January 2007

Principle-based Room Entries

By Jason Wuestenberg I have read various articles, seen various media, and watch and participated in various training on how to conduct room entries. I see officers doing dynamic entries when they shouldnt; and then doing them inadequately when they should. Im not trying to discredit anyone who uses or teaches the things Im about to talk about. The purpose of this article is to make sure the thought process for how and why we conducting room entries are reasonable and practical. First, I want to clarify that this article is about conducting room entries under worst-case scenarios. In other words, there are no supporting equipment available, such as distraction devices, mirrors, or ballistic shields; just two officers and their weapon systems. And, the suspect knows you are coming and committed to shooting at officers upon contact. If we can beat that situation, then using additional equipment, or confronting an unsuspecting or submissive suspect, should be easier. Its a simple training philosophy: train for the worst, and hope for the best. There are two basic types of room entries: limited entries and dynamic entries. Which type of entry you use is based on the situation and environment. For example, if I am doing a building search, which should be a slow and methodical search for one or more suspects, then my room entries should be limited entries, unless the environment or situation changes and dictates the necessity for a dynamic entry. On the other hand, if I enter a structure for a fast moving, dynamic situation, such as a barricaded crisis entry, or an active shooter intervention, then a dynamic room entry may be needed. Again, there could be a necessity to do a limited entry during a dynamic situation, as well. To say you can only do a limited entry during a building search or a dynamic entry in a dynamic situation is like saying when youre in a fist fight, you can only throw a right hook, and jabs and uppercuts are not allowed. Conducting a room entry is a fight a fight to stay alive. Were just using firearms instead of fists. The bottom line is that the situation and environment should dictate which method you use for each independent room. The inability to recognize when to do a dynamic entry and when to do a limited entry could end up being a fatal mistake. Just like a boxer is in the business of throwing punches and dodging punches, we are in the business of shooting bullets and dodging bullets. And, we should use ALL of our knowledge and skills to tilt the odds in our favor. Its not how HARD you can fight its how SMART you can fight. Training As I stated before, when conducting room entry training, you have to train for worst-case scenario the dedicated armed suspect who is oriented to the door and waiting for you to enter the room. You should be training yourself for someone who is equal to, or better than, you in terms of tactical skills. Ive heard on numerous occasions, Thats not what we encounter most of the time. If you are not training for the worst-case scenario, then you are setting yourself up for failure. If you can defeat Page 1 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us

January 2007 the dedicated armed suspect, who is the same (if not better) skill level as you, then anything less than that should be easier. Whatever tactic you use, you have to test it in force-on-force / reality-based training. If you dont, then you are operating on theory. There is no specific room entry tactic that will work every time. The goal is to minimize the risk of getting shot the best that you can. So, if your room entry tactic results in you getting shot to easily during force-on-force training, then you need to reevaluate the tactic. I have heard many people say, We have never had anyone shot doing this tactic. Well then, the next question I ask is this In all the room entries you have done, have you ever encountered a dedicated armed suspect who was waiting for you? If you havent, then you have to question whether the tactic is good, or if youve been lucky so far. Pre-entry Principles & Tactics Prior to any room entry, limited or dynamic, you should clear as much of the room as possible from the outside first. Conduct an angular search (AKA slice the pie) across the doorway first before conducting an entry. This serves two purposes: to locate a suspect, and engage if necessary, before entering the room; and to identify the layout of the room. The speed at which you conduct an angular search is based on the situation and your ability to read the environment as you see it. For dynamic situations, you would need to do a dynamic pie. For a slow search, you would do a slow pie. Of course, the question comes up about the infamous fatal funnel. I will throw this earth-shattering statement out there the fatal funnel concept, as it has been applied to doorways, has been overused, and abused, in both the military and law enforcement community. I use to be a firm believer that doors are fatal funnels. But, through training, I have learned to treat a doorway the same as corners. Fatal Funnel Let me address the fatal funnel concept real quick. When I was in the military in the early 90s learning room entries and CQB, there were some key things that were drilled into us. One of the key things was that all doors are fatal funnels, meaning that they are choke points that we must pass through to reach the enemy. And, if the enemy is inside, then they can concentrate their weapons on the door to kill us (sounds like the dedicated, armed suspect I was mentioning earlier). So, standing in front of the doorway was considered a bad thing. This thought process generated the line of thinking that priority #1 in a dynamic room entry is to get through the door quickly, and then clear the room. The faster you get in and out of the doorway, the faster you can engage the suspect. This thought process is wrong. If you can see and engage the threat from outside the room, then that is faster, and far better, than entering the room first. Keep that in mind when I start talking about dynamic entries. On another note, if doorways are fatal funnels, then why would you ever slice the pie on a doorway during a building search? That forces you to traverse across the doorway, usually at a slow pace. How can slicing the pie be a good tactic if we have to stand in front of the doorway to do it? The answer is this a doorway is not a fatal funnel. It is just another corner. Hallways are more of a fatal funnel than doorways.

