Cleared Hot - Powered By BRCC - VIP Protection, North Hollywood Shootout, and Zone 2 Cardio Myths

Episode Date: July 26, 2024

Regularly scheduled Q and A for this Friday's episode.. 1.  Accusations of cowardice and incompetence have been hurled at the women in former President Trump's security detail, with many blaming DEI initiatives. Do the claims hold any water, and what are the complexities of VIP protection.  2. We revisit the infamous 1997 North Hollywood shootout, a harrowing 44-minute gun battle that forever changed law enforcement tactics. How would a similar event unfold today, considering advancements in police training and the pervasive influence of social media? 3. Lastly, we delve into the world of Zone 2 cardio training and the authenticity of military running cadence tracks. Is running to the beat of a sergeant's call-and-response chant a genuine practice in the Army, Navy, and Air Force? Enjoy The Speed of War Comic Series: https://www.thespeedofwar.com/ Check out the newest Cleared Hot Gear here: https://shop.clearedhotpodcast.com/  

What is up, everybody? It's Friday. We're back. We're going to go with some more casual questions for the traditional Q&A today. Last week, I think I talked about the assassination attempt on former President Trump. Man, the Internet is a wild, wild place. There's some angry, frustrated, and upset people. And sometimes I get it. And sometimes I don't. But we're going to take it easy on this Friday. Just some... Some less serious questions. I say that in the first one's actually about the assassination attempt. So let's just get into it, see where it goes. Let's the red smoke.

Okay, copy. Where's to the smoke? I'm looking at danger close now. All righty. Let's dive right in. Question one, long-time listener, you actually convinced me to get into BJJ, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, going on three years strong so far. Awesome.

I bet you're enjoying yourself. I bet you it's more fun than you. think it could be. It doesn't make sense sometimes watching it from the outside. God damn, it's fun. And I feel like everybody should know how to fight. Combines a lot of my favorite things. But anyway, my question is about the assassination attempt on former President Trump. I've had a couple of conversations and heard many folks on the internet say the women in Trump's detail showed cowardice and incompetence during the assassination attempt based on the few pictures and videos that are out there. Many blame DEI.

this situation, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and say that women are not qualified to serve in the capacity that they did. I am of the opinion that those pictures and videos alone don't tell the full story and are not enough evidence to use women and DEI hiring as a scapegoat. But I don't have any relatable experience in the realm of VIP protection. As someone who has tactical knowledge of these types of situations, do you think these accusations are valid? I would love your insights and thoughts. Okay, so tactically, I have said this many, many times. I don't know if people hear me when I say this.

I don't know if people care when I say this. When you get into a ballistic environment and metal is flying back and forth at thousands of feet per second, projectiles don't give a shit what you have between your legs. They don't care about your chromosomes. They really don't care about anything. Gravity, that's something that they care about. Cover, that's something that can stop them. But beyond that, the battlefield does not differentiate between men and women. So, what actually matters then? The standards do. That is the only thing that matters. And in my opinion, if your job involves a tactical environment, the standards that you are held to have to be reverse engineered from the, you likely challenges that you are going to face in said environment, battlefield or VIP protection. So the first thing I would do in your sentence, I've heard, I've had a couple conversations,

I heard many folks on the internet say the women in Trump's detail. Let's take the men or women out of this. Let's reread this sentence. I've had a couple of conversation and heard many folks on the internet say Trump's detail showed cowardice in incompetence during the assassination attempt. that's a better question the standards the secret service i don't know the standards that they are training people and testing people too if i was the head of the secret service which the head of the secret service just resigned my phone number is probably searchable on the internet give me a call secret service and i will deny your request to be the head of it because i don't want any fucking part of it whatsoever. But if I was the head of the Secret Service, what I would understand

are the standards. What are they and is everybody equally being held to them? Men and women. And again, when it comes to standards, I believe they should be blind, meaning there is no change between men or women, and they have to be published. That way, there is no subjectivity. It's only objective. Here is what we are testing you for. Here is what you have to meet to pass. And here is where we don't give a fuck if you're a man or a woman, right? That third one's never going to exist, but that's the reality of what I think it should actually be, because the standard will drive performance in the environment. Now, did they show cowardice in that environment? That is an interesting word to use. And in my own personal experience, anecdotally,

this counts for a data point of one. I have seen people, be utterly heroic on a battlefield, and I have seen people act in a way where the term cowardice may also apply. But I've also seen it go back and forth. I've seen somebody who in one situation did not rise to the occasion. But when pressed a second and third time, they did. And I've seen people who rose to well above the occasion, then have substandard performance when pressed a second or third time as well. So it's an interesting, to me, it's a really interesting question. And one of the things that I personally believe makes the job of the Secret Service so difficult is that they train often, again, and this is an assumption on my part, that they train often, but they are never pressed in

