# On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs (from the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman



## NinjaJax (Jun 5, 2009)

I thought that this was a good article. It explains why some of us become police officers and why we continue to be police officers. It also shows how most of the citizens view the police that watch over them and how their views change when they need them. It is a bit of a long read, but worth it. Its called *"On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs"* _(from the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman_

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2009)

There may be some truth to it, but the lesson most people seem to take from it is self-congratulatory.


----------



## tellner (Jun 5, 2009)

With all due respect the Colonel stepped on his tallywhacker with this one.



It divides people up into three rigid types. Anyone who steps out of the neat little box "just ain't right".
It sets up cops and soldiers - the "sheepdogs" as something outside the law of the flock. After all, why should a wolf or a guard dog behave the same way as a sheep.
More on the cops and soldiers thing. If you're don't wear tin or carry an M-16 you're not a 'sheepdog' as far as the Law is concerned. You're a coyote or a sheep.
It means that "civilians" - and if I ever hear a cop talk about civilians and cops as two different things it'll be hard not to drag him down to the recruiter, shove an M-16 and a map of Iraq in his hands and say "Go Be All You Can Be" - are doing something unnatural when they defend themselves.
At the end of the day sheepdogs and coyotes have one thing in common. They both eat sheep. I'm not real comfortable with that metaphor.

I've been hearing this self-serving nonsense from cops for decades. It's mostly a way for them to pat themselves on the back. It has diddly to do with self defense. Self defense isn't about being part of the Elite. It's something that everyone can do, something every able-bodied person must do. And with inexpensive repeating firearms it's not that hard to be "able-bodied" for purposes of self-protection.

Forget the ******** that turns most of us into stupid, defenseless, unarmed things to be fleeced and turned into lamb chops. Think monkeys. Think apes. Every monkey in the troop is responsible for the safety and security of every other member. Everybody watches for danger. Everybody raises the alarm. The bigger, stronger ones guard everyone else's retreat but even a little monkey turns into a little biting scratching chainsaw when it's cornered. There's no crap about "Well, you're a sheep and I'm a sheepdog, so it's your natural place to eat grass while I boss you around (and eat you when Master kills one of you for me)."


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 5, 2009)

NinjaJax said:


> I thought that this was a good article. It explains why some of us become police officers and why we continue to be police officers. It also shows how most of the citizens view the police that watch over them and how their views change when they need them. It is a bit of a long read, but worth it. Its called *"On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs"* _(from the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman_
> 
> http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm


 

If one is not a LEO or in the Military and not a Wolf, does that automatically make them sheep?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> If one is not a LEO or in the Military and not a Wolf, does that automatically make them sheep?


 
More to the point, if one is clearly a wolf-but has managed through whatever means not to victimize any sheep, or get the attention of the sheepdog, does that make them a wolf in sheeps clothing? :lfao:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> More to the point, if one is clearly a wolf-but has managed through whatever means not to victimize any sheep, or get the attention of the sheepdog, does that make them a wolf in sheeps clothing? :lfao:


 
Yes. And you can have some Wolves in Sheepdog Uniforms as well.  

But, the question I asked and how it is answered by the original poster will tell me a lot.


----------



## NinjaJax (Jun 5, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> There may be some truth to it, but the lesson most people seem to take from it is self-congratulatory.


 
I will agree that there are cops that are looking to get themselves into the limelight for their actions, but most will do their job because it is their job, not because of the possibility of praise afterwords.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2009)

I think it was intended as a "mantra" of sorts for cops rather than a "back patting". The new rubric for LE is to go in after active shooters and terminate the threat...that and the risk of Mumbai type attacks means that we have to get cops to go into gunfights and get the BG, vs just responding to a random street attack.

I think Grossman uses this (and I have seen him give his presentations so I have some first hand experience to base this opinion on) to plant the seed of "I have to be the one to go in and get the BG...I cant just sit outside and wait" in his audiences minds...and that audience is predominantly cops. HOWEVER he explicitly named armed citizens as "sheepdogs" when I attended his "Bulletproof Mind" seminar...so some of your gripes are baseless. As a matter of fact he mentioned that in the event of a Beslan type attack in the US that LE should consider utilizing armed citizens (GASP!) in their response plan.

I think the critics of this piece fail to take where its said, who its said to and why its said  into consideration before they get all bent out of shape over it.