Page 2 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us

January 2007

Room Entry Principles and Tactics If you have not encountered or engaged a suspect while doing a slow or dynamic pie, then the suspect is either hiding behind an object within the room, or they are hiding in the portion of the room that can not be seen from the outside. This portion of the room is often referred to as the deep corner or 10% area. This is where you have to determine what type of room entry you are going to conduct. Limited Entries Unless there is someones life to save in a room, my first choice for room entries is a limited entry. A limited entry is when you expose a small portion of your body and weapon past the threshold of a doorway to clear the deep corner. I am a big fan of limited entries. If I dont have to commit my entire body, or my partner, into a room to deal with a dedicated, armed suspect, then that is a good thing! Thanks to Hollywood movies and TV shows, most suspects expect us to burst into the room. That works to our advantage. I would also consider doing limited entries if I had an obstacle just beyond the door that would prevent a good dynamic entry. The disadvantage to limited entries is that it will be a one-on-one gun battle if the suspect is in the deep corner. My partner will probably not be in a position to help me engage the suspect. But, there are pros and cons to everything we do. There are many variations of limited entries; one-man limited entries, standing two-man limited entries (Israeli limited), high-low two-man limited entries (my personal favorite), etc. There are pros and cons to each. It comes down to personal preference, situation, and environment. Limited entries require you to be in the doorway to conduct them effectively. Since slicing the pie was done on the doorway first, then we know it is relatively safe to stand in the doorway. Once you have cleared the deep corner using a limited entry technique, then you can simply step into the room and begin to clear it. If there is a dedicated armed suspect in the deep corner, then you have the option of engaging the suspect or withdrawing from the threshold once they have been observed. I like options! What I have found, through force-on-force training, is the majority of the time officers withdraw, by natural reaction, when they see an armed suspect in the deep corner. Dynamic Entries For me, the primary reason to do a dynamic entry into a room is to rescue or recover an innocent or injured victim within the room basically, to save someone elses life. Thats it. If Im going to commit myself, and my partner, to a room for a potential gunfight, it needs to be a worthy cause. With that being said, dynamic entries are based on a phrase coined by the military; Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action. And, it all coincides with the fatal funnel issue. Just remember, its not how fast you enter a room that dictates how fast you can engage the enemy. Its how fast you can SEE THEM! In other words, if I can see them and engage the suspect from outside the doorway, then that is faster then entering the room first.

