Interesting FBI Report

[OBIWAN]

New Findings From FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons
From Force Science News provided by The Force Science Research Center.

NOTE- The research is into officer shootings, but I think some of the data is worth taking to heart. I see a lot of posts by CCW holders that seem to think that a gunfight will be something out of an old wester and/or the bad guy will be so inept that they (armed citizen)can't lose- the emphasis is mine sine the article is so long



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 “street combat” than their intended victims; --practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately; --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 insightful--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 law--federal, state or local--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 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’ earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and ’90s.

[OBIWAN]

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 ago--“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 startled--sometimes fatally--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.”

[natjohnb]

thanks for the post OBIWAN- very good article...never, ever underestimate the BG

[Trip20]

Here's another thread (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238844) on this with a link to a review of the study.

[BlueTrain]

Thought provoking, to say the least. Some of the information is very useful. Here are some of the points I picked out.

1. Have a gun. People here say it so often that it's a joke but it should be obvious. Note how the bad guys always have one handy.

2. The gun and caliber doen't matter as much as people here, including myself, seem to think, although some are better than others. I doubt if many .22 rimfires are used.

3. Only hits count. Not just center of mass but any hit. Attempting to do better slows you down.

4. The possibility of hits increases with shots fired, so firepower is important. A higher capacity handgun is probably better from that standpoint.

5. Practice is important, if not training. I think the key here is familiarity with the weapon and in that respect, country people who use firearms more often might be assumed to be better shots. I am still doubtful that very long practice sessions are helpful.

6. Concealment is important for anyone not a law enforcement officer. By that I mean a law enforcement officer not in uniform but armed. I note that comments were made about the bad guys constantly checking on their handgun to make sure it was there, mainly I suppose because the generally did not use holsters. As far as actual concealment goes, it sounds like "dressing around the gun" is counterproductive if it results in someone being dressed in an unusual fashion. Think of the vest.

7. It also sounds like a fast draw is important in spite of what one reads elsewhere, no matter what condition you choose to carry your automatic in.

Whether or not the above are vaild conclusions to draw from the report or not, the rest of the information is not something you can do much with. It suggests that the bad guys shoot first, sometimes from ambush and that many of them had already had gunfighting experience. And none of them had any moral reservations about killing someone. That's what you call the killer mentality and it is an edge over the opponent.

On the other hand, the study is about the inner city bad guy versus the police and if most of us are nice, law-abiding citizens, I doubt if any of us travel in that universe. In fact, most of us have absolutely no experience with it and might never know it existed.

[22-rimfire]

The one telling statement from a prison inmate (as I recall, since I read this a while back) was that many BG's really didn't care where they hit the person with a round. They wanted to put them down, at least temporarily, and then walk up and execute them.

The godless part of this really bothers me if it is true or common. It seems that many of these BG's have absolutely no conscious or remorse about killing. Makes me care less about due process sometimes. But if I got in trouble, I would expect due process.

[tshadow6]

I believe the part about Officers not practising enough. I know most of my fellow deputies only shoot once a year, then complain about it.

[Deaf Smith]

If you really want to shoot well, or fight well, you have to make it sort of your hobby. It's not something you do now and then and put it aside. That's the biggest problem with not only LEOs, but just most people. We are so well off in this country we are beginning to get real lazy. And that spells trouble. The idea of being a gunfighter is not as appealing as it once was (if it ever was.)

I really don't know what the full answer is. Cash incentives to shoot well for cops? Now we do have IDPA and IPSC and other gun games to sharpen one's skills, and I know that helps, but as they say, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink' and lots of cops just think of what they do as a J O B. And any gun practice ought to be on the clock and they get paid.

[SeaMariner]

maybe those 0430 company runs chanting "kill, kill, blood makes the grass grow" weren't just for humor...

[Axion]

My thoughts:

1) Cops need more shooting practice.
2) It's scary that 40% of these violent criminals have military training.

[BlueTrain]

It is probably worth pointing out again that the data is about police-bad guy shootouts and also is only based on 40 incidents out of 800 available and presumably those only included the ones in which the offender was apprehended. But all the points still seem valid. However, I would doubt that the results would apply to the entire criminal population. But who knows.

It does seem a high number if 40% had military training. That has to be higher than the general population, particularly for a certain age group.

The odds are certainly stacked against the police in general. I understand that policemen who are involved in shootings tend to be placed in administrative positions sooner than they would otherwise. And also, there is such a strong effort made to counsel officers who were involved in gunfights that it is highly likely, in my opinion, that any negative aspects of a shooting are reinforced, rather than reduced or moderated. That is probably also the case any time counselors are brought in after a difficult incident. But that is a whole 'nother topic.

