Walk through any tactical equipment display or team staging area today and one thing is clear: Modern SWAT operators have more options than ever – better armor, lighter helmets and improved communications.

Thermal devices, night vision, drones, robots, rifles, optics, breaching tools, medical gear, less-lethal options, tactical vehicles, and a growing list of specialty equipment all promise to make teams safer and more capable.

Most of it can be valuable. The problem is that every new piece of gear comes with a cost. It adds weight, takes up space, requires batteries, maintenance, training, and storage, and may demand new policies or more range and scenario-based training. Before long, a team can find itself carrying more equipment than it can realistically use, support or deploy effectively.

The answer is not to avoid new technology. It is to make sure every piece of equipment earns its place.

More Gear Is Not Always More Capability

Tactical teams are focused on officer safety, mission success and preparing for the worst day their agency may face. That can lead to a simple assumption: More equipment must mean more readiness. Sometimes, it does; often, it does not.

The same holds true for technology. A team may own drones, robots, thermal devices, remote cameras, and advanced communications systems, but that equipment has little value if only one person knows how to use it, batteries are dead, policies are unclear, or the team has not trained with it under realistic conditions.

Capability is not measured by the amount of gear a team owns. It is measured by how well that gear supports the mission.

Start with the Mission

Before purchasing the next piece of equipment, teams should ask a basic question: What problem are we trying to solve?

A full-time metropolitan SWAT team may need a different equipment mix than a regional team serving several counties. A team which regularly handles barricades, warrant service, high-risk arrests, and major public events may have different priorities than one responding mainly to rural incidents, corrections emergencies, active threats, or search and rescue calls.

The mission drives equipment.

Teams should review the incidents they actually handle, not just the ones they might someday face. After-action reports; callout trends; training records; and input from operators, medics, negotiators, snipers, bomb technicians, and command staff can reveal where the real gaps are.

Sometimes the answer is not another piece of gear. It may be better organization, more training time, stronger maintenance support, or a simpler way to deploy equipment the team already owns.

Build a Core Loadout, Then Add Mission-specific Gear

One practical way to avoid overload is to separate what every operator needs from what is mission-specific.

The core loadout should include equipment required for the team’s most common assignments: appropriate body armor, helmet, communications, eye protection, lighting, medical supplies, and other essentials determined by agency policy and mission needs.

Beyond that, teams can rely on mission-specific packages. This approach keeps the basic load manageable while allowing the team to scale up when needed.

The Human Body Still Sets the Limit

Technology changes quickly; the human body does not. Armor, helmets, rifles, communications equipment, medical gear, breaching tools, water, batteries, and other equipment all add up. Even small additions can become a problem over a long operation, especially in heat, cold, darkness, or multi-hour barricades.

A good tactical loadout must account for mobility, endurance and fit. Operators need to move, climb, kneel, work around vehicles, enter structures, communicate, render aid, and stay alert under stress. Equipment which shifts, binds, overheats the operator, or makes it difficult to sit in a vehicle can quickly become more of a burden than an advantage.

Fit matters just as much as weight. Armor, helmets, uniforms, and load-bearing equipment should work for the people wearing them, not just look good on a product display. When gear creates pressure points, restricts movement or causes fatigue, operators may start adjusting it, loosening it or leaving it behind.

Technology Needs a Home and a Plan

Modern tactical technology can be a major force multiplier, but it can also create clutter fast. Cables must be routed safely; batteries need to be charged and tracked; and equipment needs protection from weather, impact and loss.

The more technology a team carries, the more important simplicity becomes. Equipment should make the operator’s job easier, not create another problem to manage. If a device requires constant adjustment; blocks access to essential gear; adds confusion to radio traffic; or demands more attention than it provides in value, the team should reconsider how it is being used.

Technology also needs ownership. Someone should be responsible for batteries, charging, software updates, replacement parts, maintenance, and training records. When that responsibility is vague, equipment tends to become unreliable at the worst possible time.

Communications Cannot Be an Afterthought

A tactical team can have excellent equipment, experienced operators and a solid plan, but poor communications can still derail the operation.

Headsets, radios, hearing protection, push-to-talk systems, interagency channels, and command post information flow all deserve careful attention. Teams need to know who is communicating on which channel; how information moves from drone operators or observers to the team leader; and how emergency traffic will be handled.