the real world consistently that I'm aware of the sniper that the counter sniper that fired the round that killed the young man that I am aware of and somebody please correct me if they know otherwise that is the first time that the counter sniper team has fired a live round in a real world situation and I bet you that team has been around for decades I suspect based off the reactions that I saw of the individuals, that that was the first time that those people had ever been shot at. And I recorded a podcast recently,

and I'm not sure exactly when it's going to come out, but I talked about with the person, the guest, one of the things that we used to do is we used to go down into the, on the rifle range. Intentionally, we would do this. And sometimes it would happen just because it was part of the evolution. But we would go get behind the berm, and we would have people shoot over the top of our head

with a variety of calibers, supersonic, subsonic, small caliber, large caliber, pistol, rifle. suppressed, non-suppressed. And the reason for that is you need to be able to identify the sound of a projectile snapping by your head if it's a supersonic round, or what it sounds like if it's a subsonic ground and impacting nearby. The closer I get, it's a snapping noise and I'm not going to go into it. You can find examples of it on the internet. But if you've never been exposed to that, if you've never actually been shot at, you might, in your first exposure to that, freeze.

and that's where I go back to, let's just keep the question gender neutral. Was there cowardice from the Secret Service? I'm not going to say that there was because, one, I don't have the full video. And I don't want to Monday morning quarterback an organization that I know has an incredibly difficult job and almost no opportunity to practice it in the real world. Do I think that they performed at their best? no but I also again don't know the standard that they are being held to we looked this up on that podcast and it'll probably be out in the next few weeks Trump was on that stage for one minute and 57 seconds after the rounds were fired in my understanding the way that I was taught

dignitary protection that is insane I don't know how many people they had on the ground though I don't know their evacuation plan whatever it may be but the way I was taught was a first thing you got to do is to move off the X. Get to a hardened vehicle. Take that hardened vehicle to either a helicopter or a higher level of care. The helicopter obviously, it takes you a higher level of care if it's critical and it can get you there faster than a vehicle. But movement is critical.

Staying on a podium, I don't think that anything on that podium was ballistic. They're very lucky that there was only one shooter, not a coordinated attack. I don't care that bodies dog piled on there. That's not a guarantee of protection. movement and shielding with bodies is still not a guarantee of protection, but it's a lot harder to hit than a static target. I was surprised to see that happen. There are some pictures out there of people cowering behind the president. And here's what I'll say about that. The person, the people who take the actions are responsible for their actions. If that's the actions that you took in that

moment, you need to eat that. And if the Secret Service, which I think I described on the last Friday's episode, I feel like that Hubble telescope is really, really looking right now at the inner workings of that agency. If it is found that standards anywhere were lowered or deviated, then that organization needs to be restructured and how they do business. Because if they don't, something like this could potentially happen again. I've heard some people say, well, you know, why were there women there? First off, women, I know some women agents. I've had Evie Pomportis on the podcast multiple times, incredibly capable agent. What I will add to that is this, though, the standard is going to need to shift depending on who your dignitary is. I would not have a five-foot-three

woman protecting a dignitary that is 6.3 to 50. I would not have the vast majority of somebody's detail that size in that role because the standard in that moment is the ability to move that person if they were to go down, to physically enforce your will on that person to move them to a higher level of either protection or care, whether they want to or not. And this is where the question, you know, this is where it gets a little bit more interesting because there's There's the standard to be an agent, I'm sure. And again, this is assumptions. A standard to be an agent, I don't know if they have additional standards depending on what the dignitary is. I shouldn't say dignitary, depending on who the principal is and what the principal may be doing or where they

would be. In my mind, there would be a standard for all of those things. Because if your principle outweighs and is substantially larger than the agents that you have protecting that person, you could run into an issue. These are all solvable problems, and it's going to have you, you're going to be a little bit more fluid in your planning. But that's why you have a planning process. You look at who you're protecting,

where you're going, and the detail that you are providing to that person. If the Secret Service isn't doing those things, they need to relook at how they're doing business. You know, D.E.I, the diversity, equity, and inclusion. I've said this many times. If a woman can make it through seal training, I have zero issue whatsoever serving with a women, with a woman, with a woman, singular.

