# Cop Attackers and Their Weapons..



## Drac (Mar 18, 2007)

New Findings From FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons

From Force Science News provided by The Force Science Research Center .
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62


New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.

Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:

--show signs of being armed that officers miss;

--have more experience using deadly force in &#8220;street combat&#8221; than their intended victims;

--practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;

--have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. &#8220;If you hesitate,&#8221; one told the study&#8217;s researchers, &#8220;you&#8217;re dead. You have the instinct or you don&#8217;t. If you don&#8217;t, you&#8217;re in trouble on the street&#8230;.&#8221;

These and other weapons-related findings comprise one chapter in a 180-page research summary called &#8220;Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation&#8217;s Law Enforcement Officers.&#8221; The study is the third in a series of long investigations into fatal and nonfatal attacks on POs by the FBI team of Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, clinical forensic psychologist, and Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor, both with the Bureau&#8217;s Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.

&#8220;Violent Encounters&#8221; also reports in detail on the personal characteristics of attacked officers and their assaulters, the role of perception in life-threatening confrontations, the myths of memory that can hamper OIS investigations, the suicide-by-cop phenomenon, current training issues, and other matters relevant to officer survival. (Force Science News and our strategic partner PoliceOne.com will be reporting on more findings from this landmark study in future transmissions.)

Commenting on the broad-based study, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, called it &#8220;very challenging and insightful--important work that only a handful of gifted and experienced researchers could accomplish.&#8221;

From a pool of more than 800 incidents, the researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gangbangers-drug traffickers) and 50 officers, for in-depth exploration. They visited crime scenes and extensively interviewed surviving officers and attackers alike, most of the latter in prison.

Here are highlights of what they learned about weapon selection, familiarity, transport and use by criminals attempting to murder cops, a small portion of the overall research:

Weapon Choice

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available &#8220;was the overriding factor in weapon choice,&#8221; the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun &#8220;because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.&#8221;

Researcher Davis , in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was &#8220;hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.&#8221;

Familiarity

Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing &#8220;most of the time.&#8221; Gang members especially started young.

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% &#8220;regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year,&#8221; the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and &#8220;street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.&#8221;

One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers &#8220;go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything.&#8221;

In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this &#8220;may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills,&#8221; the study says.

The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.

More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these &#8220;street combat veterans,&#8221; all from &#8220;inner-city, drug-trafficking environments,&#8221; had taken part in 5 or more &#8220;criminal firefight experiences&#8221; in their lifetime.

One reported that he was 14 when he was first shot on the street, &#8220;about 18 before a cop shot me.&#8221; Another said getting shot was a pivotal experience &#8220;because I made up my mind no one was gonna shoot me again.&#8221;

Again in contrast, only 8 of the 50 LEO victims had participated in a prior shooting; 1 had been involved in 2 previously, another in 3. Seven of the 8 had killed offenders.

Concealment

The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, &#8220;most often a female companion.&#8221; None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon.

In motor vehicles, they most often kept their firearm readily available on their person, or, less often, under the seat. In residences, most stashed their weapon under a pillow, on a nightstand, under the mattress--somewhere within immediate reach while in bed.

Almost all carried when on the move and strong majorities did so when socializing, committing crimes or being at home. About one-third brought weapons with them to work. Interestingly, the offenders in this study more commonly admitted having guns under all these circumstances than did offenders interviewed in the researchers&#8217; earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and &#8217;90s.

According to Davis , &#8220;Male offenders said time and time again that female officers tend to search them more thoroughly than male officers. In prison, most of the offenders were more afraid to carry contraband or weapons when a female CO was on duty.&#8221;

On the street, however, both male and female officers too often regard female subjects &#8220;as less of a threat, assuming that they not going to have a gun,&#8221; Davis said. In truth, the researchers concluded that more female offenders are armed today than 20 years ago--&#8220;not just female gang associates, but female offenders generally.&#8221;

Shooting Style

Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, &#8220;claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,&#8221; the study says.

