The "War On Cops" That Isn't

[urbanlibertarian]

From reason.com's Radley Balko:

Between January 20 and January 25, 13 police officers were shot in the U.S., five of them fatally. Two officers in St. Petersburg, Florida, were killed while trying to arrest a suspect accused of aggravated battery. Two more were killed in Miami while trying to arrest a suspected murderer. An officer in Oregon was seriously wounded and another in Indiana was killed after they were shot during routine traffic stops. In another incident, four officers were injured in Detroit when a man about to be charged in a murder investigation walked into a police station and opened fire.

Some police advocates drew unsupported conclusions from this rash of attacks, claiming they were tied to rising anti-police sentiment, anti-government protest, or a lack of adequate gun control laws. Some media outlets were also quick to draw connections between these unrelated shootings. While these incidents were tragic, the ensuing alarmism threatens to stifle some much-needed debate about police tactics, police misconduct, and police accountability.

In a January interview with NPR, Jon Shane, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the shootings "follow some bit of a larger trend in the United States," which he described as an "overriding sense of entitlement and ‘don't tread on me.' " Craig W. Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, told UPI, "It's a very troubling trend where officers are being put at greater risk than ever before." UPI reported that several police leaders thought the shootings "reflected a broader lack of respect for authority."

Richard Roberts, spokesman for the International Union of Police Associations, told MSNBC, "It's not a fluke.…There's a perception among officers in the field that there's a war on cops going on." Smith County, Texas, Sheriff J.B. Smith told Tyler's KLTV-TV, "I think it's a hundred times more likely today that an officer will be assaulted compared to 20, 30 years ago. It has become one of the most hazardous jobs in the United States, undoubtedlyâ€"in the top five."

During his interview with Shane, NPR host Michael Martin linked the shootings to the availability of guns. And Salon's Amy Steinberg, describing the crimes as "a disturbing trend," wrote that they demonstrated "an increasingly pressing need to revisit the conversation on gun control."

Dig into these articles, and you'll find no real evidence of an increase in anti-police violence, let alone one that can be traced to anti-police rhetoric, gun sales, disrespect for authority, or "don't tread on me" sentiment. Amid all the quotes from concerned law enforcement officials in MSNBC's "War on Cops" article, for example, was a casual mention that police fatality statistics for January 2011 were about the same as they were in January 2010. Right after suggesting to NPR that the recent attacks were related to anti-government rhetoric, Shane acknowledged there has been little research into the underlying causes of police shootings.

In fact, the number of on-the-job police fatalities has dropped nearly 50 percent in the last two decades, even as the total number of cops has doubled. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 279 cops were killed on the job in 1974, the worst year on record. That number steadily decreased to just 116 in 2009.

The leading cause of death for cops on duty is car accidents, not violence. For the last several years, the number of officers intentionally killed on the job each year has ranged from 45 to 60, out of about 850,000 cops on the beat. (The latter number is from the Fraternal Order of Police; other estimates put the number as low as 550,000.) Contrary to Sheriff Smith's claim, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that policing isn't among the 10 most dangerous occupations in the country, let alone "the top five," even if you include traffic accidents.

Whole article here: http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/26/the-war-on-cops-that-isnt

[buckethead]

No evidence is needed when engaging a campaign against the second amendment. Any wild speculation or emotional gobblygook will suffice in it's stead.

[ChriswUfGator]

I pointed out the statistics in this article to NotNow a year ago and as I recall was called a liar. Oops!

[NotNow]

I pointed out the statistics in this article to NotNow a year ago and as I recall was called a liar. Oops!

I don't recall that.  Can you provide the quote?

[ChriswUfGator]

I pointed out the statistics in this article to NotNow a year ago and as I recall was called a liar. Oops!

I don't recall that.  Can you provide the quote?

I went looking for it this morning, intending to quote it, but we got into so many different arguments in so many threads over JSO's apparent abuse of police power that it became a herculean undertaking to try and find what thread and which debate it was. I'd thought it was in the Kiko Battles thread but after reading through most of it I couldn't find it. You know me well enough to know I don't take cop outs (excuse the pun) but I honestly can't remember where the hell that is.

But I do distinctly recall you claiming as one of your justicifcations for JSO's relatively liberal use of deadly-force policy that violence against police officers was escalating, officers have the right to self-defense, etc., etc., etc., and you claiming I was wrong for saying the contrary and posting numbers showing cop killings going up. I remember having this debate with you, but I just can't find it. I don't think you "pulled a Tufsu" and deleted anything, I just suck at using the search feature. Stephen knows how to work that thing, maybe he can help out.

[NotNow]

Perhaps he can.  Would you like to modify your statement until then?

[NotNow]

Still waiting...