----------



## NinjaJax (Jun 5, 2009)

tellner said:


> With all due respect the Colonel stepped on his tallywhacker with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Tellner...I respect your opinion but would like to comment on it. I will number my comments in accordance with your comments:

1. The author divided people up into 3 groups, but I didn't see where he said that if you don't fit into one of them, then you're just not right. What I took from this article was that there are 3 groups (broad groups) that most people fit in. It would be silly to think that someone would say that you are 1 of these 3, period. Of course there are going to be people that fit somewhere in between.

2. Nowhere did the article say that the "Sheepdogs" are outside of the law of the flock. It just stated that the sheepdogs are charged with protecting the flock. As the article says "_the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed."_

3. The law does not say that if you're not a sheepdog then you're a wolf or a sheep...The law recognizes a citizens&#8217; right to protect themselves. That was the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment.

4. As I stated in #3, The law recognizes a citizens&#8217; right to protect themselves. That was the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment. I did not get the impression from this article that civilians are doing something unnatural by defending themselves. Also, I agree with you (if I am understanding your comment correctly) that a soldier is a completely different animal from a cop and they should not be categorized as the same thing.

5. As the article stated, "_the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed."_ As far as sheepdogs and wolves having one thing in common, that being eating sheep, you're taking the metaphor a little too seriously. Yes there are some bad cops out there, but you cannot judge all police by a few bad ones. Just like a majority of the citizens in the world, a majority of police are good people who care about their community.

Again Tellner, I respect your opinion about this article and I am in no way putting your opinion down. I just wanted to take the time to respond.

Thank you.


----------



## NinjaJax (Jun 5, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> If one is not a LEO or in the Military and not a Wolf, does that automatically make them sheep?


 
I don't believe that is what the author means. I certainly don't feel that it automatically makes you a sheep. As I stated in one of my other replies, the government recognizes a citizens' right to defend themselves, which is where the 2nd amendment comes into play. You do not have to be a police officer or a soldier to be a "sheepdog."


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2009)

NinjaJax said:


> I will agree that there are cops that are looking to get themselves into the limelight for their actions, but most will do their job because it is their job, not because of the possibility of praise afterwords.



I'm not even talking about cops.  I see a lot of internet jackasses patting each other on the *** for being such a big, tough, mean group of sheepdogs.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm not even talking about cops. I see a lot of internet jackasses patting each other on the *** for being such a big, tough, mean group of sheepdogs.


 
And I'll pat _myself _on the back, for being one big, tough, sneaky, wolf......_in sheep's clothing._


----------



## searcher (Jun 5, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> If one is not a LEO or in the Military and not a Wolf, does that automatically make them sheep?


 


If that is the case, this sheep grew the fangs of a vampire.


And what about thoseof us that have served?   When we rotate back to civilian life do we turn into sheep?    I don't think so bub.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

To be fair, I think it was originally in _On Killing,_ not _On Combat._ 

"On Killing" was a good, _important_ book, though I don't always agree with Col. Grossman's point of view on certain things, I appreciate many of his insights. The whole "sheepdog" thing has been overblown, though-an ex-girlfriend identified _me_ as a "sheepdog," never realizing she was sleeping with the wolf.....there's a real danger in believing _everything you read..._ :lol:


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think it was intended as a "mantra" of sorts for cops rather than a "back patting". The new rubric for LE is to go in after active shooters and terminate the threat...that and the risk of Mumbai type attacks means that we have to get cops to go into gunfights and get the BG, vs just responding to a random street attack.
> 
> I think Grossman uses this (and I have seen him give his presentations so I have some first hand experience to base this opinion on) to plant the seed of "I have to be the one to go in and get the BG...I cant just sit outside and wait" in his audiences minds...and that audience is predominantly cops. HOWEVER he explicitly named armed citizens as "sheepdogs" when I attended his "Bulletproof Mind" seminar...so some of your gripes are baseless. As a matter of fact he mentioned that in the event of a Beslan type attack in the US that LE should consider utilizing armed citizens (GASP!) in their response plan.
> 
> I think the critics of this piece fail to take where its said, who its said to and why its said  into consideration before they get all bent out of shape over it.


I've attended Grossman's *Bulletproof Mind* training twice now.  I think it's absolutely clear that he considers anyone who accepts the responsibility of taking action to protect innocents to be a sheepdog.  Those who prey on the innocent are the wolves.  The large part of the population that lives with rose-colored glasses on and assumes that bad things will only happen to someone else are the sheep.