The goal is not more radio traffic, but better radio traffic. Clear, disciplined communications reduce confusion, prevent repeated commands and keep the team aligned during fast changing events.

As with all equipment, you need to train with communications systems, not merely be issued it.

Medical Gear Must Be Accessible

A large medical kit stored somewhere in a vehicle is helpful, but it may not be enough during a rapidly developing incident. At the same time, loading every operator down with a full trauma bag can make movement more difficult.

The best approach is usually layered. Operators should have immediate access to the most critical medical gear required by policy and training. Additional supplies can be carried by tactical medics, designated team members or organized in vehicle-based kits.

The team should know who carries what, where additional supplies are located and how casualty care fits into the larger tactical plan. Medical planning should begin before the operation, not after someone is injured.

Keep Team Gear Off the Operator When Possible

Not everything has to be carried on the body. Ballistic shields, breaching tools, large medical kits, extra ammunition, cameras, drones, robots, less-lethal systems, rescue equipment, water, and cold weather gear may be better carried in a vehicle, equipment cart, mission bag, or designated team kit until needed.

Organization makes the difference. Teams should be able to identify, load and deploy mission-specific equipment quickly. Cases, bags, vehicle storage systems, and color coded kits can reduce confusion during callouts.

A patrol vehicle, armored rescue vehicle or tactical van should support the mission, not become a black hole where gear disappears.

Train for the Gear You Carry

Every new capability creates a training requirement. Teams should avoid buying equipment faster than they can train with it.

The best tactical teams test equipment in darkness, bad weather, cluttered structures, long operations, vehicle deployments, and stressful scenarios. They evaluate what works; what fails; and what becomes awkward once gloves, armor, radios, and time pressure are added.

A piece of equipment which cannot be deployed confidently under stress is not yet a true capability.

Standardization Reduces Problems

Tactical teams do not need every operator configured exactly the same way, but they benefit from standardization.

Common equipment layouts, similar communications setups, consistent medical gear locations, familiar vehicle storage systems, and repeatable mission kits reduce confusion. Operators can move between roles more easily; supervisors know what capability is available; and training, maintenance and replacement become simpler. The goal is not to eliminate personal preference. It is to keep personal preference from becoming operational chaos.

Build Smart, Not Heavy

The best teams build around mission, fit, training, communications, organization, and common sense. They carry what they need, stage what they may need and avoid confusing equipment volume with true readiness.

A well-equipped team is not the team with the most gear. It is the team whose people can move, communicate, think, train, and act effectively when the mission gets difficult.

That is the real goal: not simply more equipment, but better capability.

Created in recognition of America’s 250th anniversary, the online exhibit explores how law enforcement developed from colonial era systems such as sheriffs, constables and night watches into the more organized, professional agencies which emerged in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The exhibit also examines how geography, population growth, westward expansion, political corruption, public safety challenges, and advances in technology shaped the role of law enforcement in communities across the country.

Featuring approximately 75 photographs, prints and artifacts spanning the early 1700s through the 1930s, the exhibit highlights key moments in the development of American law enforcement. Among the items on display are a sheriff’s writ from 1703, the oldest object in the National Law Enforcement Museum’s collection, and an Indian police belt used by Native American law enforcement personnel, complete with a holster, gunpowder flask and bullet tool. A special “Then and Now” section also traces the evolution of law enforcement equipment and technology, comparing historical badges, communication tools and other objects with their modern counterparts.

“America’s history and the history of law enforcement are deeply connected,” said Thomas Canavan, Executive Director, National Law Enforcement Museum. “As our nation marks 250 years, this exhibit offers an opportunity to better understand how law enforcement developed, how officers adapted to the needs of their communities, and how those changes continue to inform the profession today.”

The digital exhibit is sponsored by GALLS^®, the leading uniform and equipment supplier serving America’s public safety professionals. 

“Sponsoring the National Law Enforcement Museum’s exhibit is a natural extension of GALLS^’ commitment to support law enforcement and our nation’s public safety legacy,” said Mike Fadden, CEO of GALLS. “At GALLS, we view ourselves as more than just a uniform supplier. We are humbled by the deep traditions of our law enforcement officers. This exhibit honors 250 years of courage, sacrifice and dedication by law enforcement professionals to protect their communities and this nation. GALLS is honored to help share their incredible story with the world, preserving the history of our law enforcement community.”

