In the line of fire: learning from assaults on law enforcement officers.

On a spring Tuesday at noon, two officers in civilian dress, both assigned to investigative work, responded to an address to search for a robbery and burglary suspect. When one officer opened a closet door during the search, he was shot in the chest by a 41-year-old female hiding inside. A struggle ensued, and the officer returned fire, striking the offender. Both the officer and the assailant were transported to the hospital. The victim officer, a 28-year-old 4-year veteran, was released after 13 days and returned to duty. The assailant, who had a prior record for robbery, burglary, and assault, is confined to a wheelchair as a result of her wounds.

This scenario depicts 1 of 40 cases examined by the authors in an attempt to answer two important questions: Why and how are officers assaulted in the line of duty? Every year, more than 50,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted, one-third of those assaulted are injured, and about 70 are killed.(1) Why do some officers die and other officers survive in substantively similar situations? No simple answers exist.

A previous study, Killed in the Line of Duty,(2) scrutinized felonious killings of law enforcement officers, but by nature, it omitted a crucial perspective-that of the victim officers. In the continuing search for the best ways to prepare officers to face danger in the line of duty, In the Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement focuses on the survivors and presents extensive information on the victim officers, the offenders, and the incidents that brought them together in a potentially deadly mix.(3)

THE STUDY

Over a 3-year period, the authors examined 40 incidents selected from 625 closed cases submitted by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Selection criteria included the size and type of the victim's agency, the type of assignment the officer was working at the time of the assault, and the region of the country in which the officer worked. The selected cases occurred between 1987 and 1994 and included 52 law enforcement officers and 42 offenders.

After choosing cases for the study, the authors gathered as much information as possible about each incident in order to elicit specific, useful responses during interviews. They reviewed the departments' case files, which included offense reports, statements made by assisting officers, witnesses, and offenders, and later, other documentation provided by the victim officers, such as reports, performance ratings, newspaper articles, and police radio transmissions. Interviews of the surviving victim officers focused on their background, family structure, law enforcement training, preassault behavior and experience, conditions at the time of the assault, and description of the incident.

The authors also reviewed and evaluated pertinent information obtained from law enforcement and correctional records on each offender. Interviews of the offenders focused on seven areas: background, family structure, attitudes toward authority, criminal history, weapons training and use, description of the incident setting, and perspective on the incident.

To protect the victim officers and their departments from unwanted attention and to encourage them to be as candid as possible, the authors granted anonymity to the study participants. Similarly, the offenders and the penal institutions that housed them were granted anonymity.

THE FINDINGS

The sample for this study was small and not scientifically random; therefore, results should not be generalized. Nevertheless, the wealth of data the study presents on the officers, the offenders, and the incidents that brought them together can provide insight for administrators evaluating their departments' policies, training, and procedures, as well as for individual officers evaluating their own daily practices.

The Officers

The 52 officers who agreed to participate in the study realized that their actions would come under intense scrutiny. They set aside their personal concerns and shared their information and insight, hoping to help their colleagues prevent serious injury or death during a line-of-duty assault.

Demographics 

The victim officers in the study were predominantly male (88 percent), married (62 percent), white (90 percent), and college educated (58 percent). They averaged 5 feet 9 inches tall, 186 pounds, 33 years of age, and 8 years of law enforcement service. This description closely resembles that of the officers killed in the line of duty from 1986 through 1995.

Behavioral Characteristics

The demographic descriptions of the assault survivors were not the only factors that mirrored the characteristics of officers killed in the line of duty; the officers also shared many behavioral traits. To develop a behavioral profile of the victim officers, the authors reviewed the available written documentation and observed and evaluated the behavior and comments of victims during the interview process. Following the agreement of anonymity with the officers, the authors could not contact the officers' peers or supervisors, so these observations could not be validated independently. Nevertheless, the recorded behavioral characteristics offer some telling clues about the victim officers.

One frequently mentioned adjective was "hardworking." These officers sought to be the best cops possible, and they often took risks to achieve this objective. For many, being the best meant producing the most arrests, traffic citations, and reports. One officer, named "officer of the month" prior to his assault, described taking shortcuts to increase his productivity. For example, he often served warrants alone. He never requested backup, never advised the dispatcher of his plan or location, and never expected to be shot by the individual he attempted to arrest.

Nineteen officers studied were assaulted when they unilaterally took action in response to a situation. Would the outcomes have been different if help had been available? No one can say for sure. Nevertheless, such high-risk behaviors demonstrate that some hardworking officers might be ignoring rules established for their safety. The real question is whether boosting productivity statistics merits the risks involved.