But it's an analogy -- not a true formal classification.  To answer Tellner, there are times when we all move through different roles.  If I'm out with my infant son, and I look up and see someone being beat to death -- I may just call 911 and be on my way!  Why?  Because I've got a greater responsibility to my son than to the other person.  Sometimes, I choose not to carry a gun, for any of several reasons.  At those times, I have to realize that my ability to act in the face of violence may be severely limited.

In fact, I think I'll let Dave speak for himself:


> If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be &#8220;on&#8221; 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... &#8220;Baa.&#8221;
> 
> This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 7, 2009)

NinjaJax said:


> I don't believe that is what the author means. I certainly don't feel that it automatically makes you a sheep. As I stated in one of my other replies, the government recognizes a citizens' right to defend themselves, which is where the 2nd amendment comes into play. You do not have to be a police officer or a soldier to be a "sheepdog."


 

But as a LEO yourself, what is your answer not what you belief the Author meant?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 7, 2009)

searcher said:


> If that is the case, this sheep grew the fangs of a vampire.
> 
> 
> And what about thoseof us that have served? When we rotate back to civilian life do we turn into sheep? I don't think so bub.


 

Searcher,

If you took my post as saying what I think you are saying which is that everyone not in uniform is a sheep then I apologize. For that was not my intent nor my post. 

I was asking to see if we had another LEO onboard who was into placing himself above everyone else because of his job choice. 

I could do the same, with Mathemathics and with the exception of the few PhD's on this site I would be in an elite group. 

I could do it with engineering and also make points about the average person not knowing anything about the "MAGIC" they use every day in ther life. i.e. They push a button and it goes from their phone to a tower to a satellite to ..., where ever and then back in just a couple of seconds. The time lag for comm from here to the moon is very measurable, so it may seem like a long time, but they no longer appreciate the value of their tools or toys. So, I coudl separate many people out as well. 

I could also ask questions about fights, numbers of people, numbers of weapons, how many times being stabbed or cut, or hit or swung on by bats and golf clubs and bottles and axes and then even those that use vehicles against me, from trucks to cars to SUV's to ..., to even firearms, and being shoot at. No I have never been shoot. So, I cannot be in that separate group. 

I have found that those that do not search this site for other posts similar to this (* which there shoudl be at least one thread *) and post it with an excitement like it is new theory and that they are special for being part of the elite group. So, I asked my questions to get a read on the original psoter. 

I hope that explains my posts here.

I also agree that serving and returning to civilian life (* non military - for Civialian can be used by anyone to designate a mamber of an elite type group *) does not make any one a wolf or  sheep or a sheep dog. It all depends upon their actions that they make every day in their life. And that is my opinion on the subject. 

Thanks


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 7, 2009)

I think Grossman makes an interesting analogy but in the end it is just that.  Take what you will from it but do not place that much value on it or it defining you.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2009)

Theres nothing wrong with believing you are in an "elite group"...the Marines have made a way of life of it yet Army soldiers go into battle and die just the same. But I dont begrudge them that. Its part of morale building. And if you believe you are "elite" you should act like it and be held to a higher standard because of it. Being "elite" (if you really deserve the title) is a burden, not a benefit. 

The difference comes when you "throw your weight around", when you treat OTHERS differently or expect special treatment from others. Bottom line is that LEO's DO have powers and responsibilities that "civilians" do not. If believing that they are "elite" and have the responsibility to protect the herd helps them go into dangerous situations...BFD. As long as they treat the public with respect and dont expect special treatment I could care less if thats how a cop feels.

The bottom line is that this hurts the EGO's of people who think that others feel less respect for THEM when that Cop, Soldier, Marine, Boss, Black Belt, etc. enters the room....get over it...who cares what the OTHER guy thinks about himself as long as he is doing what he is supposed to be doing? Your feeling is called "insecurity".

I find it funny how people feel like they can spout off about the law and all things law enforcement and throw "just because you are a cop you dont know everything" around or get offended when the resident cop disagrees with them...I wonder if they would argue mathematics with a mathematician or  circuits with an electrical engineer with the same tactic.

I want my cops believing they are "special" and have responsibilities that other dont. It makes it easier to order them into danger and it makes them easier to discipline..."What did you think you were doing? You know that more is expected of you! When you do that you dishonor the badge?...the "badge"...that thing that makes you GASP! ...DIFFERENT....from others who dont have one. Screw up, loose your job. Have a domestic with your spouse and loose your gun and get punished at work. Get a DWI and have work punish you. That's the way it SHOULD be...the public expects better behavior from you because of the special position you hold.

