Violent Encounters – Experience of Offender

In 2006, the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance published an integrative report entitled “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.”   It’s available for download here: Violent Encounters (240)

It’s absolutely the best analysis I’ve ever come across and I can’t recommend it enough.   I’d like to break out the analysis into bite-size chunks.  Today I want to take a look at the assailants who assault officers, at least in one respect.

There were 43 offenders who participated in the study.  These offenders were interviewed (while incarcerated) in an attempt to better understand their mindset and reasoning prior to and during their assault on law enforcement.  The particular area of focus for this analysis is criminal experience, and how it was used by the offender.

Of the 43 offenders, 41 of them had been previously incarcerated.  Of those, 12 had been arrested 10 times or more, and the remaining 29 had been arrested between 2 and 5 prior to imprisonment.  In and of itself, you could use this information to make all sorts of claims about the justice system, society at large, or whatever else suits your social agenda.  What is of most interst to me is the tactical / training implications.

Offenders reported to the researchers that their previous arrests allow them to develop familiarity with various law enforcement procedures.  They also observed different law enforcement officers.  By carefully analyzing the behavior of law enforcement, offenders were able to evaluate all law enforcement officers they came in contact with (regardless of job or agency assigned).  Specifically, offenders learned to appraise how officers approach suspects, how officers handcuff and search suspects, and how officers transport prisoners.

The implications of this is that offenders are changing their assault based on the intelligence they gather.  They understand that law enforcement officers will follow procedure every time (at least theoretically).  The intent of procedure is to standardize actions for officers, and keep them safe.  The unintended consequence is predictability of actions and timing.  Offenders capitalize on this predictability.

This shouldn’t be surprising, though I’ll admit that I had never considered it.  I’ve even experienced this phenomenon first hand.  I employed tactics and conducted operations in Baghdad in 2003 that I wouldn’t dream of doing in Samarra in 2004.  The environment that I found myself in was radically different.  The overall violence level was much higher, the religious / cultural situation was different (albeit similar), and the insurgents I faced had been training and learning for a year.  They had adapted their tactics to mitigate our past operations.  I can best sum it up like this:  After the invasion of Baghdad, we killed all the really stupid ones and the really brave ones.  The only ones left were smart, deliberate, and careful.

Agencies should review their standard procedures to determine if they are keeping officers safe, or if their predictability is endangering them.  Criminals are learning and adapting to agency and law enforcement behavior.  Law enforcement may need to respond in kind.  The improvement to procedures will certainly be driven from the street level up, and leaders need to capitalize on the wealth of experience within their organization.

Jedburgh Corp offers a wide range of courses specifically designed to leverage this data, and provide the most effective Law Enforcement Training available.  Contact us at info@Jedburgh-USA.com to provide feedback on the blog, or discuss your training needs.  Also, feel free to post your comments.