&#8220;They practice getting the gun out and using it,&#8221; Davis explained. &#8220;They shoot for effect.&#8221; Or as one of the offenders put it: &#8220;[W]e&#8217;re not working with no marksmanship&#8230;.We just putting it in your direction, you know&#8230;.It don&#8217;t matter&#8230;as long as it&#8217;s gonna hit you&#8230;if it&#8217;s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever&#8230;.Once I squeeze and you fall, then&#8230;if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.&#8221;

Hit Rate

More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)

Davis speculated that the offenders might have had an advantage because in all but 3 cases they fired first, usually catching the officer by surprise. Indeed, the report points out, &#8220;10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers.&#8221;

Missed Cues

Officers would less likely be caught off guard by attackers if they were more observant of indicators of concealed weapons, the study concludes. These particularly include manners of dress, ways of moving and unconscious gestures often related to carrying.

&#8220;Officers should look for unnatural protrusions or bulges in the waist, back and crotch areas,&#8221; the study says, and watch for &#8220;shirts that appear rippled or wavy on one side of the body while the fabric on the other side appears smooth.&#8221; In warm weather, multilayered clothing inappropriate to the temperature may be a giveaway. On cold or rainy days, a subject&#8217;s jacket hood may not be covering his head because it is being used to conceal a handgun.

Because they eschew holsters, offenders reported frequently touching a concealed gun with hands or arms &#8220;to assure themselves that it is still hidden, secure and accessible&#8221; and hasn&#8217;t shifted. Such gestures are especially noticeable &#8220;whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting or exiting a vehicle.&#8221; If they run, they may need to keep a constant grip on a hidden gun to control it.

Just as cops generally blade their body to make their sidearm less accessible, armed criminals &#8220;do the same in encounters with LEOs to ensure concealment and easy access.&#8221;

An irony, Davis noted, is that officers who are assigned to look for concealed weapons, while working off-duty security at night clubs for instance, are often highly proficient at detecting them. &#8220;But then when they go back to the street without that specific assignment, they seem to &#8216;turn off&#8217; that skill,&#8221; and thus are startled--sometimes fatally--when a suspect suddenly produces a weapon and attacks.

Mind-set

Thirty-six of the 50 officers in the study had &#8220;experienced hazardous situations where they had the legal authority&#8221; to use deadly force &#8220;but chose not to shoot.&#8221; They averaged 4 such prior incidents before the encounters that the researchers investigated. &#8220;It appeared clear that none of these officers were willing to use deadly force against an offender if other options were available,&#8221; the researchers concluded.

The offenders were of a different mind-set entirely. In fact, Davis said the study team &#8220;did not realize how cold blooded the younger generation of offender is. They have been exposed to killing after killing, they fully expect to get killed and they don&#8217;t hesitate to shoot anybody, including a police officer. They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is to killing in the next instant.&#8221;

&#8220;Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms,&#8221; the report states. &#8220;In fact, the street combat veterans survived by developing a shoot-first mentality.

&#8220;Officers never can assume that a criminal is unarmed until they have thoroughly searched the person and the surroundings themselves.&#8221; Nor, in the interest of personal safety, can officers &#8220;let their guards down in any type of law enforcement situation.&#8221;


----------



## exile (Mar 18, 2007)

Very excellent post, Drac, very thought-provoking. Clearly, police departments need to start taking the two major findings seriously: LEOs are gravely undertrained in weapons detection and firing accuracy. And it's not just knowledge in the former case: even when an officer knows what to look for, the report emphasizes, perceptual sensitivity is reduced under run-of-the-mill street conditions. So officers need better training not just in terms of what they understand but their alertness in activating that understanding. And they also need better firing accuracy. 

The root problem is I suspect $$$. Police departments are routinely underbugeted. And one thing I've heard is that very top brass and city officials like to spend money on glossy big-ticket items like special toys for their SWAT teams (personel carriers, helicopters etc) instead of putting the money in workaday improvement in conditions for the officer on the street, which would include the sort of improved training that this document seems to be calling for. These recommendations need to be widely publicized and LEOs' professional organizations and unions need to push the improved and extended training aspect of it with city councils, mayors' offices and the like. Our LEOs put themselves in peril every working day, and the body politic they protect owes it to them to do whatever is possible to protect them back...


----------



## Kacey (Mar 18, 2007)

First, Drac, thanks for posting this.  Where did you find it?



Drac said:


> In truth, the researchers concluded that more female offenders are armed today than 20 years ago--not just female gang associates, but female offenders generally.