A link to the digital exhibit can be found at https://tinyurl.com/yz83hrmn

Supreme Court: Using a Routine Wristlock to Move a Resistant Protester Does Not Violate the US Constitution

On the day of the governor’s inauguration in Vermont, roughly 200 demonstrators gathered at the State House, where some, including Shela Linton, staged a sit-in to press for universal healthcare. As evening fell and the capitol closed to the public, 29 protesters remained in the legislative chamber, seated on the floor with their arms linked. Police officers warned them that, if they refused to leave, they would be arrested for trespassing. They stayed where they were.

As officers removed the protesters one by one, Sergeant Jacob Zorn asked Shela Linton “to stand up” and warned her that he would eventually have to use force to remove her. She refused to stand. Zorn took Linton’s arm, put(ting) it behind her back in a rear wristlock. Linton exclaimed, “ow, ow, ow,” while Zorn repeatedly asked her to “please stand up.” After Linton responded, “I will not stand up,” Zorn told her that he would ask “one more time” and then would utilize additional pain compliance. Linton refused, so Zorn placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her up by her underarm. Linton yelled as she stood up. Once on her feet, Linton continued to jerk her arms and fell back to the floor. Zorn asked her to stand up again and, when she did not, three officers picked her up by her arms and legs and carried her outside.

Linton sued Zorn for “using excessive force,” claiming that the arrest left her with arm injuries, psychological injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Based on a previous ruling in Amnesty America v. West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 123 (2nd Cir. 2004), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity. The United States Supreme Court in Zorn v. Linton (US 3/23/2026) disagreed and reversed.

As a general rule, law enforcement officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under 42 US Code §1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law. “A right is clearly established when it is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” A right is not clearly established if existing precedent does not place the constitutional question “beyond debate.”

“To find that a right is clearly established, courts generally ‘need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances…was held to have violated’ the Constitution. …The relevant precedent must define the right with a ‘high degree of specificity,’ so that ‘every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.’…Principles stated generally, such as that ‘an officer may not use unreasonable and excessive force,’ do not suffice. …In short, officers receive qualified immunity unless they could have ‘read’ the relevant precedent beforehand and ‘know[n]’ that it proscribed their specific conduct.”

Here the Court held that existing precedent did not clearly establish that Sgt. Zorn’s specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

Whether any particular use of force violates the Fourth Amendment depends on “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,”…including whether the officer gave “warnings” before using force[.] In Amnesty America, the court considered a wide range of allegations of excessive force. The officers rammed a protester’s head into a wall, dragged another protester across the ground, and used rear wristlocks on two more protesters to lift them up before throwing one of them to the ground. Nothing indicated that the officers gave the protesters any warning that they would use such force. * * *

Reasonable officials would not “interpret [Amnesty America] to establish that using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution. …Zorn repeatedly warned Linton that he would have to use more force if she did not stand up, and when she did not do so, he used a wristlock to bring Linton to her feet. …Amnesty America never “held” that such conduct alone “violated” the Fourth Amendment. * * *

[Amnesty America never held] “that the gratuitous use of pain compliance techniques – such as a rear wristlock – on a protestor who is passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.” …It does not “obviously resolve” whether using a rear wristlock to move a noncompliant protester after repeated warnings violates the Fourth Amendment, …as it fails to specify which circumstances make the use of force “gratuitous.”

Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer taking similar actions in similar circumstances was held to have violated the Constitution, Sgt. Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity.

Larry E. Holtz has served as a Detective Sergeant with the Atlantic City, New Jersey, Police Department; a Deputy Attorney General for the state of New Jersey, and an Assistant County Prosecutor. Presently, Mr. Holtz is a leading author for Blue360° Media, the largest US provider of legal information which is solely focused on serving law enforcement. Mr. Holtz is a certified police trainer and teaches on a regular basis. He is a member of the bar in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia and is admitted to practice before the federal bar in the District of New Jersey and the Third Circuit.

Llamaforcement… Police were hot on the heels of a thief they were chasing, until they lost him when he leapt over a fence and onto a farmer’s property. As it turns out, that was not a wise move. This farmer has eight llamas on his property and these are animals which are very possessive about their territory. The llamas, which can reach a height of six feet and are well-known for their nasty habit of spitting, quickly surrounded the fleeing fool and immediately began to make a terrible racket. The thief was halted in his tracks and was held in check by the animals until the officers arrived. After his release from llama custody, he was arrested and charged with theft. (I would totally watch a TV show about crime fighting llamas.)

“Remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.”… A Florida man who matched the description of a wanted suspect told police that his name was “George Costanza,” a poorly disguised attempt which ended up with an obstruction charge. Officers were patrolling an entertainment park in Clearwater when they confronted a man who resembled “the description of a subject with an active arrest warrant.” The accused, who was recently arrested for trespassing, failed to appear for a court hearing, prompting a judge to order his arrest. When an officer asked the suspect to identify himself, “the defendant responded with ‘George Costanza,’ ” according to an arrest report. Curiously, he didn’t use the name of a less significant “Seinfeld” character like “Cosmo Kramer” or “Kenny Bania.” In addition to being arrested on the outstanding trespass warrant, he was charged with resisting an officer and booked into the Pinellas County jail. He eventually pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor resisting count and was ordered to pay fines and court costs. (I’ll bet he wasn’t even a “Master of His Own Domain.”)

Gives new meaning to “skeletons in your closet”… If you are the woman who dropped off a human skull at the Goodwill Donation Center in Chelsea, Michigan, the Chelsea Police Department would like to have a conversation with you. A news organization reported that a woman, who was caught on the store’s surveillance camera, entered the center with a skull which was wrapped in a shirt. The skull appeared to be intact and didn’t have any “visible damage.” Officers turned it over to the county medical examiner who forwarded it to the anthropology department at the University of Michigan for further study. (Knowing Goodwill, I’m surprised they didn’t slap a price tag on it anyway.)

It was rather nice of them to “stick” around until the deputies arrived… Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to a home in Jasper County, Texas, on a report of break-in at a residence. The homeowner told the police that she had been in an argument with two women earlier and they had later broken into her home and assaulted her. The suspects gained entry through a window and kicked open the victim’s bedroom door, the victim told deputies. “Would they happen to be the two women whose vehicle is stuck in the mud in your driveway?” police wondered. Yes, indeed-ee…both suspects were still at the scene when deputies arrived because their vehicle was, in fact, stuck in the mud. The two women, ages 21 and 38, were taken into custody and booked into the Jasper County jail. (Definitely not Thelma and Louise…)

 So, that’s why my order took so long… City officials in Gastonia, North Carolina, decided it was time to get involved after a video surfaced of someone getting a tattoo in a Wendy’s dining room in the city. The video which was recorded from outside the restaurant shows a man with his shirt off and another person sitting behind him wearing blue gloves and holding a tattoo gun. A city official said an environmental health team member talked to the store manager and reminded them that the restaurant “cannot tattoo without a permit.” For its part, the fast-food franchisee said they “took immediate disciplinary action to address the situation.” (Would anyone even bat an eye if this were in a Waffle House?)

Now, she’ll get to complain about the food in prison… A Berkeley, Missouri, city council meeting took an unexpected turn when a woman who came to complain about police ended up being arrested moments later. The woman was already wanted on charges of domestic assault and armed criminal action. Police Major Steve Runge said he immediately recognized her when she stepped up to speak at the meeting. The moment became even more surreal when, Runge said, she began criticizing the police. City video shows the major quietly texting other officers to let them know she was there. Two officers seated in the back then stood up and moved in carefully. “My concern was to take her into custody without an issue, without any drama,” Runge said. That’s exactly what happened. The arrest took place in the hallway outside the meeting room. Police said the woman was wanted in connection with an October 2025 stabbing. (Hiding in [com]plain sight…)

Eureka!… A 51-year-old Oviedo, Florida, man was arrested after he was caught engaging in a “sexual performance” with a vacuum cleaner, according to the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies said they were dispatched on reports of a man “exposing his private parts in front of a residence. The victims that observed this behavior provided a statement and a cell phone recording of a male, partially clothed, in front of a residence, engaged in a sexual act with a household appliance,” the release reads. The suspect had already left the area before a deputy could arrive, but further investigation revealed that the suspect and his wife were listed as the hosts of a local Airbnb. Video of the incident captured on a Ring camera was given to the responding deputy. Eventually, a warrant was obtained for the suspect’s arrest who was caught near his home in Oviedo. He is facing a charge of indecent exposure. (So, what are you in for?)