If risk taking got them into trouble, the will to survive kept these officers alive. The authors observed a tremendous determination to live in virtually all of the officers interviewed. One officer said she was determined to survive so that her parents, who lived 700 miles away, would not be notified of her death by a telephone call. An officer shot in a dirty, trash-filled building refused to die in such a place. He used his shoestrings as tourniquets to stop the bleeding from serious arm and leg wounds, made his way out of the building, and found a citizen to call for help.

Another officer suffered a severe bullet wound directly below his eye. After being unconscious for an unknown period of time, he concentrated on observing his breath in the cold night air, believing that as long as he focused on breathing he would continue to live. Nearly blinded, he stuck the thumb of his weak hand into his wound and held it there to control the bleeding while he held his weapon in his strong hand. Without a portable radio to call for help, the officer struggled approximately 300 yards to his patrol unit to summon aid.

These officers walked, crawled, and limped away from the scenes of their assaults. They refused to give up. They were survivors.

The Offenders

The victim officers in the study possessed a preconceived image of the kind of person they considered likely to assault them. The data suggest, however, that no singular profile exists of an individual who would assault, attempt to kill, or actually kill a police officer. Officers' preconceived ideas of the assaulter profile were of little value in securing their personal safety.

To paint the clearest possible picture of the assaults and the people involved, the authors interviewed the offenders. Of the 42 offenders interviewed, 38 were still in prison at the time of the interview. The authors met with the remaining four offenders, who had been released from prison, in their local communities.

Demographics

The offenders were generally male (93 percent), young (average age 27 years), nonwhite, single, and high school educated. Compared to the victim officers, the offenders were younger, less likely to have families, and less educated. Physically, the average offender was 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 170 pounds, a stature similar to that of the victim officers.

Authors asked the offenders to describe their family status and history. None of this information was corroborated with other family members. According to the offenders, their mothers were the most significant figures in their families; yet, 43 percent reported that their natural fathers had been present most of the time. They frequently reported hostile and aggressive relationships with both the dominant male and female members of the household. Over one-half of the assaulters said that their families solved problems by arguing, shouting, and initiating physical violence.

While the earlier study of police killers demonstrated parallel findings on family composition, the assaulters tended to report less instability in family caretaking and less physical and psychological abuse within the family than did the killers. Also, although most assaulters considered their preadult economic status to be marginal or lower, most of the killers in the earlier study considered their economic status to have been at least average or comfortable.

Criminal History

The self-reported average age at which offenders committed their first crime was 11. For more than two-thirds of the offenders, this crime was larceny-theft. Across the board, they reported weapons violations with greater frequency than any other crime. The criminal histories of these offenders coincide with the predominant incarcerating offenses of all convicted felons.(4) Twenty-four of the 42 offenders reported having been involved in shooting incidents (either firing or being fired upon) prior to the assault under study. Notably, 21 percent of the offenders reported having attempted to assault a police officer in the past.

Some of the offenders can best be described as street combat veterans, based on the frequency of their involvement in exchanges of gunfire with other criminals and police. In 8 of the 40 incidents examined, offenders used more than one weapon, including knives and blunt objects, as well as hands, fists, and feet, but firearms were by far the weapons of choice in the incidents studied. Fifty of the 52 officers were assaulted with firearms, and availability was the overriding factor in weapon choice.

When questioned about their preferred method for carrying a handgun on their persons, 36 percent of the offenders reported carrying the weapons in the groin area. One-half of these felt this area was most overlooked by law enforcement personnel who conduct searches. When in a vehicle, 50 percent of the offenders carried their handguns directly on their persons. Over one-fourth of the offenders reported carrying a second weapon, usually a handgun, at least part of the time, with the expressed intent of using it against a law enforcement officer or anyone else who removed their primary weapon. Clearly, the offenders' familiarity, proficient use, and methods of carrying and concealing handguns should be considered when agencies develop procedures for approaching and searching suspects.

Alcohol or Drug Use

Among the offenders studied, 62 percent were using drugs, alcohol, or both at the time of the incident. Simultaneous use of drugs, usually cocaine, and alcohol was most common. One offender described the effect of drugs on his behavior:

"Heroin makes you feel invincible; cocaine makes you feel defensive and somewhat paranoid. Drugs do not hinder your ability to use a firearm.(5) They make you quicker to shoot. When you're on drugs, you're irritable and cranky and may be quicker to use a gun."

This offender, involved in an armed robbery interrupted by a police officer, indicated that he did not necessarily intend to hurt the officer, just to avoid capture. If captured, he knew he would be unable to satisfy his need for more drugs, which motivated the robbery in the first place.