Y'know, as a woman, this is an area of gender equity I could forego... 



exile said:


> Very excellent post, Drac, very thought-provoking. *Clearly, police departments need to start taking the two major findings seriously: LEOs are gravely undertrained in weapons detection and firing accuracy. *And it's not just knowledge in the former case: even when an officer knows what to look for, the report emphasizes, perceptual sensitivity is reduced under run-of-the-mill street conditions. So officers need better training not just in terms of what they understand but their alertness in activating that understanding. And they also need better firing accuracy.
> 
> The root problem is I suspect $$$. *Police departments are routinely underbugeted.* And one thing I've heard is that *very top brass and city officials like to spend money on glossy big-ticket items* like special toys for their SWAT teams (personel carriers, helicopters etc) *instead of putting the money in workaday improvement in conditions for the officer on the street*, which would include the sort of improved training that this document seems to be calling for. These recommendations need to be widely publicized and LEOs' professional organizations and unions need to push the improved and extended training aspect of it with city councils, mayors' offices and the like. _*Our LEOs put themselves in peril every working day, and the body politic they protect owes it to them to do whatever is possible to protect them back...*_



Exile, I agree with your entire post; I have bolded the portions that, I think, makes the most important points.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 18, 2007)

My instructor is ex-police and we had a cop killed here a few months back.  It was during a routine traffic stop.  In class we talked through the encounter and showed wheere the officers made mistakes.  Mistakes that they are trained not to make.  A cop died who didn't have to simply because the three cops invovled did not follow training and procedure.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

Drac said:


> Mind-set
> 
> Thirty-six of the 50 officers in the study had experienced hazardous situations where they had the legal authority to use deadly force but chose not to shoot. They averaged 4 such prior incidents before the encounters that the researchers investigated. It appeared clear that none of these officers were willing to use deadly force against an offender if other options were available, the researchers concluded.
> 
> ...


 
I think THAT is the most important point of the whole thing. Even the bad guy said that while they may squeeze off more rounds than a cop over the year they arent really practicing cutting edge tactics. What it boils down to is being the first to draw and the one most willing to kill IMO.


----------



## exile (Mar 18, 2007)

The point that Blotan was responding to is yet another illustration of Col. David Grossman's findings, reported in his book _On Killing_, that armed combatants in deadly encounters cannot be relied on to shoot to kill even when their own lives are in serious jeopardy. DG was examining documented military records bearing on the behavior of front-line troops in `hot' encounters with enemy soldiers. No question of whether the enemy is armed; no question about the enemy's intent so far as _you_ are concerned; no question of what your own orders are. Yet even in such firefight situations, DG found, a very large percentage of soldiers would not fire their weapons, or would not shoot to kill. In the much more ambiguous civilian law-enforcement setting, this effect is bound to be still more exaggerated.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

Ive read grossmans books. Most of those studies were of civil war, WWII, even up to Vietnam. In the conclusion of "On killing" he said that modern military training and video games are making us better killers. More or less.


----------



## exile (Mar 18, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ive read grossmans books. Most of those studies were of civil war, WWII, even up to Vietnam. In the conclusion of "On killing" he said that modern military training and video games are making us better killers. More or less.



Right, his conclusions were based on a lot of data from different military conflicts. And his main conclusion was that to train soldiers to shoot to kill as their default response, you needed to desensitize them in certain ways (a process whose increasing sophistication he reviews and which, as he notes, in its most effective current form takes the shape of video-game response training very similar to the structure of currently sold violent video games like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto). The thing that's important about his findings in _this_ context is that they indicate the reluctance of armed combatants, even in completely unambiguous situations of mortal danger, to shoot to kill. A police officer in a situation of seemingly low-level danger, dealing with potentially violent nasties but not trained killers (aka enemy soldiers), with highly restrictive rules of engagement and accountability... the hesitation factor is going to be that much stronger.


----------



## tellner (Mar 18, 2007)

The other conclusion, which many forget, is that the training makes you a more effective killer. And the trainees pay a very high price psychologically, socially and economically.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2007)

Drac,

Very interesting article.  It is certainly very eye opening and just goes to show that there is always a need to make sure that officers are up to date with training, etc.

Mike


----------



## exile (Mar 18, 2007)

tellner said:


> The other conclusion, which many forget, is that the training makes you a more effective killer. And the trainees pay a very high price psychologically, socially and economically.