But may know, who knows? Maybe it would be plural, depending on who made it through. What people failed to realize, though, is that women have been the frontline in combat roles since the inception of warfare, whether that be frontline medical care or in the modern era interfacing with women who, you know, it's a social affront to the population there for a man to even, you know, be in the same room alone with a woman. for interpreters, and let's be honest, if you were going to have an intelligence gathering source, would you send a woman into a bar or a dude into bar to gather information? Yeah, you'd send a woman in

because dudes are fucking idiots, especially if you combine it with alcohol and they're going to run their mouth because they think they're going to get laid. A guy going into a bar, probably harder to elicit information, especially from other dudes. But again, I'm kind of getting off topic. All of that, though, has to be, again, based, I know people are going to be tired of me here and hearing me say this, the standard. I'm a fan of diversity, of equity, of opportunity, I should say. I'm a fan of equity of opportunity, not equity of outcome, because if you don't meet the standard, get fucked and find another job where you do, and inclusion. I'm a fan of DEI from a conceptual perspective until it gets to the place where you modify standard to achieve the end state of saying,

how diverse, how equitable, and how inclusive we are. Because if you do that, you are, in my opinion, reducing the quality of the product that you are producing. It's great that you could say from a DEI perspective, look how diverse and equitable and inclusive we are. But if you fail in the real world, who gives a shit? And I'm not saying that's what happened with the Secret Service. I am saying that's where my concern comes with DEI programs. To me, the standard trumps everything else. Is that fair? No.

But the fair is in Indiana. And it has popcorn and a merry-go-round and all those great things. And if you have a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you. Hopefully you're never on the receiving end of a situation that requires people who need to meet a standard. but instead DEI took precedence over hiring and they fall short. So, and I'm not saying that that's what happened with the Secret Service. That is my concern with DEI and its impact on standards. So what I would say is this.

Was there cowardice? I don't think that's the right word. Was there potentially hesitation? Was there people responding for the first time to being in an environment that they've never experienced in the real world? Potentially, that organization is going to need to sort itself out. With the Secret Service Director stepping down, I think you'll get a better opportunity for an outside agency to get a look inside of that organization, and hopefully they can identify

changes that they need to make. That's step one. What's the hardest part of that? Actually making the changes. So we'll see how it goes. Question two, let's shift gears. It often feels like the world is going sideways. But looking back, there have always been events that make us feel this way. One such events that stands out to me is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout between the two heavily armed bank robbers and the LAPD. Over 2,000 rounds were fired in a gun battle that lasted 44 minutes, with the robbers using thousands of rounds of ammunition, custom-fitted body armor, and fully automatic weapons. I'd love to get your opinion on what would happen if a similar event occurred today. Would law enforcement respond more effectively? And how would social media influence the

situation? Thanks for your time and considering my question. So I had to brush up on this one a little bit because I remember actually watching this thing relatively live. This was wild. These two guys were banging it out in the streets of L.A. So I went to Wikipedia, which is a page that is 100% accurate and should be used as a historical record. The North Hollywood shootout, also known as the Battle of North Hollywood, was a confrontation between two heavily armed and armed, armed and armored bank Roberts. Larry Phillips in Emil, I can't say that last name because I don't know how. And police officers in the North Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles. February 8th, 1997.

I'm skipping down here a little bit. Go on to YouTube. There are some videos. Like I said, these two guys, they were banging it out in the streets of L.A., shooting at helicopters. They were actually kind of shooting everything that moved.

Standard-issue sidearms carried by most local patrol officers at the time were 9mm pistols or 38 special revolvers. Some control cars will also equip with 12-gauge shotgun. Phillips and the last name starts with an M and has a lot of things I don't recognize above the A. Carried Norinco Type 56, Rifles, a Chinese AK-47 variant and a Bushmaster XM-15 dissipator with a 100-round drum magazine, both of which had been illegally modified to be select fire capable, as well as a heckler and Koch, Coke.

HK-91 rifle and a Beretta 92-F-S pistol. The robbers wore homemade body armor, which successfully protected them from the handgun rounds and shotgun pellets fired by the responding officers. An LAPD Metropolitan Division SWAT team eventually arrived with higher caliber weapons, but they had little effect on the heavy body armor used by the two perpetrators. The SWAT team also commandeered an armored car to evacuate the wounded. Several officers additionally equipped themselves with rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their firepower in preparation for similar situations in the future. And I read that section because that was the biggest difference right there.

The officers were 100% overmatched. They brought pistols to a rifle fight. And the video is tough to watch because you watch these two individuals mowing down officers. And there's nothing the officers can do about it. So if it would happen or occur today in L.A. Actually, let's go with the social media. How did this social media influence the situation? It would show up on social media for sure.