In a sense, the bad guys as described here really are gunfighters, though killers would be a more direct term. Police, on the other hand, are neither and we probably don't want them to be. Some departments do have special squads that are more likely to be involved in deadly shootings but relatively few have any need for them, or for that matter, SWAT teams. That also is another subject. But all the same, it has been my overall impression that the police do very well in shootings compared with the people they have shootouts with, at least judging from what I read in the paper. But I certainly haven't read carefully the details of 40 shootings, much less 800. And 40 is only 5% of 800.

The L.A. Police Department did at one time (probably 40 years ago) give higher pay to officers who scored well at the range. I believe the S&W Model 14 was the usual sidearm in those days. That also gave rise to the practice of using heavy barrel revolvers but officers that liked them generally did not continue carrying them because of the weight. It would be interesting to know if any departments still had that practice.

[OBIWAN]

I locked in on "officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers"

This is what you should read (and consider) before you start talking about chamber empty carry

Most everyone acts like you will have time to prepare for an armed confrontation

[David Armstrong]

2. The gun and caliber doen't matter as much as people here, including myself, seem to think, although some are better than others. I doubt if many .22 rimfires are used.
Might be surprised. There was a major city (I'm thinking Chicago, but may be wrong) about a decade ago where over a quarter of the homicides that year were from .22s. Sometimes sheer availability trumps everything else.
Most everyone acts like you will have time to prepare for an armed confrontation
Outside of the police world most DGU incidents do allow a bit of time for preparation. Even in policing information seems to indicate that over half of the time an officer has plenty of time to get the gun out and ready before an incident begins to reach the shooting stage.

[sdj]

Yikes! Those are some scary stats!

Jeff Cooper's "Principles of Personal Defense" has the follow chapter titles:

1. Principle One: Alertness
2. Principle Two: Decisiveness
3. Principle Three: Aggressiveness
4. Principle Four: Speed
5. Principle Five: Coolness
6. Principle Six: Surprise

In the last Chapter of the book, Cooper writes, "George Patton told his officers, "Don't worry about your flanks. Let the enemy worry about his flanks."

Cooper then goes on to conclude, "It is high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and to let the criminal start worrying about society. And by "society" I mean you."

Looks like I need to give that little volume another read... :rolleyes:

...and get to the range... ;)

[Blackwater OPS]

It does seem a high number if 40% had military training. That has to be higher than the general population, particularly for a certain age group.

It's much much higher (4-8x in fact) but it does not surprise me at all. As an MP I have observed that criminals exist among the military population in the same numbers and the civilian population. In other words, a soldier is just as likely to commit a crime a civilian in a blue collar job. The difference is, a soldier has arms training, and possibly more importantly, a lethal mentality. It's no surprise then that while criminals in general may have the same percentage of vets as the general population, the group of criminals that decides its a good idea to shoot at the police would have a much higher percentage of vets. Now just imagine what it's like to be an MP....;)

Also, I'm sure many of these criminals recieved dishonorable discharges from the service, some that can make getting a legit job more difficult than a felony record.

[mpi]

from my own leo experiance i believe that the people being hired as cops are part of the problem. they aren't gun people and have no interest in or experience with firearms. particularly female officers. cops are some of the worst shots going.

mpi

[habeuscorpse]

Interesting observation that many cops are not gun people. Those two reserve cops shot and killed in NY City the other day by a pizzaria customer during a foot pursuit were not even carrying guns. Cops without guns. Just the thing for a kinder, gentler New World Order. Must be a Little Mikey Bloomberg thing.

[Deaf Smith]

Axion My thoughts:

1) Cops need more shooting practice.
2) It's scary that 40% of these violent criminals have military training.

Most cops take their job as a job and expect the employer to fork over bucks and time off for any kind of practice realted to their job (just as my employer is pretty cheep in the computer training department, they expect us to learn it ourseves on our own free time and money.)

Since we have a huge number of vets from the last several wars, from Panama to Desert Storm II and beyound, it should not supprise you some become criminals after getting out of the service. Not bashing the military, but there are so many ex-miliary that even a small percentage is enough to make a real difference in crime rates.

[revjen45]

I found this report to be most alarming, having assumed that most criminals are inept when it comes to firearms skills. Now I realize that I would be facing someone whose technical skills are probably not much less, if at all, below mine, plus they have experience in a firefight. This is valuable to know. At least I don't settle for whatever gun I can get at the time. Looks like I need to spend more time at the range, plus make sure I pay attention to my surroundings.