Page 3 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us

January 2007 In addition, unless you were working in stealth mode all the way to the point of entry, then you dont have the surprise portion of the famous phrase. Most likely, the suspect will know you are there prior to the entry due to identification / announcement policies, and more importantly, due to verbal communication with your partner or teammates. This means, if they are dedicated to killing a cop that day, they will have time to set up on you. Again, if you are training for worst-case scenario, then you can not factor in the element of surprise. If you get it in the real world, then that is a bonus for that room entry. Blind Entries - Let me mention briefly about blind entries. A blind entry is when you burst into the room as the door opens. Or, if the door is already open, its when you rush into a room without doing a dynamic pie first. A blind entry forces you to negotiate an entire room all at once after you have entered. That is a lot to take on, especially if there are multiple suspects and threat areas in the room and only two officers entering the room. Doing a dynamic pie allows you to visually clear a portion of the room from the outside first and determine the layout of the room. Then, as you enter, you can focus on the remaining portion of the room that you couldnt see from the outside. You visually clear the room, systematically, piece by piece, instead of all at once. By visually clear I mean clear of any armed suspects in open view. There could be suspects hiding, but that is irrelevant because there are no room entry tactics that give you an advantage against a hidden suspect. Zone-based Tactics - I have heard of agencies and organizations teaching areas of responsibility or sectors of fire for dynamic room entries. This is referred to as zone-based tactics. This means the first officer covers one side of the room and the second officer covers the other side of the room. And, if there is a third officer, then they cover the middle. I think this has a tendency to generate tunnel vision, generate wasted effort, and promotes a one-on-one gunfight. This is asking an officer to be more concerned with an area of a room instead of an armed suspect that may be anywhere in the room. I have heard other instructors say, You have to trust that your partner will do their job. This is not a trust issue. If something unfortunate happens to my partner, such as they trip and fall, they have a weapon malfunction, or they get shot, then I am at a disadvantage as well because I am too focused on my area of responsibility which may have no suspects in it. My reaction time to adjust to the situation will be extended. Shame on me! If this same doctrine is applied AFTER a dynamic pie is conducted, then one officer will be focusing on an area of responsibility, which was already visually cleared from outside the room during the dynamic pie. That is wasted effort. Both officers, upon entry, should be looking for armed suspects in the deep corner(s), not looking for an assigned area of the room to locate suspects. Crisscross and buttonhook are probably the most common tactics used for room entries in law enforcement and the military. Both of these tactics articulate that the first person entering the room moves to the deep corner to clear it, confronting any armed suspect head-on. Is it me, or is that tactically unsound (P.C. for stupid)? Page 4 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us

January 2007 If there is a dedicated armed suspect hiding in the deep corner, then you are running into their line of fire. You are nothing more than a stationary target that is growing in size as you close in on them. That is tactical suicide. Crosscross and buttonhook will FAIL every time against a dedicated armed suspect who is waiting in the deep corner. We have proven this time and time again in force-on-force training. Threat-based Tactics This is a more fluid type of dynamic room entry. There are no set formations or point of domination (POD) positions often found in zone-based tactics. In threat-based tactics, everyone in the room is considered a threat. The first officer in the room moves toward the first person the see to deal with them. The second officer in the room moves towards the first person they see to deal with them and so on. This concept is great for dealing with people immediately instead of worrying about a zone within a room. However, this concept is also problematic if there are more people in the room than officers. This concept also has a tendency to generate tunnel vision because you loose situational awareness of the room due to the immediate focus of the first person you see. Principle-based Room Entry Both zone-based tactics and threat-based tactics utilize some principles and ignore others. Principle-based room entries use all the principles that most tacticians would agree are sound principles for room entries. Principles are the foundation for what you are trying to accomplish. Tactics are the way you apply the principle. There are many tactics for each principle. For example, clearing the deep corner is a principle. Limited entries, crisscross, buttonhook, ballistic shields, mirrors, and camera / fiber optics are the various tactics to apply the principle. Some tactics are better than others. Some tactics work great in one situation or environment, but not in others. So, sticking to the principles for room entries allows you to modify your tactics and make adjustments on the fly based on the environment and situation. Principles for dynamic room entries: There clearly has to be a leader (point man) for each room entry. Everyone else supports the point man. Clear as much of the room as possible from the outside prior to entry. Its not how fast you enter the room its how fast you see the target. Prioritize the threats - immediate threat (armed) vs. potential threat (unarmed). I dont care about the unarmed person who has the deer in the headlight look. Im looking for armed suspects first. You must train extensively for multiple target engagements, including target discrimination. Move into the known (what you see from outside the room) not the unknown (deep corner). Choose the path of least resistance. Be a hard target for the suspect to hit. Stay moving until you determine there is no threat in the deep corner. This should only take a few steps past the doorway. Form triangulation on suspects as soon as possible. Second officer always goes the opposite direction of the point man. Priority of search Bodies, doors, hides (in that order) Page 5 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us