True. But that reflects a kind of intrinsic paradox in earning your _living_ via a profession in which _killing_ and _dying_ are part of your job description. If you view your job as the protection of the citizenry against violent assault, then in taking on that job you voluntarily place yourself in harm's way, and the question becomes, which is worse? To err on the side of caution and very possibly wind up a statistic of the kind the report in Drac's OP laid out in evidence, or to ramp up your lethal-response training and reaction time and, in situations which your training now identifies as over the critical threshhold, shooting to kill more often? 

I have no firsthand experience that would entitle me to say anything further at this point. I'd be very interested, instead, in having Drac, jks and some of our other LEOs weigh in on this one.... _really_.


----------



## Drac (Mar 18, 2007)

Thanks for ALL the compliments..It was *Jonathan Randall* that found it, I just posted it..ALL the thanks should go to him for thinking enough of us in LE to bring this to MT...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 18, 2007)

exile said:


> True. But that reflects a kind of intrinsic paradox in earning your _living_ via a profession in which _killing_ and _dying_ are part of your job description. If you view your job as the protection of the citizenry against violent assault, then in taking on that job you voluntarily place yourself in harm's way, and the question becomes, which is worse? To err on the side of caution and very possibly wind up a statistic of the kind the report in Drac's OP laid out in evidence, or to ramp up your lethal-response training and reaction time and, in situations which your training now identifies as over the critical threshhold, shooting to kill more often?
> 
> I have no firsthand experience that would entitle me to say anything further at this point. I'd be very interested, instead, in having Drac, jks and some of our other LEOs weigh in on this one.... _really_.


 
 And risk getting jailed, fired or sued into poverty. Thats got to be another reason cops hesitate to shoot. Crooks know its just a matter of either getting caught or not.


----------



## exile (Mar 18, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> And risk getting jailed, fired or sued into poverty. Thats got to be another reason cops hesitate to shoot. Crooks know its just a matter of either getting caught or not.



Very true...


----------



## Drac (Mar 18, 2007)

MJS said:


> Drac,
> 
> Very interesting article. It is certainly very eye opening and just goes to show that there is always a need to make sure that officers are up to date with training, etc.
> 
> Mike


 
I agree Mike...OK people can you all guess where is the *FIRST* place that the department takes money from when times get a little tight??? *The Training Budget....*


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 18, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I think THAT is the most important point of the whole thing. Even the bad guy said that while they may squeeze off more rounds than a cop over the year they arent really practicing cutting edge tactics. What it boils down to is being the first to draw and the one most willing to kill IMO.


 
Yes, and by virtue of their position, LEO's will _almost _always be the second to fire and thus will always be at somewhat of a disadvantage against the violent sociopath.

*One important point from the study - ALMOST all of the weapons were obtained illegally by these cop killers, largely by theft therefore laws restricting firearm ownership among law-abiding citizens had no effect upon these killers obtaining their murder weapons.*


----------



## Drac (Mar 18, 2007)

Here is the link to the article as requested...   http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20300


----------



## tellner (Mar 18, 2007)

I see one really, _really,_ *really* bad result of this study which is pretty much inevitable. When a cop shoots an innocent person he will, not might, not could, but will skate. He will almost certainly not be indicted. If he is the case will almost never come to trial. And if it does the defense will pull out all the "thin blue line" stops. The chance of him getting convicted of anything is about the same as the tissue paper dog will of chasing the asbestos cat through Hell. His career might suffer a setback. He might lose his job quietly. But he will not see jail time unless it was a hit for the Mob or similar. That's just the way it is.

This study *will* be used in those few cases where a cop might be in danger of actually receiving justice. Friendly experts will cite it to show why it is important that police shoot first and don't bother to ask questions. Add it to "furtive movement" and "positional asphyxia" and "excited delerium". It won't work for you and me. It will work to make sure that Officer Friendly is never ever at risk of jail time or the needle as long as he wears a badge.

The whole "learning to kill" bit comes with a few cautions. It is certainly possible to learn to kill and not be destroyed psychologically. The complete disinhibition is more appropriate for soldiers. It is absolutely not appropriate for police officers. Their job is not to kill people. It is a possible contingency that they need to be prepared for, but it's not what they set out to do every day. They must not be trained or permitted to think of it as the default way of dealing with the public. If it is, then we will have to consider all cops, by default, to be barely socialized conditioned sociopaths and act accordingly. We're supposed to have law enforcement professionals, not Black and Tans or Tonton Macoutes. 