[Blackwater OPS]

I found this report to be most alarming, having assumed that most criminals are inept when it comes to firearms skills. Now I realize that I would be facing someone whose technical skills are probably not much less, if at all, below mine, plus they have experience in a firefight. This is valuable to know. At least I don't settle for whatever gun I can get at the time. Looks like I need to spend more time at the range, plus make sure I pay attention to my surroundings.

That's a sound plan anyway, but remember, these are crooks that shoot at cops, not crooks that shoot at your average joe or even other gang members. Generally my opinion on those folks is still that they cannot shoot. IMO this study really applies to LE (and non-military LE at that) more than anyone else.

[Smokin Joe]

I like that people get what they deserve. That ignorance has a price to pay, and that certain things should be taken seriously.

If a LEO dont take his job seriously, and dont train, and then confront those mentioned and then thus loses a gunfight... Its on him. I feel no remorse.

you be suprised how many cops are just donut processing machines. especuially in NYC where cops get paid so little, that only the truely desperate goes and joins the nypd. ( thus the quality of the department is low )

[FireBreather01]

If a LEO dont take his job seriously, and dont train, and then confront those mentioned and then thus loses a gunfight... Its on him. I feel no remorse. What an asinine comment. No one deserves to get shot, assaulted, or otherwise victimized by a thug - no matter what their chosen field of endeavor is, or their level of preparation.

[Csspecs]

I agree with firebreather. But if your career involves the possibility of being shot, then you should be ready for a gun fight.

[David Armstrong]

from my own leo experiance i believe that the people being hired as cops are part of the problem. they aren't gun people and have no interest in or experience with firearms. particularly female officers. cops are some of the worst shots going.
And yet they overwhelmingly win their encounters. Which to me indicates we worry way to much about things that matter very little. Give me cops that can think, are good problem solvers, can communicate effectively, have good reading and writing skills, and so on. Being a good shot or caring very much about guns is way down on the list, IMO.

[BanginMusket]

This is a very informative and enthralling post. Thanks for placing the article in this site.

__________________
Musket Cap Nipple (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/midwayusa-inc-1854/blackpowder-guns-accessories-7633.html) - Download the Blackpowder Guns & Accessories Catalog by MidwayUSA, Inc

[Deaf Smith]

And yet they overwhelmingly win their encounters. Which to me indicates we worry way to much about things that matter very little. Give me cops that can think, are good problem solvers, can communicate effectively, have good reading and writing skills, and so on. Being a good shot or caring very much about guns is way down on the list, IMO.

No david, they use teamwork. They use their two-way. They get backup. They wear bullet resistant vest. They learn to avoid the fatal funnel. They learn positional awareness, they.... well there's more to a gunfight than guns. One tries to bring about a situation so advantageous the suspects have no desire to fight, or if they do fight, they are in a bad situation from the start.

Reading and writing comes in back at the station, but leaning to talk to people on the street does help keep a fight from happening... things like Verbial Judo.

[SpiritWalker]

I'll take this report with a grain of salt. One problem that most psych weenies have never overcome is their inability to understand or accept the fact that 90% of what a career criminal says about himself is untrue, if not an out-right lie. The truth is generally not in them except by accident.

Interviewing them is a pointless exploration of their self-pity, delusions and fantasies about how tough they are. When what they really are, is afraid of nearly everything and everybody and unable to come to terms with that fear. Like the man said, "That might make them dangerous but it doesn't make them tough."

All that being said, the one salient point IMO is that LEOs really do need to practice effectively firing their issue weapon in high stress situations. That point has been shouted from the rooftops for 30 years that I know of but most cops, like most other people, just want to have a normal life when they get off work, not spend their off hours practicing and preparing for job related duties.

[David Armstrong]

No david, they use teamwork. They use their two-way. They get backup. They wear bullet resistant vest. They learn to avoid the fatal funnel. They learn positional awareness, they.... well there's more to a gunfight than guns.
deaf, deaf, deaf....your regular willingness to comment on things you know little about never ceases to amaze me. Yes, LEOs use all those things--when they can. All of which, BTW, indicate that, as I said, they overwhelmingly win their encounters even if they are not into guns and shooting. However, even when those things are not present or were not present, LEOs overwhelmingly win their encounters.
Reading and writing comes in back at the station,
It comes in at a lot of places besides the station.