Offenders' Perspectives on the Incidents

While the opinions of the offenders are highly subjective and suspect, the manner in which an offender perceives a particular event emerged as an important issue. Although their perceptions might not be completely accurate, they based their actions on those perceptions.

The authors asked the offenders to describe the assault circumstances and to assess the victim officers involved in the study. Sixty-five percent of the offenders said the attack on the victim officer was impulsive, unplanned, or opportunistic. One-third of the offenders stated that nothing the officers could have done would have prevented the attacks.

The offenders reported a variety of intentions at the time of the assault, including to

* Escape or avoid arrest, 38 percent

* Kill the victim officer, 19 percent

* Frighten the officer, 14 percent

* Wound the officer, 7 percent

* Immobilize the officer, 2 percent.(6)

In all but one case examined, the offender attacked first. Thirty-one percent of the offenders believed the officer was surprised by the attack. Nineteen percent of the offenders described the officer as capable or professional, while an equal number said the officer seemed unprepared or indecisive in the face of the attack.

Four of the offenders admitted membership in street gangs and exhibited a street gang mentality. Two of them were paid $50 to kill the next drug enforcement officer who entered a particular area. Regardless of whether the gang members were arrested, they still would receive status and respectability within the gang. In describing the contract shooting of the officer, one offender recounted the officer begging for his life and offering money as compensation. The offender reportedly responded, "We don't want your money; we want your life." He and a fellow gang member then shot the officer seven times and left him for dead. All four of the gang members interviewed exhibited this type of cold-blooded, remorseless mentality.

The Situations

To understand the incidents fully, the authors thoroughly assessed the circumstances surrounding the assaults. This assessment included the type of call being handled, the location, the modes of transportation used by officers and offenders, the environment, and the weapons used.

Of the 40 cases examined, 50 percent involved responses to disturbance calls, 20 percent occurred while officers investigated suspicious persons or circumstances, and 18 percent happened during traffic stops or pursuits. Sixty percent of the assaults took place on a road or in an alley. Eighty percent of the officers and nearly half of the offenders arrived at the scene in motor vehicles. In more than 75 percent of the incidents, the assault occurred at the same location as the initial encounter between the offenders and the officers.

Most assaults occurred at nighttime, with 62 percent between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. One-fourth of the assaults occurred between noon and 6 p.m. The timing of the assaults raises visibility as a possible issue warranting safety training attention. In some instances, officers also had to contend with fog, rain, total darkness, or only partial lighting during the assaults. While these environmental factors did not precipitate the attacks, they did affect the officers' ability to respond effectively.

The authors also examined the principal weapons used by both parties in the assaults. As noted, offenders used firearms, mainly handguns, to assault 50 of the 52 officers in this study. Some also struck officers with blunt objects or cut them with knives. All of the victim officers were armed with handguns; three also had personally owned shotguns, and one was armed with a submachine gun. Forty percent of the officers fired their weapons. None of the victim officers had rifles, chemical agents, or tasers. Seven officers were disarmed and had their firearms used against them. Offenders firing handguns hit their intended targets 91 percent of the time; officers, 41 percent. It should be noted, however, that the offenders fired first in most cases. With shotguns, the offenders fired with 43 percent accuracy and the officers with 100 percent accuracy.(7)

In most situations, the victim officers initially perceived that they were dealing with minor offenders who were reluctant to go to jail. The offenders, on the other hand, were fighting for their lives and their freedom. Approximately two-thirds of the officers reported having no indication of the impending attack. Only after being injured seriously did some of them realize they were engaged in life-and-death struggles, not just minor physical altercations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several significant issues related to officer safety emerged from the authors' analysis of these incidents. The full report recommends policy and training reviews in such areas as use of force, traffic stops, and searches.(8)

Use of Force

During the assaults, the officers in the study generally recalled what not to do and when not to use force, but some had difficulty recalling when the use of force was an appropriate, timely, necessary, and positive decision. Some had problems recalling their agencies' deadly force policies and determining when to progress to the next level of force, and many officers experienced great difficulty recognizing the point at which they actually were fighting for their lives.

Clearly, agencies should review their use-of-force policies to ensure that all elements of the policy are clearly articulated and easily understood. Further, officers should be tested regularly to ensure their proper recall of the policy, and trainers should stress positive aspects of the policy, especially the proper time to use deadly force, while not overemphasizing the negative aspects, such as when not to shoot.

The victim officers in this study also reported that repetitive safety training reflecting real-life circumstances enabled them to survive potentially lethal situations. In contrast, they believed training that reinforced improper procedures or was deficient in some element could endanger officers.