Second, soldiers are supposed to be in battle infrequently and eventually return to the normal civilian world. As it is, they have enough trouble doing so. The poverty rate for discharged soldiers is very high. 1/4 to 1/3 - according to the latest best figures - report clinically significant mental health problems. That's the result of no more than three of four years of disinhibition and living down the rabbit hole in an environment which is supposed to support them as functional. If you do the same thing to cops with a twenty or thirty year career you will - guaranteed no doubts about it - have police forces made up of pyschotically insane rabid dogs, the shell-shocked wounded, the disocciative and functional sociopaths.

Third, we don't have a ritual structure for bringing warriors back into the world. Other cultures do. The IDF does. After WWII the long voyages home served a similar purpose. The Apache and Navajo, the Dayak and others all do. We don't. You can be on patrol in Baghdad in the morning. The next day you're in Chicago with no gear, no gun, no buddies and a bunch of random people running around.

Fourth, if you keep soldiers, cops or anyone else like this for too long they simply will not be safe to be around. Even the best can break under long-term stress. We aren't Rome which had some legions that stayed on the frontiers forever. The US Army and Marine Corps are not the Foreign Legion. If you go for optimum killers among your soldiers, let alone your police you will have thousands or tens of thousands who will never, ever be fit to have around normal people. You will create a legion of exiles and monsters. Are you sure it's a good idea to make this a job requirement for law enforcement?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 19, 2007)

You are assuming that a "cop shooting an innocent person" has intention there a bit arent you? Sometimes the "innocent person" presents all the signs of a legitimate threat and the cop reacts. A cop who murders someone intentionally should get full justice. If you are implying that a cop who mistakenly shoots an innocent person (runs from the cops, pulls a cell phone out of his pocket and points it like a gun at the cop for example) should fry, well I dont know if I agree with that.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 19, 2007)

Drac said:


> all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available was the overriding factor in weapon choice,
> 
> Researcher Davis , in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.


 
Good to see that the studies have confirmed that which has been stated all along.  Unfortuantely, most people are simply going to believe what Hollywood tells them, even if the facts are presented.  



> Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year, the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.


 
Not surprising at all.  Ask the urban area dispatchers, and they're constantly announcing "shots fired" in areas where such things are known to happen.  



> In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year.


 
Quite true...  Even worse, is that the qualification standards have notably dropped over the years, to the point where anyone who understands the fundamental of "don't flinch" can hit the target a reasonably good number of times already.   



> They practice getting the gun out and using it, Davis explained. They shoot for effect. Or as one of the offenders put it: [W]ere not working with no marksmanship.We just putting it in your direction, you know.It dont matteras long as its gonna hit youif its up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever.Once I squeeze and you fall, thenif I want to execute you, then I could go from there.


 
That certainly makes sense, that close range shooting, blasting away, eventually they're going to hit someone at that short distance.  



> More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)


 
I once had an interesting conversation with the late Darrell Mulroy (owned Plus P Inc) on rec.guns about this, and his information told a similar story, although it was closer to 20% for the good guys and closer to 80% for the bad guys, unfortunately.  While he and I often times had disagreements, this conversation was actually a pure statistic hunt on my part, and he was very pleasant and informative on this matter. 

Regardless of these differences, either set of stats show that the bad guys are going to be the ones who fire first, and that they often times catch the good guys off-guard.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 19, 2007)

When I was a soldier, we didnt shoot all that much either. Yearly qualifications, a lot of blanks during training and deployment of course, but its not like the average soldier is out burning up a lot of rounds either. I think that this and even the tueller drill is more about intention and initiative and less about tactical/technical skill. Id bet that many of these same cops, if they were going into a situation with their guns out and knowing they were going to shoot would show the same stats in their favor vs. the same bad guy.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 19, 2007)

tellner said:


> I see one really, _really,_ *really* bad result of this study which is pretty much inevitable. When a cop shoots an innocent person he will, not might, not could, but will skate. He will almost certainly not be indicted. If he is the case will almost never come to trial. And if it does the defense will pull out all the "thin blue line" stops. The chance of him getting convicted of anything is about the same as the tissue paper dog will of chasing the asbestos cat through Hell. His career might suffer a setback. He might lose his job quietly. But he will not see jail time unless it was a hit for the Mob or similar. That's just the way it is.
> 
> This study *will* be used in those few cases where a cop might be in danger of actually receiving justice. Friendly experts will cite it to show why it is important that police shoot first and don't bother to ask questions. Add it to "furtive movement" and "positional asphyxia" and "excited delerium". It won't work for you and me. It will work to make sure that Officer Friendly is never ever at risk of jail time or the needle as long as he wears a badge.
> 
> ...