Just dont go around thinking that you are special though...that pisses people off.

Press hard three copies....


----------



## Guardian (Jun 7, 2009)

NinjaJax said:


> [/list]Tellner...I respect your opinion but would like to comment on it. I will number my comments in accordance with your comments:
> 
> 1. The author divided people up into 3 groups, but I didn't see where he said that if you don't fit into one of them, then you're just not right. What I took from this article was that there are 3 groups (broad groups) that most people fit in. It would be silly to think that someone would say that you are 1 of these 3, period. Of course there are going to be people that fit somewhere in between.
> 
> ...


 
I think it's a moot point either way since the SC ruled that the Police are not legally binded to protect the sheep, they are here to protect society in general, but not individual and since sheep now can get a CCP in most states, the argument is moot in my view.


----------



## tellner (Jun 7, 2009)

I had actually emailed Lt. Col. Grossman about this some years ago. His reply - lost in a catastrophic hard disk crash - supported my main contention. He really did believe that people could be categorized that way. And there was a strong cop/soldier as sheepdog bias. 

Again, with all due respect to the work he's put in, he is still wrong. People are capable of being aggressive, of defending and of being passive. under different circumstances. His typology is still emotionally loaded. It is still inaccurate. It still implicitly denies the possibility of regular people taking self-protecting actions under extraordinary circumstances without violating type. Given his extensive work in the field it is hard to reach any conclusion except that he had an unspoken agenda. My guess is that he was going for the law enforcement market as his post-Army work has largely been in speaking and training law enforcement.


----------



## NinjaJax (Jun 7, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> But as a LEO yourself, what is your answer not what you belief the Author meant?



My answer is No, I do not think that automatically makes you a sheep.  The author of this article speaks to a mostly LEO and Military audience, so that is why the comparison was used....but again, my own opinion is that you can still be a sheepdog without being a soldier or an LEO.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2009)

NinjaJax said:


> My answer is No, I do not think that automatically makes you a sheep. The author of this article speaks to a mostly LEO and Military audience, so that is why the comparison was used....but again, my own opinion is that you can still be a sheepdog without being a soldier or an LEO.


 

And my opinion is that you can be a "wolf," _in the fold_ so to speak......


----------



## searcher (Jun 7, 2009)

Rich-not at all.    I just wanted to get a better insight into what everyone was thinking.

And I want to know if there are people that think we turn into sheep when we hang up our uniform.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 7, 2009)

Archangel M,


Sir, Please see my replies and understand where I come from for my point of view.



Archangel M said:


> Theres nothing wrong with believing you are in an "elite group"...the Marines have made a way of life of it yet Army soldiers go into battle and die just the same. But I dont begrudge them that. Its part of morale building. And if you believe you are "elite" you should act like it and be held to a higher standard because of it. Being "elite" (if you really deserve the title) is a burden, not a benefit.


 
As for Marines, I agree they are elite and should feel honored to be called a Marine. End of Story. 

I also agree that being elite is a burden to act better. But from my experience msot of the police officers I have meet and dealt with on the street were not elite and were only out to prove their power. By beating, and stealing and threatening people and using their badges and guns to make thier point crystal clear. In case getting hit up side the head with a club or a gun was not enough having one pointed at you is their standard operating procedure. 

The locals around me are corrupt and goes all the way up to the top just google Detroit or Flint for Mayor issues and police investigations. 

The townships around here see what the bigger cities do and feel empowered, to just as bad. They sell drugs themselves. They date underage high schoolers and when caught they leave the area and then end up coming back later after people have forgotten. The local population that wants to "FEEL SAFE" allows this to continue as they think the brigands will not come to their house as they are not the bad people. But if they get pulled over for speeding or the officer is having a bad day, watch out. 



Archangel M said:


> The difference comes when you "throw your weight around", when you treat OTHERS differently or expect special treatment from others. Bottom line is that LEO's DO have powers and responsibilities that "civilians" do not. If believing that they are "elite" and have the responsibility to protect the herd helps them go into dangerous situations...BFD. As long as they treat the public with respect and dont expect special treatment I could care less if thats how a cop feels.


 
Well I guess I have a problem with how many use the term civilian as if those in that group are nothing but the fish in the bucket they get to target. 

As to protecting the herd there may be herds or that mentality, but they also prefer to beat out all opinions that differ from what they are spouting off. 

