Auxiliarists, but rather the operational commander who determines a bonafide need.

The above has been interpreted to not include Auxie handling of weapons for the purpose of cleaning (but not repairing) them. Auxies are often used as gun cleaners at USCG stations.

AuxMan 5.Q. Weapons Introduction

Introduction Weapons, except those worn by certified law enforcement officers in accordance with Federal, State and local laws and regulations and required by their agency policy, may not be worn, carried, or held by any Auxiliarist or guest of the Auxiliary while attending an approved Auxiliary function, including regularly scheduled division, flotilla, or detachment meetings. This prohibition extends to those who have concealed weapons permits and those who may otherwise be authorized, but not required to wear weapons when not performing law enforcement duties (i.e., offduty law enforcement officers). This prohibition extends to periods immediately preceding and following Auxiliary functions (i.e., during the fellowship periods). Weapons are excluded at all times from Government facilities, buildings, property, and military installations. Certified law enforcement officers who are required by their agency policy to carry a weapon shall be subject to the policy of the facility they are entering and may be required to check the weapon or be denied entry.

The Auxiliary Operations Policy Manual (OpsPolMan) was published some years after the AuxMan above. It also has a weapons/firemarms clause.

OpsPolMan 4.E.1.b. Prohibited Support

Auxiliarists are prohibited from conducting the following activities:
• Actual boarding of a boat for law enforcement purposes other than for language interpretation.
• The carrying of firearms (by hand or holster) or any related law enforcement equipment (e.g., handcuffs, pepper spray, etc.) on their person.
• Investigating complaints of negligent operations or serving of subpoenas.
• Covert operations.

There is a boxed note in the section immediately following the weapons paragraph. The note follows 4.E.2. Detection and Monitoring of Unusual Events/Scenarios. The boxed note states:

Coast Guard Auxiliarists are prohibited from conducting covert surveillance.

So it would appear that with the possible exception of surveillance, both CAP and the Aux has similar rules regarding weapons.

[Eclipse]

Then we need to get out of the ground team business altogether.  I would support that.  If we need to have a Law Enf. officer with us, then why can't LE do the search?

Again, why the "Take my ball and go home attitude?"

We don't belong in areas of high risk, period.  Whether that is people or alligators, if a firearm is needed for protection, ORM says we don't play.  That doesn't mean we can't still provide support in areas where people aren't normally food.

FD do SAR without weapons - they bring LEO's.  So can we.  If that is not enough, we stay in the rear and help there.

[RiverAux]

Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"?  I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people).  Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance. 

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I would be curious to see the responses for a thread titled "Stop Complaining About the Regs They Are What They Are."

[Eclipse]

Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"?  I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people).  Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.

I believe it depends on the agency - anytime we are working for an LEA it is recon.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Then we need to get out of the ground team business altogether.  I would support that.  If we need to have a Law Enf. officer with us, then why can't LE do the search?

Again, why the "Take my ball and go home attitude?"

We don't belong in areas of high risk, period.  Whether that is people or alligators, if a firearm is needed for protection, ORM says we don't play.  That doesn't mean we can't still provide support in areas where people aren't normally food.

FD do SAR without weapons - they bring LEO's.  So can we.  If that is not enough, we stay in the rear and help there.

IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement?  If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.

So, you say CAP should stay in the rear... but that is PRECISELY what I am suggesting.

We can still provide UDF for the accidental trips of ELT's and EPIRB's, but for real SAR in remote areas, we should not be in those areas unless we can protect our own people.  Why tie up a cop protecting us, when we can just have the cops run the ground SAR?

[Eclipse]

I agree - but a particular search being in pig-infested waters or a bad neighborhood doesn't negate our being a force multiplier
in the rest of the world - i.e. we don't get out of the Ground SAR business - we just don't go in the field that day or until Cartman clears
our the boars.

The same was true for Katrina - we only went into areas considered "safe".

[JohnKachenmeister]

Considered safe by whom?

On a SAR mission, with a real downed airplane, how long do we delay our response while we decide of a ground search is safe enough?  Nothing requires us to have ground teams.   We are the Civil AIR Patrol.  We can fly, spot possible wreckage, and report the location to the appropriate LE agency.  Mission accomplished.  RTB and fill out your 108.  We do NOT need to waste time training GT's and we do NOT have to waste resources buying packs and stuff. 

When was the last save by a CAP ground team, anyway?

[RiverAux]

IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement?  If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.

1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....

[DakRadz]

IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement?  If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.

1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....

Very much agreed. And if someone is missing with the chance of being alive, I'd say you could get your LEO, your GT, and your cake to eat too.

[RiverAux]

When was the last save by a CAP ground team, anyway?

Mid-August is the last one we've publisized, but given our weak PA program I wouldn't be surprised if there was another since then.
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news.cfm/pa_ground_team_finds_missing_man_in_state_park?show=news&newsID=8564

And CAP GTs participated in another search that found a man alive just a few days ago in California. 

Or look at the cover of the Volunteer a few issues ago...

[Eclipse]

Does it need to be said, or repeated, that we are discussing situations where the area is so dangerous as to justify breaking regs to bring firearms?

[RiverAux]

Does it need to be said, or repeated, that we are discussing situations where the area is so dangerous as to justify breaking regs to bring firearms?

Actually, we're not.  This thread cover all CAP activities, not just GTs. 

[Flying Pig]

Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"?  I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people).  Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.

a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.

This is out of the 900-3.  The word Recon is nowhere to be found.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"?  I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people).  Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.

a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.

This is out of the 900-3.  The word Recon is nowhere to be found.