Traffic Stops

This study and the 1992 study of officers killed both serve as reminders that traffic stops - tasks frequently viewed as routine and repetitive - pose a potentially grave threat to officers. Few officers considered that someone they stopped for a minor infraction of the law would consider taking their lives in an effort to escape. The officers' desire to produce statistics, whether internally or externally motivated, sometimes caused them to take safety-related shortcuts, such as failing to inform dispatchers of their actions. In addition, officers rarely considered the physical surroundings when they chose to make traffic stops. Finally, on very hot days, officers were more reluctant to wear their soft body armor.

In light of the high risk of traffic stops, departmental enforcement policies should include sections dealing with officer safety. These sections should address proper selection of a stop location, required notification of the police dispatcher, and mandatory wearing of soft body armor. Where two-officer units are employed, departments should ensure that the responsibilities of each officer are clearly established and understood. Departments also should review policies that allow officers to bring the driver of a stopped vehicle back to the police car.

Searches

Searches proved to be problematic for several reasons with severe consequences. Officers experienced problems remaining focused while conducting searches, often because of their perceived need to gain physical control of the offender. In addition, when they recovered items of contraband during a search, the officers' attention often shifted to making an arrest. This caused them to overlook weapons that could then be used against them.

Concerns over contracting communicable diseases, such as AIDS, often superseded officers' concerns for immediate physical safety. They also expressed displeasure at searching the groin area of male subjects, and while they would pat down this area on the outside of the clothing, they were reluctant to go into the subject's clothing there. Several offenders, aware of the officers' reluctance, reported that the groin area was normally where they secreted weapons and contraband. Male officers expressed similar hesitation at thoroughly searching female subjects for fear of complaints. In the absence of written directives regarding this practice, the officers were unsure when thorough searches would be justified.

To overcome these problems, proper training should simulate realistic situations, including procedures for searches conducted during the day, at night, under low levels of lighting, in residences and other locations, and with resisting subjects. Departments should establish a core policy governing the proper search of all persons arrested for violations of the law. Prisoners should be searched thoroughly by each officer accepting responsibility for custody of the prisoner. Such a policy also should address thorough searches of police vehicles at the beginning of duty tours, especially if cars are used on a rotating basis. Administrators should ensure adequate supplies of proper safety equipment - especially for officers who regularly arrest and transport drug law violators - to reduce officer concerns about searching offenders who present an offensive or questionable appearance.

CONCLUSION

This study clearly shows that an arrest for an apparently minor infraction of the law might well result in a felonious assault against a police officer. All members of a law enforcement agency, from administrator through patrol officer, must be aware of the risks and actively prepare for them. Administrators must devise policies and provide the types of training and equipment that address the safety needs of their officers. They also must ensure that seemingly unrelated policies or procedures, such as the system of rewards for performance, do not unwittingly undermine officer safety. Similarly, officers must use all of the resources available to them to ensure their own safety, as well as that of their partners, innocent bystanders, and the subjects they encounter. In order to serve and protect the community, law enforcement officers must first be prepared to protect themselves.

First Aid: A Matter of Life and Death 

In a case not used in the study, the victim officer reported that while working in uniform during the midnight to 8 a.m. tour of duty, he responded to a suspicious person call. While questioning an individual at the scene, a confrontation developed and the officer's throat was cut from ear to ear. He protected himself from further injury by shooting his assailant.

In response to his call for help, numerous officers responded to the crime scene, but none of these officers attempted to provide any sort of first aid to the victim. The injuries were so severe that he was placed in a patrol vehicle and transported to a hospital. A physician was the first person to render first aid through the single act of placing his hand over the wound to stop the bleeding.

The victim officer reported that first aid training was conducted at the academy but not supported by subsequent in-service instruction. He stated that if he had responded to a similar situation, he would not have administered first aid and did not think to self-administer a compress to stop the flow of his own blood. The lack of training placed this officer's life in serious jeopardy.

Potential Threats from Passengers

While patrolling in her cruiser at about 4 a.m. on a fall Thursday in a large city, a 29-year-old officer was stopped by a citizen who reported the theft of his father's car. She was advised that the car would contain several occupants, including a Hispanic male reportedly carrying a firearm. Shortly after broadcasting the theft, the officer spotted the vehicle, which was occupied by one female and two male suspects. Stopping the vehicle, the officer observed a white male passenger exit the car and attempt to leave the scene. She detained him, frisked him for weapons, and, finding him clean, let him go. The officer then ordered the Hispanic male from the car, requested identification, and conducted a body search, which revealed possession of a hunting knife.

