FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...


Line-of-Duty Deaths: Managing Risk

Six months into 2011, the body count keeps climbing, but better tactics, training, and equipment can save police lives.

August 12, 2011  |  by - Also by this author

Maybe in the near future human police officers will be joined by robot cops who will make all dangerous contacts. But until these mechanized marshals make their debut, flesh-and-blood officers will continue to bear the brunt of the day-to-day load, with officer safety the focal point of their profession.

Every officer knows going in that police work can be hazardous to one's health. Officers make a conscious decision to assume that risk. The question arising now in what has become an extraordinarily violent year for badged personnel is: how to manage that risk.

It's not as though an officer has little say in his own safety. He dictates the degree of his initiative in field stops. She decides whether or not to wear a seat belt. And data suggest that officers are acting on that discretion, with traffic-related police deaths down for the first six months of the year.

But the drop in vehicular-related fatalities has been offset by a corresponding rise in the number of felonious killings of officers by firearms. Police murders have reached a 20-year high.

Despite these alarming statistics, crime experts point out that the rash of police murders and assaults this year is very small compared to the body count inflicted on cops during the late 1960s and early 1970s. That's absolutely true. But that era's law enforcement blood bath led to the adoption of better police tactics, more comprehensive police training, and the adoption of ballistic armor as standard police equipment. The result was a marked drop in police line-of-duty deaths.

So just because law enforcement officers are not being killed at the rate they once were 40 years ago, does not mean that they are any less likely to be assaulted by suspects who possess the intent to kill. One might reasonably ask if in the absence of the aforementioned improvements the numbers of officers killed in this day and age wouldn't be substantially higher than the epochal levels of the early 1970s.

Given what appears to be a war against law enforcement, what else can be done to improve the profession's odds of ensuring its personnel get home at shift's end?

Better Bullet-Proofing

In 2003, the deterioration of the Zylon material in Officer Tony Zeppetella's vest allowed a suspect's bullet to pass through and sever his carotid artery. Severely incapacitated and unable to escape for cover, the Oceanside, Calif., officer was shot 12 more times and died.

This tragedy proved a major catalyst for change in ballistic wear. Not only has Zylon been banned from use in the manufacture of body armor. The National Institute for Justice (NIJ), which certifies police armor, has also substantially upgraded its testing regimen partially because of the Zylon

The NIJ says its new testing standard has vastly improved the durability of today's top line ballistic and knife-resistant body armor. But availing cops a better vest is only half the battle. Getting them to wear them is the other half.

Mandating Vest Wear

The life of Jacksonville (Fla.) Sheriff's Office Detective Jared Reston was saved when his ABA Xtreme XT body armor stopped three rounds fired by a suspect in 2008. One of the rounds center-punched its steel plate, and two other rounds would have proven fatal in the vest's absence. But despite his well-publicized example, Reston notes that some veteran officers on his department still won't wear armor.

Excuses for not wearing a vest are many. The weather card is played in particularly hot (Arizona) or humid (Louisiana) climates where larger percentages of officers routinely forego wearing their body armor. And some officers resent the "bulky" appearance body armor gives them. Others resent the prospect of having to buy their own armor and probably wouldn't hesitate to point out Zeppetella's tragic incident for justification: He bought his own and look what it got him.

Such attitudes find Charlotte-Mecklenburg Chief Rodney Monroe contemplating a policy that makes it mandatory for all of his North Carolina agency's street-level officers to wear ballistic body armor.

"We are probably a step away from doing that even though I know there are some people who will argue against that, especially some of our more senior officers," Monroe acknowledged to the Charlotte Observer.

With the Justice Department threatening to withhold millions of dollars in federal aid to local police departments unless they adopt policies that require uniformed officers to wear body armor, many chiefs may be forced to follow Monroe's example whether they like it or not. Starting last April, local police applying for federal funding of body armor are now required to mandate their officers wear vests or forego federal assistance for buying them.

In a USA Today article, Jim Burch, acting director of the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance, defended the policy as neither Draconian nor arbitrary, but a reasonable response to the recent surge in fatal shootings of police officers. Studies have determined that 41 percent of police agencies do not require their officers to wear body armor, and the Justice Department feels that its hand has been forced. In 2010, the federal government distributed $37 million to reimburse 4,127 law enforcement agencies for the purchase of 193,259 vests. Given that investment, the Justice Department's stance is that an agency's cops better wear the vests if the taxpayers buy them.