You're bouncing between law enforcement and the military (which are very different), as well as multiple issues, I think, and I'm going to stick to one common theme in your post.

You seem to seriously distrust law enforcement, and assume that law enforcement officers are going to deliberately shoot an "innocent" person, and then cover it up.  I'm personally pretty offended by the presumptions that you're stating.  I'm a cop; I've been one for more than a few years now.  I've been close to shooting people, and thankfully haven't.  I know people who have.  Most cops don't ever want to shoot someone.  Most cops won't cover up illegal or outright wrong actions by other people with badges.  I won't say it will never happen -- but it's pretty rare, in reality.  I'll admit; few cops will give another officer a traffic ticket.  Guess what... I've given more breaks to non-LEOs than to LEOs in my career.

LEOs in the United States on the whole are doing an increasingly difficult and dangerous job, with decreasing public support for their role as a culture of moral relativism and different rules for different people seems to be taking hold.  We had a few glory days following 9/11, and we get others in the wake of tragedies...  but we're still the guys & gals who have to ruin the party and tell everyone to behave.  People don't like us. Not a problem; if we wanted to be loved, we'd have been firefighters (aka foundation savers).  Meanwhile, we're surrounded by a public and press that jumps on every failure (what other profession gets headlines like "Former police officer convicted of ..." without a clear disclaimer along the way that the "former" part was more than a decade ago, and had no relation to the offense?) and seeks to create new ones.  Even people who should know better apply 20/20 hindsight to a decision that an officer has to make under incredible stress in a split second; I've heard martial artists wonder why we can't just "restrain" people or why we have to use the levels of force we do based on the resistance we encounter.  And that's not even more than hinting at the whole "shoot to wound" crap.

Now, let's return to the original study...

Police officers encounter violence and violent situations much more often than most people -- but the people we find committing or creating those situations encounter them even more than the cops, from a much earlier age.  And they're much more willing to use force, up to and including deadly force, than even the cops.  (Wanna hear something really scary?  We have documented cases of gang members joining the military with the express purpose of learning military combat tactics and bring them back to the streets here.  Some get themselves discharged after receiving the training; others take their banging with them in the service -- and return to it on discharge.)  But what's more frightening to me in this study (I've read it several times; and I'm very familiar with the Force Science Institute and its work, though the study was done by the FBI.  It's even possible that Dr. Lewinski is a member of MT; he's a godan in Goju Kai Karate.) is that in a very large percentage of the cases -- the officers failed to notice cues that preceded the attack.  The bottom line, to me, of the study is simple.  The people that are trying to kill cops are practicing to be able to do so.  They're coming from backgrounds and environments that have enabled them to act more decisively than the officers trying to defend themselves, and they're more willing to do so.  And too many cops, for many reasons, aren't being prepared to deal with this; instead, we get more classes on "cultural sensitivity" and "defusing conflict" and being investigated if they use force to often, even if the force was clearly justified.  Did you know that the profile of the "average" officer killed hasn't changed much for many years?  They're several years into their career; they've got a reputation for being "nice" or avoiding force.  And this study reinforces that.

Then we get people who turn around and want to use a study about the people who attack cops as "proof" that cops are going to cover up when someone is wrong, rather than simply mistaken.


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2007)

Well, there were several issues here. To clarify:

1) The study will be used to to give police even more _carte blanche_ when they shoot people. Yes, the job can be dangerous, although not nearly as dangerous as construction work. But when they screw up, they skate, and they do it on grounds that would not fly for anyone else. This will simply add to the constellation of excuses.

2) The second part was addressing the "On Killing" aspects. There are consequences, bad ones, for being disinhibited to killing. The longer it goes on the worse they are. It's bad enough for a soldier who isn't likely to be fighting for more than a couple years. If you extend the mindset and the pathological aspects to civilian law enforcement it will be a disaster on several levels.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 19, 2007)

tellner said:


> Well, there were several issues here. To clarify:
> 
> 1) The study will be used to to give police even more _carte blanche_ when they shoot people. Yes, the job can be dangerous, although not nearly as dangerous as construction work. But when they screw up, they skate, and they do it on grounds that would not fly for anyone else. This will simply add to the constellation of excuses.