[tufsu1]

I don't think you "pulled a Tufsu" and deleted anything, I just suck at using the search feature. Stephen knows how to work that thing, maybe he can help out.

me too NotNow...Chris continually accuses me of deleting past posts...oif course I've never done that...and pretty much never go back and search archived threads...perhaps because I also suck at using the search feature.

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't think you "pulled a Tufsu" and deleted anything, I just suck at using the search feature. Stephen knows how to work that thing, maybe he can help out.

me too NotNow...Chris continually accuses me of deleting past posts...oif course I've never done that...and pretty much never go back and search archived threads...perhaps because I also suck at using the search feature.

Yes, you did do that...

[Kiva]

Is this a private feud, or can anyone jump in?
I've seen several rankings of most dangerous jobs, and police officer is not in the top 5. Fisherman, yes, construction worker, yes, police, no.
I appreciate the work that police do, but the "we're in the most dangerous job" bit is not borne out by statistics.

[NotNow]

Anyone can jump in, thanks Kiva.  Police Officer is not a "top ten dangerous job".  I never said it was.  The dispute here is that Chris is putting words in my mouth that I never said.  Now, I don't think Chris is "making it up", I just think that is the way he remembers it.  I am reminding him that he is mistaken...and simply waiting for him to acknowledge that fact.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well it certainly sounds like you were giving that impression posting articles like this;

Research?  There is a lot of research available:

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/




=======================================

I. NEW FINDINGS FROM FBI ABOUT COP ATTACKERS & THEIR WEAPONS

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:

â€"show signs of being armed that officers miss;

â€"have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;

â€"practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;

â€"have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. “If you hesitate,” one told the study’s researchers, “you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”

These and other weapons-related findings comprise one chapter in a 180-page research summary called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” 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’s Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.

“Violent Encounters” 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 “very challenging and insightfulâ€"important work that only a handful of gifted and experienced researchers could accomplish.”

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 “was the overriding factor in weapon choice,” the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.”

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 lawâ€"federal, state or localâ€"that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”

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 “most of the time.” Gang members especially started young.

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.”

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

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 “may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills,” 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 “street combat veterans,” all from “inner-city, drug-trafficking environments,” had taken part in 5 or more “criminal firefight experiences” in their lifetime.

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

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, “most often a female companion.” 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 mattressâ€"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’ earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and ’90s.

According to Davis, “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.”

On the street, however, both male and female officers too often regard female subjects “as less of a threat, assuming that they not going to have a gun,” Davis said. In truth, the researchers concluded that more female offenders are armed today than 20 years agoâ€"”not just female gang associates, but female offenders generally.”

SHOOTING STYLE.

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

“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.”

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, “10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers.”

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.

“Officers should look for unnatural protrusions or bulges in the waist, back and crotch areas,” the study says, and watch for “shirts that appear rippled or wavy on one side of the body while the fabric on the other side appears smooth.” In warm weather, multilayered clothing inappropriate to the temperature may be a giveaway. On cold or rainy days, a subject’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 “to assure themselves that it is still hidden, secure and accessible” and hasn’t shifted. Such gestures are especially noticeable “whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting or exiting a vehicle.” 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 “do the same in encounters with LEOs to ensure concealment and easy access.”

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. “But then when they go back to the street without that specific assignment, they seem to ‘turn off’ that skill,” and thus are startledâ€"sometimes fatallyâ€"when a suspect suddenly produces a weapon and attacks.

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.

The offenders were of a different mind-set entirely. In fact, Davis said the study team “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’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.”

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

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

One more time, just to drive the point home;

â€"have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. “If you hesitate,” one told the study’s researchers, “you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”

[NotNow]

So, what is your point?  

You DO realize that quote is from the KILLER of a Police Officer don't you?

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

â€"show signs of being armed that officers miss;

â€"have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;

â€"practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;

â€"have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. “If you hesitate,” one told the study’s researchers, “you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”

It appears I was providing research information.  Now, because you don't like what the research says, you put words in my mouth?  You said I called you a liar over this issue.  I disagree and have simply asked you to prove your statement to be true.  Is that too much to ask?


Geez, Chris!

[ChriswUfGator]

Well I still can't find the conversation I was thinking of, but it's been awhile, maybe I misremembered. I guess I may have been wrong. It happened once in 1986, so I guess I was about due for another. Kidding. In all seriousness, though, I would have sworn we had this debate awhile ago, I can't find it.

About the article, the impression it gives you is that violence against cops is some epidemic, and it's actually been steadily declining.

[NotNow]

I appreciate the retraction. 

The article is clearly about those that attack Officers and the weapons that they use.  While police work is not as dangerous as say, coal mining, it is still a dangerous occupation.  Proper training and equipment has reduced injuries of both Officers and suspects, so studies such as these are important to Officers for professional reasons.