No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 5/19/2006
From Force Science Research Center:
(I had hoped simply to provide a link to this newsletter but it, after
one week, it has not yet been posted at the FSRC website.)
Force Science News #44
May 12, 2006
=======================================
The Force Science News is provided by The Force Science Research Center,
a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free,
direct-delivery subscription, please visit www.forcesciencenews.com and
click on the registration button. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
[email protected].
=======================================
In this issue:
I. 3 BATTLES: TOP CHALLENGES FOR DEADLY FORCE TRAINERS
II. REMINDER: USE-OF-FORCE TAPES & E-JOURNAL ARTICLES STILL NEEDED
III. A BOW OF GRATITUDE
=======================================
I. 3 BATTLES: TOP CHALLENGES FOR DEADLY FORCE TRAINERS
What does it take to train today's officers to face deadly force
successfully?
A panel of nearly a dozen experts spent almost 4 hours voicing opinions
on that topic at the recent annual conference of the International Law
Enforcement Educators & Trainers Assn. (ILEETA). But the bottom line was
neatly capsulized in a matter of seconds by one of the group.
Trainers need to prepare officers to win 3 battles, said Randy Revling,
firearms instructor and coordinator of the basic LE and corrections
academies at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in Green Bay:
--the battle in an officer's own mind
--the battle on the street, and
--the legal battle that comes after a lethal-force encounter.
In probing the current challenges of this complex mission, the panelists
stirred a multitude of formidable questions, including:
--is it possible to develop excellence in any of these areas, given the
population entering LE today?
--are officers more afraid of being sued than they are of being murdered?
--are they making any better street decisions now than they were 30
years ago?
--are trainers realistically bringing the street to the range...or
trying unrealistically to impose the range on the street?
--is training getting "too militaristic and muzzle-heavy"?
--how much risk of financial ruin do officers really face in court?
Using Revling's "3 battles" as a structure, here's how the experts
addressed those and other provocative issues.
BATTLE OF THE MIND. What this battle hinges on, Revling explained, is a
trainer's ability to overcome an officer's "initial resistance to
destroying the species"--in other words, getting the trainee
psychologically willing to shoot another human being--so he or she can
deliver deadly force when it's demanded.
These days, several panelists agreed, that type of resistance can
constitute a formidable mental roadblock.
"We're seeing a greater number of people [in law enforcement] who are
not inclined to use force," stated Tom Aveni, co-founder of the Police
Policy Studies Council and a member the Force Science Research Center's
national advisory board.
Indeed, said retired NYPD sergeant Phil Messina, head of the Modern
Warrior(r) Inc. training organization, in reviewing tapes of deadly
force encounters, one frequently sees "prey behavior"-fateful
submission-on the part of officers who are under attack from human
predators. The officer who needs to display so-called warrior traits in
order to survive "all of a sudden is a civil servant who is more
concerned about what he's not supposed to do than he is with protecting
himself."
If, as a trainer, you produce merely "social workers with a firearm" who
don't accept that using deadly force may be a critical part of their
job, "you've got a problem," declared Jeff Chudwin, a suburban police
chief, a former prosecutor and president of the Illinois Tactical
Officers Assn. "We need fighters we can train to act like social
workers" when that skill-set is needed but who understand the
distinction between "talking at the right time and fighting at the right
time."
The brutal truth is that "there are violent offenders whose actions must
be stopped, by shooting if necessary, or they will continue to do evil
deeds to innocent people who will suffer and die," Chudwin said.
Besides cultivating the commitment to use proper force decisively,
Messina believes trainers need to instill a mind-set that makes an
officer "always more afraid of losing [a deadly force encounter] than he
is of dying," so he'll keep fighting until he wins.
Motivating officers to win is superior to training them just to survive,
some panelists emphasized. "There's a difference between surviving and
prevailing," pointed out Chuck Soltys, a federal agent and
firearms/tactical survival trainer based in Chicago. Officers need to
come out of life-threatening clashes not just alive but sufficiently intact
physically, emotionally and legally "that after the event they have a
quality of life worth surviving for."
BATTLE OF THE STREET. For greater officer safety and public safety
alike, today's training for the street needs to be more realistic,
incorporate more of the breakthrough findings of the Force Science
Research Center (FSRC), and place more emphasis on good decision-making,
the panelists concluded.
In Chudwin's words, "We have to start bringing the street to the range
and stop trying to bring the range to the street." Too many agencies, in
his opinion, still "put holes in paper and say an officer is qualified.
Qualified to do what? Put holes in the next piece of paper he encounters!"
"We need to create and train in the same adverse environments that
officers face on duty," said Revling, whose college is a strategic
partner of FSRC. Messina concurred. "If we see a lot of vehicles in
tapes where cops are killed, why not a vehicle in the training area?"
Messina asked. "If it's raining, why not rain? If cops are dying in
living rooms, build a fake living room. That's part of my job as a trainer."