While the suspect was being placed under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, a struggle ensued. As the officer and her assailant wrestled on the ground, he attempted to grab her weapon. Unable to obtain it, the man called to his female companion to go to the vehicle and retrieve his gun. The 29-year-old accomplice brought the gun to the assailant, and as both the officer and perpetrator got to their feet, the man threatened to kill the officer if she did not relinquish her weapon. Instead, she drew her revolver, and while she exchanged gunfire with the offender, he shot her once in the left arm with a .25-caliber semiautomatic weapon. The officer, who was wearing a protective vest, returned fire with her .357-magnum revolver, striking the assailant in the abdomen, leg, and pelvis. The offender continued to fire at the officer but without further effect. The two perpetrators then fled the scene, and the officer radioed that she had been shot.

The officer later reported that she had not viewed the female passenger as a threat. The female offender reported that she had intended to disarm the officer prior to the start of the shooting. Even though she was just 2 feet away from the officer when firing began, the officer had paid no attention to her and issued no commands.

Surprise Assault from Bystander 

On a spring Friday at approximately 9 p.m., a 26-year-old uniformed officer and his partner were patrolling in their marked police car when they observed a vehicle run a stop sign and pulled it over. During the stop, a man approached the scene on foot from an alley. Observing the traffic stop in progress, the man opened fire with a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun. The victim officer, who was wearing a protective vest, was hit several times in the lower leg. Neither officer was aware of the offender's presence until the shots were fired.

Fleeing the scene, the 18-year-old assailant disposed of the weapon. Several witnesses identified the gunman, and officers later arrested him at his residence. Apparently angry over a recent controversial court verdict, the assailant was using drugs at the time of the assault and reportedly had set out to attack a police officer. He had a prior criminal history. The wounded officer, who had 2 years of service, returned to duty after 7 days of hospitalization and 4 months of rehabilitation.

Prepare for the Possibility of Attack

When a 40-year-old sergeant left the police station at noon to have lunch one fall Tuesday, he monitored a call concerning a holdup alarm at a bank approximately four blocks away. He notified dispatch that he would respond, even though the dispatcher called back to inform him that the alarm was accidental.

Entering the front vestibule of the bank, he observed an individual dressed in a suspicious manner. Upon turning and seeing the uniformed sergeant, the suspect began firing a .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun. The 14-year veteran officer then retreated from the bank and sought protection behind his vehicle. The assailant pursued the sergeant, continuing to fire as he did so. The officer's return fire struck the offender twice. The officer was not injured in the incident.

In later interviews, the officer expressed shock at what had transpired. He had expected the offender to flee, not pursue him. None of his prior training had prepared him for the possibility of being pursued and attacked after taking cover.

Behavioral Descriptors

Behavioral Characteristics of Officers Killed

* Friendly to everyone

* Well-liked by community and department

* Tend to use less force than other officers felt they would use in similar circumstances

* Hard-working

* Tend to perceive duties as more public relations than law enforcement

* Service-oriented

* Use force only as last resort

* Do not follow all of the rules, especially in regard to arrests, confrontations with prisoners, traffic stops, and waiting for available backup

* Feel able to read people and situations and will drop guard as a result

* Tend to look for good in others

* Laid-back and easygoing 

Behavioral Characteristics of Officers Assaulted

* Friendly

* Hard-working

* Service-oriented

* Willing to use force when justified

* Do not follow established rules and procedures, especially in regard to arrests, traffic stops, and calling for or waiting for available backup

* Feel able to read situations or persons and will drop guard as a result

* Survivors

Sources: Killed in the Line of Duty, In the Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement

Endnotes

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States (Washington, DC, 1994).

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Killed in the Line of Duty: A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Officers (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1992).

3 For the complete report, see In the Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement (Washington, DC, 1997). This research was funded in part by a National Institute of Justice grant and earned the University of Virginia's Jefferson Award for significant research in 1997.

4 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Sentencing in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC, 1996).

5 This statement reflects the personal opinion of the offender and is not supported by clinical data.

6 The remaining offenders gave no specific answer to the question.

7 One officer fired a shotgun once from a distance of 30 feet.

8 Other areas addressed in the report include waiting for backup, use of handcuffs, off-duty performance, postassault trauma, and postincident recovery.

Dr. Anthony J. Pinizzotto and Mr. Edward F. Davis serve as instructors in the behavioral science unit of the training division at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Mr. Charles E. Miller III serves as an instructor in the education/training services unit of the FBI's criminal justice information services division in Clarksburg, West Virginia.