For the past two decades when I have had the honor of educating members of public safety, emergency management and our military I like to ask the question, “How do you determine if someone is being risky versus aggressive in their choice of tactics?” I pose the question as I want people to have to apply critical thinking skills and appreciate how much the make-up of an individual goes into making split second decisions.
For example, most police department policy and procedures do not say “attempt to rescue victims during a structure fire”, and yet it does happen and while behind the scenes they may be chastised for disregarding policy, they often are recognized as a hero. The office made a split second decision to help someone in grave peril yet put themselves at great risk without the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities of a trained fire-fighter. Does that sound risky or aggressive to you?
Individual fire departments across the country and even different officers within the same department may reach different choices when it comes to determining to make an offensive or defensive fire attack. Who is being risky and who is aggressive? Is it the retrospective analysis that determines the fact, i.e. if it worked it was aggressive and if it failed it was risky?
School shootings have been stopped when unarmed students and/or faculty confronted the shooter, and at other times they have been unceremoniously killed. Were the actions of any one individual risky or aggressive? The school plan may have said school teachers should hide and wait yet in a split second, individuals made their choice.
In my career I learned how I will make split second life risk: benefit decisions based upon my knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as my make-up as a person. If my family is in jeopardy, don’t follow me as I will be doing something and it may very well be stupid. If my partner is in jeopardy, I will attempt to intervene as we got into the mess together and will get out of it together. I also will take more risk when children are involved. Am I being risky or aggressive?
The point I am trying to make as the debate rages over what is the right thing to do about a perceived rise in violence against innocents is don’t expect any one policy, plan or procedure to impact what actions some people may choose to attempt to end it. Factor this into whatever plans, policies and procedures that are custom developed for any one organization as boiler-plate plans might work for robots but not when people are involved.
Risk is minimized and better decisions made as additional education and training to enhance existing knowledge, skills and abilities, so don’t be afraid to develop the next evolving practice. The arm chair quarter-backs will always surface to find fault no matter which way you chose, but I think it also exposes how they might react when put in a similar situation.
I have a number of class offerings and presentations designed to help educate so better decisions on when taking risk will result in a better outcome.
Analytically speaking a simple operational risk management matrix can be employed to minimize unnecessary risk. We’re in a business that inherently involves risk. Using an operationally risk management approach is simply weighing the risk of an action against the reward. What are the possible outcomes? Is a negative outcome more likely than a positive? Am I capable of doing this and going home tonight? What level of training do I possess to deal with this situation? What do I have in my toolkit that can help mitigate risk? That’s the simple analytical answer, but there are other factors that also weigh on the decision. While my policy manual may not explicitly direct me to save kids in a burning house or intervene in an active shooter scenario without help, my oath of office, agency mission statement and agency motto all tell me I should. Additionally, page one of my policy manual states that no policy can be so comprehensive as to anticipate every situation that one is likely to encounter in law enforcement and as such one must rely on training and good judgement. Finally, cowardice is a dismissible offense at my agency. That doesn’t mean that I should take unnecessary risk but taken in toto it does make a strong case that one has a duty to act.
Those are a lot of factors to analyze when speeding headlong into a call or happening upon exigent circumstances and one will likely never have perfect information with which to render the analysis. Fortunately our brains are pretty good (but not always perfect) at analyzing risk even before we are consciously aware. Since that in opens the door for psychological discussions, I’ll end here before I quickly leave my lane of expertise.
V/r
Robert
To answer the question about the active shooter scenario, I’d have to give a qualified “it depends”. The three best options are run, take cover (put something substantial enough to stop a bullet between yourself and the shooter), and hide. If you have to confront the shooter, then it would depend on whether he seemed intent on killing everybody or had specific targets in mind. If he seems intent on mowing everyone down, then some distract and attack tactics might be in order. Find a heavy object, break a window with it, then try to rush the gunman as he turns toward the sound of breaking glass. Otherwise, try to be as little of a threat to the gunman as possible.
I am going to offer an opinion and it is just that. I have been in law enforcement for almost twenty five years with the largest and one of the most progressive Sheriff’s departments in this country. My last twelve years have been with the Special Weapons Team. We are easily justified to be a full time team and the over 4000 square miles and seven million people we provide SWAT services to keep us very busy.
Part of our duties are to train and educate the “first responders” (patrol element) on active shooter tactics. Sadly, some of our own patrol personnel are adamant that they will not enter a building of any type to contain or confront an active shooter, strongly believing that is a Special Weapons Teams job. I despise those people. At a time when innocent people are being killed or injured by an armed person, there is no time to think about whether a trained and armed officer, who by the way took an oath to protect, should consider policy or is being to risky or aggressive. BE AGGRESSIVE!! I would much rather have the bad guy shooting at me instead of unarmed and innocent people.