Comments (4)

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

Morning Eagle @ 8/15/2011 11:26 PM

Take it from an old Trooper that served through the turbulent 60's and 70's Dean referred to in this very timely article, anyone serving today that will not take advantage of the technological innovations to enhance officer safety is beyond being merely foolish. We didn't even have ballistic vests that could be worn under the uniform shirt until the early 70's. So what if they are uncomfortable in hot weather or make you look “bulky” - would you rather be dead? Any hesitancy to wear the vest because it might indicate you are afraid or because some of your peers might be stupid enough to laugh at you is inexcusable. I have always been against more federal control of state, county and local departments but in the case of the body armor being funded at least in part by the DOJ, it is understandable that they expect it to be worn. Trouble with that is department heads should not sit around waiting to be told what to do by the feds. Take the responsibility of caring about the safety of your officers and don’t wait for the feds to do it for you. Or would you rather preside over the funeral of an officer that could have been saved by wearing that hot vest against his will but because you ordered him or her to? Lead or get out of the way.

Any person that cannot make up their mind before ever accepting a commission to unhesitatingly use justifiable deadly force is in the wrong profession. Simple as that and it is a potential disservice to fellow officers that might need assistance in a deadly situation. If you are being assaulted by someone that tries to take your service weapon then pulls a knife (considered to be a deadly weapon by the way) and starts slashing you and those attempting to assist you, that is a definite clue it is past TAZER time, it is deadly force time. Put him down and out as much for yourself as for anyone that will have to confront that subject after the courts or parole boards turn him loose on society again. You know they will.

Davesam25G @ 8/16/2011 12:07 AM

Excellent-Very well done indeed...We have come a long way from the 70's W/Gun and my first book read was the patrol operation by IACP 1970 - Then Officer Down Code Three - "The Ten Deadly Sins" hard read on a 6pm to 6am but time was there and damn near read the whole book in one night a hard to put down, by LAPD Detective Pierce Brooks - major factor in development of VICAP also!! I rather be hot and alive... And I might add don't allow the Politically correct syndrome hit you... I am concerned with the current climate in (Both Media and Citizen Concerns many times unfounded and based on emotions vice fact)...May cause hesitation when action is needed and the results to officer could be far-reaching up major injuries and or death. Thank You Sgt Dean Scoville.

Jim-Bob @ 8/16/2011 3:27 PM

Chief Monroe - don't contemplate mandating body armor - JUST DO IT! Other than environmental reasons (which still don't make it right), you have NO excuse to not wear body armor. And if you have that much of an "oh well" attitude, get the hell out of law enforcement! I don't want that attitude backing up me or one of my guys and gals.
Attitude is everything to staying alive today, as our society once again starts its slide back into the volcano. All of you young guys need to become more prepared (not just tactically but just as importantly, MENTALLY prepared) for what you face out there, not just buying more toys.
From one of the old(er) dogs who is still kicking and fighting, STAY SAFE (and wear that damn vest)!

Ima Leprechaun @ 8/16/2011 11:24 PM

There are some things you can do but there is no way to be prepared for every possible contingent while working the street. A vest is nice but in extreme heat climates that vest is just as dangerous to have on as off. I prefer the option of wearing one rather than a departmental requirement based on the following statement "You will always wear your vest because we bought it for you and we don't care how hot it gets outside." I have had some dangerous staph infections caused by vest rashes. I would wear it until the vest is more of a threat than a bullet. Administrations and some cops have no understanding of this. God made me hairy and I can't help it I get a greenhouse effect under my vest. Cool shirts don't work either I have tried them all. I will bet that anyone that doesn't understand this has never had a staph infection from a vest rash or is an administrator.

Also If one Cop dies that is one too many. I don't care if it was statistically more dangerous in the 1960's because its pretty darn dangerous now too. Something is going terribly wrong in the last few years and it appears to be in Basic Officer Training. Ethical Police Behavioral Training seems to be lacking these days.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

Hurricane Response: Weathering the Storm
By the time Florence blew into Wilmington, a city of around 100,000 people, she was much...
Police Supporters
This holiday season you should know that most Americans support you and respect you.
Flying Cross: External Carrier Compatible Outerwear
How do you create outerwear that protects officers from the elements in all types of...

Police Magazine