[Hardtarget]

For myself...the comment that the BG practices more and was actually "putting hits on target" makes me know that I need to get to the range LOTS more. I think I shot maybe four times last year. Not near enough.
I always felt there was no remorse from the criminal...and no hesitation. This whole thing underlines the problem of the criminal element in society. Kind of scary.
Mark.

[Deaf Smith]

deaf, deaf, deaf....your regular willingness to comment on things you know little about never ceases to amaze me. Yes, LEOs use all those things--when they can. All of which, BTW, indicate that, as I said, they overwhelmingly win their encounters even if they are not into guns and shooting. However, even when those things are not present or were not present, LEOs overwhelmingly win their encounters.

So they overwhelmingly win their encounters when team work, backups, two--ways, bullet proof vest, etc.. , is not present? So if there is no team work, two-ways, BP vest, etc.. they still overwhelmingly win their encounters? Are you talking about parking meeter tickets or jay-walking or what for encounters?

[David Armstrong]

So they overwhelmingly win their encounters when team work, backups, two--ways, bullet proof vest, etc.. , is not present?
Yes.
So if there is no team work, two-ways, BP vest, etc.. they still overwhelmingly win their encounters?
Yes.
Are you talking about parking meeter tickets or jay-walking or what for encounters?
deaf, once again you demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding for something you want to talk a lot about. What kind of encounters have we been talking about? If you haven't been able to figure that out yet I doubt anyone trying to get more detailed will help.

[philapdrcrt]

Quote:
"from my own leo experiance i believe that the people being hired as cops are part of the problem. they aren't gun people and have no interest in or experience with firearms. particularly female officers. cops are some of the worst shots going.

And yet they overwhelmingly win their encounters. Which to me indicates we worry way to much about things that matter very little. Give me cops that can think, are good problem solvers, can communicate effectively, have good reading and writing skills, and so on. Being a good shot or caring very much about guns is way down on the list, IMO. "


maybe so, but i think firearms training needs a lot more emphasis. you see a lot of officers who don't care much about guns, meaning they often carry dirty and/or unlubed/underlubed weapons. you see a lot of officers who barely qualify and don't practice. not every LEO needs to be a gun enthusiast, but every LEO should care about guns.

[Deaf Smith]

deaf, once again you demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding for something you want to talk a lot about. What kind of encounters have we been talking about? If you haven't been able to figure that out yet I doubt anyone trying to get more detailed will help.

Apparently you are talking about parking tickets. LEO's don't sit around alone without just about everything I described. Looks like you pretty much demonstrated what being at a desk to long can do to someone.

[CobrayCommando]

That's a sound plan anyway, but remember, these are crooks that shoot at cops, not crooks that shoot at your average joe or even other gang members. Generally my opinion on those folks is still that they cannot shoot. IMO this study really applies to LE (and non-military LE at that) more than anyone else.

It's still really frightening... I wonder what percentage of violent criminals are cop shooters or more appropriately, I wonder what portion of the average thug population this study group represents.

Good thread OBI WAN

[ccw9mm]

There is a copy posted on CalGunLaws.com: click here (http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-480.html).

[TheWanderer]

On the other hand, the study is about the inner city bad guy versus the police and if most of us are nice, law-abiding citizens, I doubt if any of us travel in that universe. In fact, most of us have absolutely no experience with it and might never know it existed.

I wish it didn't exist, and I wish I didn't know about it, or had to travel in it. Not the case however.

[David Armstrong]

Apparently you are talking about parking tickets.
Sigh. Once again, deaf, you stretch so far to try to score a point that it no longer has any relationship to what is being discussed. The fact that you would even consider that the conversatio was about parking tickets shows your lack of understanding on the topic.
LEO's don't sit around alone without just about everything I described.
Once again your lack of knowledge just jumps out and screams "I don't know what I am talking about!" So yes, LEOs regularly do not work as part of a team during a shooting (yes, we are talking about shooting incidents, since you seem to have trouble understanding the topic!), they don't have back-up with them during a shooting incident, they often are not in radio contact during a shooting, and frequently they are not wearing a vest. And yet they regularly win their encounters.
Looks like you pretty much demonstrated what being at a desk to long can do to someone.
What does it do? One can easily find the flaws in your reasoning without being at a desk.