"Recon" comes from AF JAG briefings.  Recon, to them, means general observation, while surveillance is the focus on a specific target or individual.  The words are from their PCA briefings, not from our regs.

[JohnKachenmeister]

IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement?  If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.

1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....

Why not just 2 LEO's?  What do the 7 CAP GT members bring to the party?  Were not an emergency medical organization, and any skills in searching are also posessed by the LEO's.  What is the point of the CAP GT being there?  The LEO's also are in direct comm with fire and rescue and can get an emergency helicopter asset way faster than we can.  The CAP GT asset is superfluous.


Remember, we are talking a CAP plane identifying a possible crash location and dispatching them to a specific point.  We are not going to employ LEO's under the same conditions that we deploy CAP teams.  That is also why most LE agencies will not assign an LEO escort officer to a CAP GT to tromp around the swamp all day. 

[RiverAux]

Did they change "reconnaissance" to "surveillance"?  I seem to recall from my CD training that we could do recon (i.e., flying over and noting problems and then moving on), but couldn't do surveillance (i.e., flying over the same site over and over again or watching people).  Maybe thats just the CD program, but for other purposes we can do aerial surveillance.

a. CAP assistance to law enforcement agencies which may lead to criminal prosecution is restricted to patrol, surveillance, and reporting only. Requests for such assistance, unless of an emergency nature, must be approved in advance by the Wing and Region Com-manders and coordinated with National Head-quarters/DO. All CAP flights will be in accordance with CAPR 60-1.

This is out of the 900-3.  The word Recon is nowhere to be found.

I know.  Thats why I asked if a change had been made.

[Lawson]

IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement?  If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.

1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....

Why not just 2 LEO's?  What do the 7 CAP GT members bring to the party?  Were not an emergency medical organization, and any skills in searching are also posessed by the LEO's.  What is the point of the CAP GT being there?  The LEO's also are in direct comm with fire and rescue and can get an emergency helicopter asset way faster than we can.  The CAP GT asset is superfluous.


Remember, we are talking a CAP plane identifying a possible crash location and dispatching them to a specific point.  We are not going to employ LEO's under the same conditions that we deploy CAP teams.  That is also why most LE agencies will not assign an LEO escort officer to a CAP GT to tromp around the swamp all day.

Well, we could just do away with CAP ES all together. We could have LEOs do flying too. Our State Patrol already uses a Cessna for speed enforcement. They even have FLIR (which our aircraft does not) so they could extend their search all day and night.

In my LEO time, we got exactly 0-training on any type of GT stuff, nor would most of my co-workers likely been interested in taking any type of training. If we had to do a search, we would probably go into the woods about as far as we could see our overhead lights. However, if a ground team wanted to go search and wanted an LEO to go with them, that would not have been much of an issue at all.

Our specialty was dealing with crime and criminals, CAP GT's specialty is SAR. No reason the two cannot work together. If there was a plane down (at least in this area) there are likely to be a few cops attached to the command center anyway, so it's not like you're really killing the taxpayers to say "hey, can you tag along with us?"

[Mark_Wheeler]

And CAP GTs participated in another search that found a man alive just a few days ago in California. 

Or look at the cover of the Volunteer a few issues ago...

If you're talking about the Joshua Tree mission for the missing hiker, I was told we flew a repeater only, no ground teams.  However earlier in the year a CAP/NPS Ground team found a missing airplane with 2 saves. 

Mark

[JohnKachenmeister]

IF we need to have a Law Enf. officer as a part of the team, then what skills do the other team members have that cannot be filled by Law Enforcement?  If our goal is to provide service at low cost, but we must tie up LE officers for protection, then we are not providing an economical service.

1 LEO and 7 CAP GT members is still a lot more economical than 7 LEOs....

Why not just 2 LEO's?  What do the 7 CAP GT members bring to the party?  Were not an emergency medical organization, and any skills in searching are also posessed by the LEO's.  What is the point of the CAP GT being there?  The LEO's also are in direct comm with fire and rescue and can get an emergency helicopter asset way faster than we can.  The CAP GT asset is superfluous.


Remember, we are talking a CAP plane identifying a possible crash location and dispatching them to a specific point.  We are not going to employ LEO's under the same conditions that we deploy CAP teams.  That is also why most LE agencies will not assign an LEO escort officer to a CAP GT to tromp around the swamp all day.

Well, we could just do away with CAP ES all together. We could have LEOs do flying too. Our State Patrol already uses a Cessna for speed enforcement. They even have FLIR (which our aircraft does not) so they could extend their search all day and night.

In my LEO time, we got exactly 0-training on any type of GT stuff, nor would most of my co-workers likely been interested in taking any type of training. If we had to do a search, we would probably go into the woods about as far as we could see our overhead lights. However, if a ground team wanted to go search and wanted an LEO to go with them, that would not have been much of an issue at all.

Our specialty was dealing with crime and criminals, CAP GT's specialty is SAR. No reason the two cannot work together. If there was a plane down (at least in this area) there are likely to be a few cops attached to the command center anyway, so it's not like you're really killing the taxpayers to say "hey, can you tag along with us?"

IF we cherry pick what missions we take based on safety perceptions, then yes, CAP will NOT be the go-to guys for ES.  Some on this channel have suggested that "If the area is dangerous, don't take the mission."  If the AF and community agencies cannot depend on us, then they will find another asset.  On the other hand, if CAP takes an enlightened attitude toward members who are trained and authorized to carry weapons, members will be at no greater risk than they are in their non-CAP lives.  The sheep-like attitude that "If we are not armed, then the bad men won't feel a need to shoot us," is a dangerous fantasy.