These shootings are over in a matter of minutes. When it is said and done, no action taken results in a lot of death and lives shattered. Research the times officers have immediately taken action on an active shooter and you will see the difference. There is no full proof method to stop a person hell bent on killing people based on whatever reason he or she may have. However, if you can get past the politics and people can grow and understand that our world is changing and we have to adapt, I believe we can then begin to look at ways to protect innocent people. Not only in our schools but in our everyday places of work and leisure.
Now for my opinion. Our first line of defense is armed presence. Criminals like soft targets and those who are careless. Ask any crook, they will tell you that. I have no problem having armed officers in our schools. I go to and come home from work in my uniform everyday and when I can, I drive into my kids schools. When I pick them up or drop them off and out of uniform, I am armed and I can say my close cop friends all do the same.
We have to have these lines of defense for our children and our public places. I focus mostly on our schools because our children, the future of this country are about as defenseless and innocent as can be. It is our duty to take risks and be aggressive to protect them. I don’t have the “one answer solves all” but I will tell you, I spend a lot of time trying to find it.
Thanks for the time.
Jan,
Interesting thoughts, as always. I think what you describe represents one of the biggest challenges in exercises: people tend to behave as they think they are “supposed to,” rather than what they’d really do. We stage while hundreds of simulators are writhing in agony, because that’s what procedures say, but in real life we’re all over it. It’s very difficult to simulate the sense of jeopardy (for one’s self or others), so it’s difficult to get people to respond to that stimulus as they really would.
JNR
I normally do not actively participate in these discussions, rather I seek the wisdom and words of those who may have much more experience, insight and knowledge to provide me with information to better myself and/or my organization and/or my community.
In this conversation I cannot help myself. I seem compelled to post my thoughts so please forgive me in advance for any offending points of view or oppinions provided and any points of view that drift or sway away from the intent of the originator’s posting and others comments.
In my oppinion, to respond to the question of determining “risky or aggressive” is one which is always decided post incident and can rarely if ever fully acknowlege the scope of the rapidity of actions and information that caused the decisions of an individual to act “risky or aggressive”. I am not including a decision of neglegence or neglect of duty in this conversation as these go far beyond the topic focus.
Must we consider their level of training, competency, professional status/occupation and what is a normal occurence for them when determining “risky or aggressive”?
The catalyst of the question being raised – is it one of a negative outcome that places us into the action of deciding?
The decision or judgment of “risky or aggressive” being made, is this one of holding someone accountable for their decisions or actions?
Is the decision or judgment being made and/or expressed from those not formally required to make such a decision.
Is a personal opinion expressed more valuable than an empowered/required/fully informed decision or judgment?
How does an informed, experienced, professional opinion influence a decision or does the rub occur when this opinion is ignored?
Is the rub that we are not included in the formal decision making process?
The specific incident facts and information are often so complex, so dynamic, that those NOT directly involved in the determination process will often disagree with any determination made. The determination or judgment by each individual or group will be based upon their consideration of the facts as disclosed (full disclosure or not) and as interpretted. When a determination or judgment is made by those required to be directly involved in the review, those privy to all the information, far too often their decision may not or will not be agreed to or accepted by all. When making a determination of “risky or aggressive”, is the issue of the discussion about holding someone accountable for their decisions or actions and who is holding the person to account?
Too many factors may or can influence our own personal determination or judgment when considering the empowered determination or judgment made formally by others required to do so. In the absence of information or the denial of the information, even with full disclosure, we all can/are influenced in our forming opinions,(See – even I can have one.)
For any judgment or decision made regarding “risky or aggressive”, culture and/or personal beliefs systems, political/social/economic influences, expectations of performance, personal interests and many others seem to greatly influence any outcome determination by all who choose to make their personal opinion public. Is the holding to account of an individual’s or group’s decisions or actions ultimately the focus point of disagreement or conflict.
An example might include an extreme that cultures, societies or individuals can all be conditioned to be fearful of “something or someone” in their everyday life even when this fear is not founded in fact. When empowered, may/will decide one way on the question of “risky or aggressive” while other cultures, societies or individuals not influenced by such conditioning will often come to an opposing decision. The resulting conflict between these two or more opposing groups is far to often seen with concensus rarely achieved.
Is the conversation about when we allow the empowered or required formal final determination of “risky or aggressive” to be actively and possibly inappropriately influenced by cultural or personal beliefs systems, political/social/economic influences, unrealitic expectations of performance, or personal interests (that avoid answering accountability and/or bettering future decisions and/or performance of others) or validate our position on the subject?
At the age I am now and continuing my career with only 28 years of service behind me, (yes I see myself as still a youngster who needs glasses) I endeavor to remember my father’s words when making any determination or judgment – “risky or aggressive or other”.
(My father – a former police sargeant who demonstrated great patience – most of the time – would often be forced into using sarcasm when communicating with his all knowing kid.)
“Son, you may be right – so don’t ever let the facts get in the way of your good personal opinion.”
My thanks for your time in reading my post. Respectfully yours,
TH – A Canadian Colleague