The topic of body armor and personal protection equipment seems to get increased awareness in the national law enforcement literature every couple of months. The tragic death of a law enforcement officer not wearing body armor is usually the igniting factor to readdress the topic. In California, the majority of law enforcement agencies require their officers to wear body armor while in uniform and assigned to patrol or traffic assignments. This is not the case with many agencies within the other 49 states. Either due to budget constraints or a resistance to change, a significant number of officers put their uniform on each day without the protection of body armor. As of October 20, 2011, fifty law enforcement officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty. A 16% increase in comparison to October 2010. In May 2011, the preliminary FBI 2010 Law Enforcement Officers Killed statistics were released. There was a 9% year over year increase in the number of officers shot and killed in 2010 compared to 2009. 28% of those killed were shot with rifles. Out of the 56 officers shot and killed in 2010, only 67% were wearing body armor. In the last year, three law enforcement officers in San Diego County, CA have been shot in the head in the line of duty. Two of them died from their injuries and the third was critically injured but survived. The type of injuries these officers suffered sparked a discussion with some of my medical colleagues on the need for ballistic helmets for officers. Ballistic head protection is standard for special operations teams operating throughout the world. For the majority of line officers that also risk their lives day-to-day, this is not the case. Despite the lack of scientific data strongly supporting the effectiveness of ballistic helmets, the need is apparent and their use seems obvious to the medical staff treating these officers and the families of those who have been injured. In May 2009, a city of Oakland, CA SWAT officer was able to shoot and kill a murder suspect wanted in the killing of four police officers after suspect shot him in the head at point blank distance. His helmet not only saved his life, it gave him the opportunity to act--which most likely saved the lives of several team members. The 25% increase in shooting deaths of law enforcement officers in the last 2 years is a very sobering fact. Patrol rifles have become standard equipment, similarly ballistic helmets should also be issued to every officer….such a simple change could be the difference between life and death.
I see the obvious benefit to wearing a ballistic helmet however it's really not practical to wear it all the time. During entries into residences, active shooter situations, or known high threat situations the helmet should be worn.
ReplyDeleteHowever, on a day to day/radio call to radio call basis, it's simply not practical and would potentially cause more harm. First of all, for the day to day radio calls dealing with the public, law enforcement officers need to be approachable. It's quite common for uniform officers to appear scary and unapproachable to the young law abiding citizen. Now throwing a helmet on the officer would make that even worse. Imagine a small child wanting to talk to an officer about something that happened to them and they are supposed to approach this officer who is armed and covering half their face. It would be quite intimidating. We need the public's support to do our job.
Secondly, when wearing those helmets, your range of vision is dramatically decreased. So it might increase the number of injuries to officers because they are not able to scan their surroundings as easily due to the cumbersome helmet on their head. This would create less reaction time with seeing the threats before us. Imagine a foot chase while wearing the helmet. It just doesn't seem feasible. Maybe if they streamlined the helmet, but you'd still have the concern with the public.
Amber,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your time in reading the article and submitting your comments. They are greatly appreciated. Improving officer safety is my continuing goal. My belief is that ballistic helmets be readily available for all line officers on patrol. I agree the wearing of head protection for routine patrol work is not necessary yet patrol officers are routinely the first responders to high risk situations. I think we would both agree that the presence of needed equipment and deployment speed are crucial. My hope is society never reaches the point that our law enforcement officers routinely look like paratroopers.