It showed up on national and probably global news, even, I think almost in real time as it was occurring. So was it as accessible as one of these devices? No, it wasn't, but people had access to the information. So more people might be able to watch it in real time, but it would have ended so much quicker in modern era. but I don't know if social media would have any impact on it whatsoever other than pushing out that it was happening faster than traditional news did in 1997. Why do I say it would end faster? Because LAPD officers in general and the SWAT team in LAPD are not fucking around. They would no longer be overmatched by these two individuals.

It would be far more equally matched, that's for sure, but they have armored vehicles. The SWAT team has armored vehicles. patrol officers are going to have access to carbines, which I don't know a lot about the homemade body armor that they made, but I do know. And you can see it in the video. Rounds are skipping off of the body armor. And I'm going to make the assessment that those were the pistol rounds because what ended this, literally officers ran into a gun store and got, I think, ARs and ended up killing both of these guys. They needed a higher caliber round to defeat the armor that they were wearing. In the modern era, they have those things more readily accessible. And the training has improved. There have been a lot of wars, a lot of wars, a lot of lessons learned from 20 years of sustained combat in the global war on terrorism that have matriculated their way into law enforcement organizations, largely through the fact that people getting out of the military

have joined these organizations. The training is higher level. Their performance is higher level. Their equipment is higher level. Their response time is going to be a higher level. Their coordination is going to be higher level. Would it still be an absolute shit show? Yes.

But I think it would end in a fraction of the time and the impact would have been substantially less because of the evolution of law enforcement. And a lot of military equipment is making its way into law enforcement hands, whether it's the body armor, the ballistic helmets, the radios, the optics, the weapons, the armored vehicles, all of those things. You apply that to this situation where people are rolling up with a 38 special. you're going to have a different outcome. So I don't think social media would have too much to do with it.

Law enforcement would absolutely respond more effectively, and these guys would have likely still gotten into a gunfight, but that gunfight would have ended far, far earlier. Last question. I've recently been learning more about Zone 2 cardio, training, and its benefits, fat loss, longevity as an example. I heard on a podcast somewhere that if you're running and you can only just hold a conversation,

then you're probably in Zone 2. But since running is mostly done solo to pass the conversation test, I've been using military running cadence tracks where a sergeant sings out a phrase and the following group of soldiers repeats it. Here's an example. They have put a YouTube link on here. You see this in any movie or TV show where people are at boot camp and a drill sergeant is running next to them and they're yelling out of cadence. And the students, trainees, whatever you want to call them, they are either repeating it or doing the next line. And we did do this stuff in boot camp And we did also do this stuff in buds

There were some specific songs and buds Of which I remember absolutely none I don't even remember if I participated in the time Or at the time But it's a real thing for sure Yes, I do follow along And repeat singing the phrases in real time Whilst running and probably look like a complete idiot

Doing so, but I could care less Which got me thinking, how real is this? Do the Army, Navy, Navy, Air Force actually do this? I respectfully but sincerely, sir, cannot picture you singing along with some sergeant with a straight face and not taking the piss somehow. Any insight is appreciated. Like I said, it's a real thing, but it's largely done in a training environment early on. And it helps people keep pace a little bit with like left foot, right foot, the cadence that you do that can help with that.

I don't know anything about zone 102 cardio. Could you do that in a different zone of cardio, perhaps? So actually first, yes, this is real. Did I enjoy doing that stuff when I did? No, I did not. I thought it was ridiculous. I understood the purpose of it and I just wanted to be left alone. So if I needed to, I would participate.

But other than that, I was likely an unwilling participant. I wasn't fighting them. I just wasn't participating or doing what they told me that I should do, unless they were looking directly at me and then I would participate and then stop. But I want to welcome you to the year of 2024. Instead of doing a cadence or type of pace, may I please direct you towards the Internet where you could find a smartwatch and a chest strap of some kind that can measure your heart reet and give you an exact

measurement of where you are and what zone you are in. If you want to run around singing military cadence, please by all means do so. I enjoy seeing crazy people as I drive to and from in my daily life. If you want to be one of those people, live your best life. I fully support it. But if you really want to know what cardio zone you're in, invest a little bit of money and know for sure. You could probably even find some stuff that sets alerts that can keep you on the high and low end inside of that zone too if you wanted to get a smart watch man and then maybe from there you could control your music as well or maybe you're a psychopath and you like to run without music but maybe not or maybe everything in between but there are technology solutions to this and i think you should find one

because then you can kind of be more of a scientist with your training as opposed to a hobbyist Not that one is better than the other, but one is certainly more precise than the other. And that is all I have for this Friday.