We've got an important article in this issue on body armor and it's a good one. (I know because I wrote it.) Why such an emphasis on body armor? Consider this: We lost 30 officers to gunfire in 2013. Forty years ago, when body armor was virtually unknown, we lost 144. And there are a lot more guns on the street today. It's safe to say, body armor is a major reason that gunfire deaths are down so dramatically.
We know that armor works when it's worn—but only if it's worn. It's time for law enforcement leaders to step up and make sure this is happening.
During Below 100 training presentations we talk a lot about body armor and we stress the importance of mandatory-wear policies. Such a policy is required if your agency is receiving money through the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program.
However, every time the subject of mandatory wear comes up, a discussion follows about the "administrative exceptions"—those personnel allowed to go without armor, even when in uniform, because of their assignment. This is purportedly for those who, by nature of their job, are deemed unlikely to be in a gun battle and thus not in need of the protection afforded by a vest. Unfortunately, many departments have essentially made this administrative exception apply to those who have rank, usually in the form of bars or stars.
Reality Check
Bad guys don't care about rank. An officer in uniform is a potential target and will be expected to engage if an incident occurs. Very few "administrators" actually spend their entire day sequestered within the building, and, even if they do, there have been plenty of gunfights inside police facilities.
Over the course of my travels, I've seen great examples of police leaders walking the talk when it comes to armor. Three come immediately to mind.
Chief Dan Doyle, Lake Havasu (Ariz.) PD, attended training in full uniform, full duty belt and armor. He told those in attendance he was committed to wearing his vest and expected the same of others. By the way, it was 109 degrees that day at Lake Havasu.
Chief Dan Alexander, Boca Raton (Fla.) PD, along with eight of his officers, was wearing full duty gear and armor during training. Their readiness came in handy when, about two hours into training, an active-shooter call came in for a nearby location. They were ready.
Chief (retired) Jeff Chudwin is known to many of you. He's a tactician extraordinaire and over the years he surprised a lot of his peers by always being "mission-ready." Always. For Chudwin, armor is a given. It's just part of the required equipment for a uniformed officer. (See his excellent article on surviving an ambush, p. 28, this issue.)
Commitment Needed
If all leaders were doing the right thing, I wouldn't be writing this editorial. Here's what is needed today:
1. Issue body armor or reimburse officers for the purchase. Don't try to rationalize that some assignments don't "require" the issuance. Whatever money might be saved will be a pittance compared to the cost of losing an officer. And don't forget about corrections or detentions personnel. Those who think correctional facilities are weapons-free need to change careers.
2. Have a mandatory wear policy. Exceptions should be very few and should not extend to officers in uniform, regardless of rank or assignment. Wearing a uniform should always mean wearing armor. Officers in plain clothes should be required to wear armor when engaging in warrant service, fugitive searches, rolling surveillance and other similar activities. Don't fall into the trap of telling them to "have it available." I've done a lot of vest save interviews. Trust me, no one saw it coming.
3. Model the behavior by wearing body armor when in uniform. Wearing a vest and a real gun belt sends a powerful message to the troops—a message that is stronger than any spoken word or policy.
4. Ensure that fellow command staff members also walk the talk. I frequently hear that bosses blatantly ignore the rules that officers are expected to follow. Yes, the troops do notice.
5. When necessary, hold people accountable. Never fun, but it's part of the job. Better to discipline than plan a funeral.
Conclusion
If you're going to accept the responsibility of leadership, you must understand that your actions send a powerful message. Your troops are watching. What message are you sending?