Revling added: "Once we know how to kick, why continue kicking blue
bags? Start kicking people [protected by Redman gear, for example]. Once
we've shot paper targets to the point of proficiency, why not shoot
people [with marking cartridges]?"
He stressed the importance of "validating what we do as trainers. Is it
having a measurable effect on the street? He s
We should have no interest in doing anything that does not work, no
interest in just creating tools for the toolbox. We should strive for
100 per cent accountability."
Quoting Ken Murray, an advocate of realistic training, a member of
FSRC's Technical Advisory Board and author of the relevant book
"Training at the Speed of Life," Aveni charged that law enforcement
spends "so much time teaching people how to shoot and so little time
teaching them how to think." In fact, Aveni declared, "I'm not convinced
we're training officers to make any better decisions today than we did
20 to 30 years ago."
Before Tennessee v. Garner, for example, the ACLU claimed that roughly 1
in 4 of the people shot by police were "not armed and not assaultive
when shot." Aveni's current research, he says, shows that this
percentage of "mistake-of-fact shootings" remains about the same today.
"Unless there is more emphasis by trainers on how to make valid
decisions under stress, we are going to find more and more cops accused
of questionable shootings," Aveni predicted.
He expressed some personal concern that training is overemphasizing
"extreme equipment and tactics," becoming "a little too aggressive,"
"muzzle-heavy" and "militaristic" in the process. He cited "SWAT tactics
being pressed down on street officers." (A member of the audience from
Arizona reported that in his area there is pressure to teach SWAT
techniques even to Explorer Scouts.)
Soltys took issue with Aveni on this point. He said he considers it "a
positive that SWAT tactics are trickling down to the street level" and
believes the process "needs to be ratcheted up, based on the
demonstrated skill level of individual officers." He pointed out that
departments are gravitating to advanced equipment like the patrol rifle
"because of what they are seeing on the street. The officers I encounter
are capable of carrying this weapon and to make the right decisions
about using it."
Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the FSRC at Minnesota State
University-Mankato, underscored the importance of enhancing
decision-making training and expressed the hope that the Center's
on-going research will continue to reveal valuable new insights about
human performance under stress that will help strengthen and focus law
enforcement instruction.
Lewinski mentioned several studies currently in progress or soon to
begin under Center auspices that promise to have potentially profound
training implications, including:
--a 2-year "hit probability" study, relating to shooting accuracy under
various conditions; what works, what doesn't and how to improve
performance.
--an EEG study in London that will identify brain processes involved in
tunnel vision and tunnel hearing.
--a study of perception and memory that will also incorporate brain data
collected via EEG readings.
--a study aimed at evaluating and improving strategies for conducting
cognitive interview of officers after lethal-force encounters.
--continuing studies on psycholinguistics, specifically the command
styles officers use in high-stress situations, their impact and how to
make them more effective.
Several panelists expressed appreciation for the Center's efforts at
"debunking myths" and providing "science that is going to help us" and
reminded trainers that the challenge they face is not only to be aware
of FSRC's findings but to consciously integrate them into their training
programs.
BATTLE OF THE AFTERMATH. In any deadly force encounter "you want to stay
out of court if you can," said Chudwin, "but a greater imperative is to
stay out of the ground, not be killed." Regrettably, he believes, many
officers are "more afraid of being sued than of being murdered," and
this unacceptable mind-set is something trainers must work to change.
Fear of legal consequences, Revling added, "must to be resolved before
an officer goes on the street so he doesn't hesitate" when he needs to
save his life.
During his career as both a prosecutor and a police chief, Chudwin said
he has not known officers to actually lose anything in court "except
peace of mind and tranquility." At a shooting scene, he reassures
surviving officers that they "aren't going to lose your house" and can,
in fact, cope ably with legal consequences. Keeping them "fully
informed" through the process so they "don't feel like just one more
piece of meat" is crucial.
The need for legal counsel to guide an officer through the aftermath of
a critical incident cannot be emphasized enough. Soltys recommended that
officers have an attorney who "specializes in representing officers
involved in shootings" lined up before they get involved in one. "He
should be on speed dial on your cell phone and he should be one of the
first calls you make" after a lethal encounter. "Searching for this kind
of legal specialist after the fact can be extremely difficult and can
leave an officer very vulnerable."
An officer should be cautious about what he says at the scene, Soltys
advised. "It's common to seek peer approval, to ask your buddies if you
did the right thing. You may say emotional things that could come back
to haunt you later." Best to say little and get off the scene as quickly
as possible, preferably to a medical facility to check for injuries and
monitor vital signs that will likely be abnormally high due to the stress
of the incident.
Certainly, Soltys stressed, do not talk to the media, which is capable
of "unbelievable distortion" and can make a justified shooting "look
like something completely different."
Soltys points out that some department shooting investigation policies
mandate that officers give a statement within a specified time period
after the incident and do not allow the involved officer(s) adequate
time to settle down and clearly articulate the facts and circumstances.