But you see, from my experience about 5% of the LEO population, do treat the population well, the 95% treat them without respect and demand special treatment. 



Archangel M said:


> The bottom line is that this hurts the EGO's of people who think that others feel less respect for THEM when that Cop, Soldier, Marine, Boss, Black Belt, etc. enters the room....get over it...who cares what the OTHER guy thinks about himself as long as he is doing what he is supposed to be doing?


 
This I agree, for I care not what others really think if they truly understand my point. I only care to communicate clearly, so if we disagree you and I both understand what it is we disagree upon. 

As to hurt egos though most of the time it is the LEO who has a hurt EGO as I have nto kissed his *** or licked his shoes. (* Yes I have been asked to this in real life and not just a relationship drawing technique. *)



Archangel M said:


> Your feeling is called "insecurity".


 
No my feeling when a load weapon form someone who has already beat me in the passed has a pointed gun at me is FEAR. I also feel threatened and if possible would stop them from pointing that firearm at me. 



Archangel M said:


> I find it funny how people feel like they can spout off about the law and all things law enforcement and throw "just because you are a cop you dont know everything" around or get offended when the resident cop disagrees with them...I wonder if they would argue mathematics with a mathematician or circuits with an electrical engineer with the same tactic.


 
Yes people do argue with me abotu engineering it happens here and it happens at the coffee shop or bar or restaurant, as everyone thinks they can tell an engineer how to build something better, or ... , . 

As to the law, I do not argue with officers, I have let lawyers and or myself in front of judges make the arguement or my point and guess what, I have won more then lost and those I lost, I usually ended up with a different ticket with the same value amount. 

Any officer can disagree with me, but when they disagree and point a loaded firearm at me, and I have not been threatening nor loud, but have agreed to do as requested, but I just prefer to wait until a lawyer is present before I make my statement as they had decided to read my rights. 

NOTE: Even though I had my rights read to me many times, I have not had any actual charges files of a significant charge, all have been moving violations that have gone to court. Others I have ended up talking to lawyers who talked to ADA's and they dropped all complaints, but the officers continues their actions. 




Archangel M said:


> I want my cops believing they are "special" and have responsibilities that other dont. It makes it easier to order them into danger and it makes them easier to discipline..."What did you think you were doing? You know that more is expected of you! When you do that you dishonor the badge?...the "badge"...that thing that makes you GASP! ...DIFFERENT....from others who dont have one. Screw up, loose your job. Have a domestic with your spouse and loose your gun and get punished at work. Get a DWI and have work punish you. That's the way it SHOULD be...the public expects better behavior from you because of the special position you hold.


 
I wish they could loose their job. Maybe if a few did around here, it might be different. 

I get punished at work for a DUI, and also could loose my rights to carry with a Spouse complaint, ... ,. 

I agree better behaviour is expected. 

I agree better behaviour maybe the norm elsewhere.

But locally it is not. 

But locally the behaviour is that of a spoiled rich kid that can get away with crap as everyone knows their daddy can afford the lawyer to get them off. 




Archangel M said:


> Just dont go around thinking that you are special though...that pisses people off.
> 
> Press hard three copies....


 
I do not care if they think they are special. 

I do care that if they try to intimadate people here or elsewhere that their opinion does not count if they are not a LEO. 

I support the person who disagrees with me and has no idea on how they vote other than what people tell them to vote, but that is their right. But, I also support my own rights, and I personally believe that many of the locals and some others I have met elsewhere of the LEO's believe that they have the right to target who they want, and to treat you like scum and not even beginning with minimumal respect that anyone without a firearm would expect.


----------



## zDom (Jun 8, 2009)

IMO, sheep/sheepdog/wolf is less about your job, vocation or military status and more about WHO YOU ARE.

There are some who are wolves, plain and simple, and it doesn't matter if they join the military or work as a police officer: they prey on the sheep.

There are some who are sheep  and it doesn't matter if they serve in the military or wear a badge: they will eventually be spotted by a wolf and better hope those around him really ARE sheepdogs.

And there are those who are sheepdogs, who feel the need to look out for others, who can SEE the weakness of the sheep (just like the wolves see it!) but would NEVER prey on them and are very likely, should a wolf attempt to prey on them in their presence, to DEFEND the sheep  whether they are a cop, soldier or NOT.

Whether REAL canine sheepdogs behave this way is not the issue; and working in the slaughtering and dining on sheep alongside the shepherd is taking the metaphor WAY too far.

His metaphor rings true to me.


----------