January 2007

The first officer that enters the room should do so in a manner that makes him a hard target to hit (path of least resistance), and allows the second officer to enter and form triangulation on suspects quickly. Typically, if you have cleared a portion of the room from the outside first, then you have also identified your path of least resistance for entering the room. How far the first officer travels into the room depends on the environmental obstacles inside the room. The idea is to dodge bullets from any armed suspect who is waiting for you in the deep corner. Because the suspect is reacting to your movement, their shots will typically impact just behind you, unless you move slowly through the doorway, or their tracking skills are exceptional. And, because they are naturally trying to track you, their gun fire is being drawn away from the doorway, allowing the second officer to enter safely, and often undetected. The second officer stops just inside the doorway (not in the doorway) to quickly form triangulation on the suspect. Triangulation is nothing more than a flexible version of contact & cover or L shape positioning. It divides the suspects attention, and prevents the suspect from engaging both officers simultaneously. We all know that a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary target. I have this saying that I pass on to my students, In the absence of cover or concealment, movement is the next best savior. Well, the moment you pass through the doorway, you have given up any cover or concealment you may have had. So, stay moving until you have identified if there is a threat in the deep corner. That should be done within the first two to three quick steps into the room. You are still clearing the deep corner, youre just not moving towards it. If there is no threat observed, then put on the brakes so that you do not over-penetrate the room and expose yourself to any other threat areas. If there is a threat, stay moving and engage the threat, regardless of other threat areas. If you dont solve the current problem, the next problem wont matter. Remember, its all about dodging bullets. Of course, you have to be proficient with your shooting-on-the-move skills. Through force-on-force testing we have found that because the suspect is tracking the first officer through the door, they usually dont recognize that the second officer has entered the room until they start taking hits from the second officer. Now, some people say the first person in the room is a guinea pig because they are drawing fire. I say the fist person is dodging bullets to save their life. In fact, I say if the first person moves towards the threat in the deep corner, then they are the real guinea pig for being a ballistic shield for the second person entering the room. I have seen many tactical teams send three or four officers into a room for a room entry. If you are trying to saturate and dominate a building as quickly as possible, then you can not afford to put three or four officers in each room. This will deplete your team too quickly, forcing the forward momentum to slow down. If you incorporate the dynamic pie, it only takes two officers to negotiate a room entry for ANY size room. If you are going to do a blind entry in conjunction with the crisscross or buttonhook tactic, then send in three or four officers, because youll need them against a dedicated armed suspect. Page 6 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us

January 2007

Remember, there is a difference between room entry and room clearing. If the dynamic pie is used, and the first person in the room follows the path of least resistance and stays moving while clearing the deep corner, then only two officers are needed to make an effective room entry and gain a foot hold. If the room is large and requires more officers to clear it, then more officers can be called in to help. Conclusion - This is a very fluid principle. The principle-based dynamic room entry that I have described is not even a tactic that can be given a name (like crisscross and buttonhook) because there are no certainties to it. It is completely flexible. Where the first officer moves is dictated by the environment and the suspects actions, if there is a suspect present. The first officer through the door gets to make all the decision on which way to go, which is how it should be since they are at risk the most. The second officer still goes the opposite direction of the first officer. The second officer bases his decision (where to move and which way to orientate) off of the actions of the first officer. The second officer is merely entering the room in support of the first officer. This principle forces officers to be proficient with the OODA cycle. No principle or tactic is 100% safe. Even during force-on-force training, the first officer through the door occasionally received a hit while applying a principle-based room entry. But, it was far less hits then conducting a blind entry, followed by a crisscross or buttonhook. All we can do is try to minimize the risk. The two factors that affect the probability of the point man getting hit while doing this principle-based dynamic room entry are: the speed of the officer as they pass through the door (the faster you move, the harder it is for the suspect to hit you) and the suspects ability to track a moving target. For those advocates who say they would rather move to the deep corner so they can square up to the target to get the full benefit of their ballistic vest, I say this your ballistic vest doesnt protect your FACE! Im going to use the fist fight analogy one last time. I would rather duck and weave to avoid getting hit in the face then to stand toe-totoe with someone, exchange fist strikes to the face, and wait to see who can stay on their feet longer. But, thats me. I prefer to avoid getting hit by bullets. Train hard and stay safe!

Page 7 of 7
Pro-Active Training Institute, Inc. www.pro-activetraining.us