Use of proper vocabulary is important and is another reason why involved
officers should seek legal guidance before giving their statement.
If pressed to provide an official statement sooner than you're
comfortable, Soltys said, "the first sentence out of your mouth should
be that you are giving this statement under duress and against your will
and that you have not yet had a chance to consult with counsel." To help
remind its personnel of proper procedures that may otherwise be
overlooked or compromised under stress, his agency issues plasticized
wallet cards advising step by step how to maneuver the post-shooting
protocol.
Officers need to understand that "even if they did everything right, a
jury is not always going to agree with them," said panelist Laura
Scarry, a cop-turned-attorney in Chicago who specializes in representing
officers.
She cited a harrowing recent case in which officers were sued after
shooting an EDP who charged at them with a fireman's axe raised over his
head. Even the plaintiff's expert witness agreed the shooting was
justified, Scarry said. Yet the jury found the police liable for
$425,000 in damages.
Although the officers were not personally assessed, the injustice of
this "justice" was hard to take psychologically. "Once you put a case in
the hands of a jury, you never know what you're going to get," Scarry
declared. "I'm still trying to get to the point where I have a great
amount of faith in the jury system."
Massad Ayoob, the noted firearms trainer and author who chaired the
ILEETA panel, suggested that in hopes of positively impacting the legal
aftermath of force incidents in the future, trainers should share what
they learn at LE conferences with their local prosecutors and judges.
Offer to make presentations on FSRC's research findings and concepts
like the Tueller Drill (the basis for the legendary 21-foot rule in
defense against edged-weapon attacks) to further "their continuing legal
education," he proposed.
IS EXCELLENCE POSSIBLE? During the Q & A period after the panel's
presentation, a trainer in the audience observed that "the dumbing down
of America" was producing police recruits in whom it is becoming "harder
and harder to invoke the warrior spirit." How is excellence in training
possible, given the poor quality trainees he perceived nowadays?
Panelist Vance McLaughlin, a subject control expert from Georgia, agreed
that the problem is a perplexing one. "No one can train some of these
people to the level that we need," he said. "We know the type of people
who should be selected [for academy enrollment] but there isn't the
political will to do it. We have physical tests, written tests-but no
one can fail them. When you hire criminals to be police officers, there
are going to be problems."
Out of one recent class of 12 recruits, McLaughlin said, 3 came to him
and asked, "How can I get a real job?" These people are headed toward a
career in law enforcement "and they don't even want to be on the job!"
Another panelist, Atty. Adam Kasanof of Arlington, VA, formerly a
lieutenant and trainer with the NYPD Academy and author of the new book
"How to Be an Expert Witness," suggested that in most LE agencies,
generally only a small percentage of recruits are unsatisfactory. But he
agreed that "often they don't get thrown out." The fault, he says, lies
with a reluctance to discipline or to fire.
"One thing that replaces real discipline is monitoring programs," he
said. "There is a point at which you have to retrain, discipline or
fire" people performing poorly, "not just generate endless amounts of
paper showing how bad they are.
"If you get rid of the lowest performers, you find out that people
farther up on the scale get a lot better. If you're going to have
quality people, the commitment to change has to start at the highest level."
[NOTE: We're interested in what you have to say. Do you agree with views
expressed by the ILEETA panelists? What thoughts do you have about
today's training environment? Let us know at:
[email protected].
We'll print a cross-section of responses in a future edition of Force
Science News.]
II. REMINDER: USE-OF-FORCE TAPES & E-JOURNAL ARTICLES STILL NEEDED
To help with new research on the effect of commands on dangerous
subjects, the Force Science Research Center needs videotapes, CDs, DVDs
and audiotapes of violent or potentially violent street encounters
between officers and offenders. Please send us any that you may have in
which commands and other dialog can be understood for our analysis.
These will be used for research purposes only. Officers and their
agencies will not be identified.
Send to: Dr. Bill Lewinski, Force Science Research Center, Minnesota
State University, 109 Morris Hall, Mankato, MN 56001.
Also please remember that we are looking for papers for the Force
Science E-Journal, FSRC's on-line, peer-reviewed compendium of research
articles related to the human factors in use of force by line officers.
Whether you're a police professional or an academic, we'd like to
consider your research undertakings.
For preparation and submission guidelines, go to:
www.forcescience.org/e-journal
Your findings may be vital to helping save officers' lives in the future.
Thanks for your help!
III. ONE MORE BOW OF GRATITUDE
In the last transmission of Force Science News [#43, 4/28/06], in which
we reported on new research from FSRC on verbal commands during violent
and nonviolent encounters, we inadvertently neglected to mention one of
our research partners when we thanked various police agencies for their
assistance.
Chief Wade Setter of the Brooklyn Park (MN) PD also provided excellent
help by permitting researchers to respond with his patrol officers to a
wide variety of situations. To all who helped with these important
studies, our deep gratitude.
================
(c) 2006: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints
allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
[email protected]. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of
The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at
Minnesota State University, Mankato.
================
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