[KALIFORNIST]

I think what deaf was trying to say is that in most situations the police have the deck stacked in their favor from the start,as it should be but if your average cop was in a fire fight with the same deck they wouldn't win nearly as much.If that was what he was trying to say then I would agree.If it isn't what he was trying to say then I guess I am saying it.Criminals are not as stupid and untrained as we might think or hope for that matter.After all they make their living being thugs and are probably used to violence on a daily basis.Thats why cops do what they can to make sure they have the upper hand and thats also why I pay my taxes.

[David Armstrong]

I think what deaf was trying to say is that in most situations the police have the deck stacked in their favor from the start....
You may be right, but that is not dependent on things like teamwork, backup, two-way radio, body armor etc. Even without those coming into play, police regularly win, and have won, their encounters. That is my point. Certainly they help when they come into play, but how often they come into play and if that makes a difference is the bigger issue here, IMO.

[gdeal]

We can conceal carry and go into dangerous locations OR we can NOT carry and avoid stupid locations. Would that be OK?

[David Armstrong]

I think it is John Farnam who said "You shouldn't go anywhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without a gun." The CCW is not a magic protection talisman, and making your decision on whether or not to go someplace based on that seems like poor reasoning to me.

[Deaf Smith]

KALIFORNIST,

Cops win not by how good a shot (or bad) most of the time cuase they have support. The support may be a backup, it may be the body armor, it may be the training to keep out of the fatal funnel when walking up to cars, or their radio to get info on who or whom they stopped, etc... or a combination of those things and more.

Just about every LEO stop is not done in a vaccum. It's not Wyatt Earp by himself accosting three BGs (unless the cop is really stupid, and some have died doing that very thing.. I even have car cam vidos of that kind of thing happening.)

Their skill with weapons is well down the pike as for what really saves their butt. David forgets a heck of alot of deadly enounters don't even have a shot fired cuase the LEOs had advantages like positional or numbers. And even when that didn't stop the ball from rolling, such things as their vest and use of cover played a large part is saving their skins.

As I said, most of the time it's not done in a vaccum where one LEO dosn't have support in some form.

[David Armstrong]

Cops win not by how good a shot (or bad) most of the time cuase they have support.
Oh, I see now. Instead of those specific items you were trying to say were so important, now it is the simple fact that they are LE is the support that makes them win. Nice shift of position, and probably more accurate than your earlier claims.
David forgets a heck of alot of deadly enounters don't even have a shot fired cuase the LEOs had advantages like positional or numbers.
Please. David has probably forgot more about LE tactics and training and deadly force encounters than you've ever dreamed of, and if he did forget half of what he knew he'd still have more than twice as much as you, so you might want to reconsider a few things.

[Blackwater OPS]

David, if it's not training, back-up, or equipment, just what exactly is it that you think causes LE to win more often than not? Mindset?

[David Armstrong]

David, if it's not training, back-up, or equipment, just what exactly is it that you think causes LE to win more often than not? Mindset?
I don't think I've denied the training aspect. If I gave that impression excuse me, as I think that is a big part of it. But yes, mindset is the main player, IMO. And I say that because we see even before we got into all this neat tactical stuff, and had all this good equipment, we still won the huge majority of incidents. When police go into a situation they usually expect to win. Most people don't expect to win when they go up against the police.

I go far enough back in the business that I worked when there was no SWAT, we didn't wear vests, calling for back-up for anything other than a big emergency was considered wimpy, etc. Yet we still won. Some of the new toys and tactics have certainly made things easier, but I don't think they have chaged the outcomes that much.

[Deaf Smith]

You mean one does not train in order to get mindset? Or mindset is not taught at any LEO or other academy? Is mindset just something we are born with?

[Skyguy]

I go far enough back in the business that I worked when there was no SWAT, we didn't wear vests, calling for back-up for anything other than a big emergency was considered wimpy, etc. Yet we still won.
Absolutely!

Nowadays, it takes a politically correct, male/female SWAT team with negotiators, armored personel carriers, body armor, gas masks, tear gas, M4/MP5's, sub machine guns, snipers, flash bangs, etc.....to serve a warrant or make a pot bust. About 5 grand a pop. :)

At Columbine they should have sent in some 20 yr old marines or AB instead of the charade of SWAT guys that continued dancing around that school for three hours after the last shots were heard.
Total embarrassment.
.

[David Armstrong]

You mean one does not train in order to get mindset? Or mindset is not taught at any LEO or other academy? Is mindset just something we are born with?
Sigh, you're really trying to stretch it, deaf. And the sad part is I think you don't even realize how silly you sound. But, in order of the way you asked them: Sometimes. Maybe. It depends.
Again, this would be so much easier if you had just the slightest little bit of experience in this stuff you insist on talking about so much.