 

Whenever some internet windbag starts making proclamations with so many "WILLS" in it I call:

:bs1: 


All the signs of a cop hater. Broad brushing, assuming the worst of them, the characteristic "construction workers have a more dangerous job" shot (yeah but theres a difference in risking your life in public service from risking your life as a 7-11 clerk, fisherman ec.).


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2007)

I wish it were BS, but take a look at the facts. Cops simply do not get charged when they shoot "civilians" accidentally. Looking at the three largest cities around here - Portland, Seattle and Spokane - the records show that not one police officer or sheriff's deputy has even been indicted for shooting anyone in the last twenty years. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. These are progressive cities with strong community policing policies and supposedly strong oversight.

It's close enough to true that it's not hyperbole. The Boys in Blue protect their own. The prosecutors don't tend to prosecute. Juries won't convict. It's down to a routine.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 19, 2007)

tellner said:


> I wish it were BS, but take a look at the facts. Cops simply do not get charged when they shoot "civilians" accidentally. Looking at the three largest cities around here - Portland, Seattle and Spokane - the records show that not one police officer or sheriff's deputy has even been indicted for shooting anyone in the last twenty years. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. These are progressive cities with strong community policing policies and supposedly strong oversight.
> 
> It's close enough to true that it's not hyperbole. The Boys in Blue protect their own. The prosecutors don't tend to prosecute. Juries won't convict. It's down to a routine.



It couldn't possibly be that there hasn't been a bad shooting, right?  Not one recognized through the wonders of 20/20 hindsight to have been bad -- but one where the subjective situation wouldn't and shouldn't have led an officer to decide to shoot.  There are tons of police shootings that are not perfect; I can think of several in the last few years alone.  But there are very few where the circumstances are so bad that they rise to supportable criminal charges.  That's a different situation...  Often, in the cases that don't rise to criminal charges -- the officer or officers involved receive significant departmental sanctions.  For example, http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/pdf/community-report-salvatore-culosi.pdf  should (if all works correctly) link you to a report describing the events that led to a shooting in Fairfax County, VA.  You can also find extensive press coverage of an off-duty shooting in Alexandria, VA last year.  In both cases, the officers's conduct was determined not to rise to criminal action -- but did result in serious internal or departmental discipline.  The outcome of civil cases in both incidents has yet to be determined. 

In other cases, no matter what the press or activists may think, the police did nothing wrong.  They acted to defend themselves against an attack that was likely to cause themselves or someone else serious bodily harm or death.  Activists and reporters are quick to jump on issues like "he only had a knife/stick" or "it was a toy gun"; in the split second of the officer's decision to shoot, that toy was real.  You don't want a cop to shoot you -- don't point things that look like guns at people.  (I trust that the fallacy of the "only a knife/baseball bat/stick" need not be addressed in this forum.)

They're also quick to throw up the "blue wall of silence" line -- even though they seem to conveniently overlook the simple fact that most cases of police corruption are discovered when they are reported by other officers.  Few law enforcement officers will countenance a criminal having a badge willingly...

Let me issue a simple challenge to you that may serve to enlighten you.  I checked Portland's Police Department website.  It appears that they may run a "Citizen's Academy"; so do many other police departments.  These programs are designed to show the public how the police department works; they frequently include tours of facilities, and often an opportunity to "try your hand" in a firearms simulator.  (There are also private facilities with the same sorts of simulators available, at a cost to you.  Most Citizen's Academies are free.)  Give it a shot; attend the academy.  See if just maybe a chance to try one of those simulators helps you understand where an officer is coming from.  If nothing else...  You'll acquire more information to support your views of law enforcement.


----------



## Drac (Mar 19, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Let me issue a simple challenge to you that may serve to enlighten you. I checked Portland's Police Department website. It appears that they may run a "Citizen's Academy"; so do many other police departments. These programs are designed to show the public how the police department works; they frequently include tours of facilities, and often an opportunity to "try your hand" in a firearms simulator. (There are also private facilities with the same sorts of simulators available, at a cost to you. Most Citizen's Academies are free.) Give it a shot; attend the academy. See if just maybe a chance to try one of those simulators helps you understand where an officer is coming from. If nothing else... You'll acquire more information to support your views of law enforcement.


 
Yes,absolutely..Preferably one with the Shoot Don't Shoot system..


----------