Blue Alerts can be transmitted to television and radio stations; to cellphones and wireless devices; to overhead highway message signs; and other secondary alerting mechanisms – in the same way that AMBER Alerts are commonly issued. There are currently 37 states with Blue Alert plans. The COPS Office provides resources and technical assistance to states, territories, law enforcement agencies, and tribes seeking to establish or enhance Blue Alert plans, including voluntary activation guidelines, examples of legislation, policies, and forms gathered from around the nation in a central Blue Alert data repository.

The COPS Office has announced a new video resource introducing the National Blue Alert Network. The video explains how Blue Alerts work: Authorized agencies submit requests when specific criteria are met and critical information is quickly distributed through FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) across mobile devices, television, radio, and highway message signs.

The resource highlights the importance of speed, coordination and public awareness in helping law enforcement locate suspects and protect communities. It also outlines how states can participate in the Blue Alert Network at no cost, with support from the COPS Office to develop and implement effective alert plans.

For more information about Blue Alerts, including fact sheets, guides and additional resources, visit the National Blue Alert Network webpage at cops.usdoj.gov/bluealert

Operation Eclipse: When the World Gets It Right

Is there any crime worse than that which hurts a child?

I’ve asked myself that question more times than I can count and I’ve never arrived at a satisfying answer – because I don’t believe one exists. In 21 years of working homicide in Miami-Dade County, I encountered nearly every variety of human cruelty imaginable. I saw what people do to one another in moments of rage, greed, jealousy, and desperation. And, over time, I came to understand – not condone, mind you, but understand – why adults sometimes kill one another…two men arguing over a drug corner; a domestic dispute which boils past the point of no return; or a robbery gone sideways in the blink of an eye. I could trace those threads back through poverty, addiction, anger, circumstance. I could follow the logic, as twisted and tragic as it was, and find some frayed human thread connecting action to motive.

But, a child? I could never wrap my head around that.

In all my years behind a badge, working scenes which would turn the strongest stomach, sitting across interrogation tables from men who had done unspeakable things, I never found the thread which explained how any human being could deliberately damage, abuse or exploit a small child. There is no logic or viable thread. There is only a depravity so complete that it defies every framework I’d spent a career building. So, when I read about Operation Eclipse, I felt something I don’t always feel when I read the news these days: a deep, bone level satisfaction.

Here’s what happened: Between February 2025 and January 2026, INTERPOL coordinated a yearlong international operation spanning nine countries across Central America, North America and the Caribbean. The participating nations – Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the Dominican Republic – worked in concert to target the production and distribution of child sexual abuse material. When it was over, 60 individuals had been arrested and 65 child victims had been identified and rescued. The majority of those victims were between the ages of five and 13. Let that sink in for a moment – five years old…13 years old – approximately 80 percent of them were girls.

The operation was coordinated by INTERPOL with support from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and an organization called the Child Rescue Coalition. Law enforcement agencies across Latin America synchronized their investigations, executed targeted interventions, and shared cross border evidence in real time. That kind of international cooperation doesn’t happen by accident. It takes years of relationship building, trust and painstaking organizational work. That work deserves every bit of recognition it gets.

What struck me most about Operation Eclipse, as a retired investigator, was its emphasis on cold cases – specifically, the meticulous work of going back and identifying victims who had appeared in INTERPOL’s International Child Sexual Exploitation database for years, even decades, without ever being named or found. Think about that for a moment. There are images of children – children being victimized – sitting in a law enforcement database for ten-plus years, and nobody could put a name to the face or an address to the location. That database, by the way, currently contains nearly five million images and videos of child abuse and has helped identify more than 42,000 victims worldwide. The scope of this problem is almost incomprehensible.

In Panama, investigators finally cracked a case in which a victim’s images had circulated in INTERPOL’s system for over a decade without identification. Through the INTERPOL Victim Identification Task Force for Latin America and the Caribbean, specialized officers came together, pooled their expertise and solved it. In Costa Rica, a suspect had posed online as a celebrity, using that false identity to make initial contact with a young victim before pivoting to grooming, sexual blackmail and threats against the child’s family. That case, too, had gone cold for years before Operation Eclipse brought it back to life. Then, there was a case in the Dominican Republic involving two minors, ages ten and thirteen. Their abusers? One was a transnational sex offender who had been living in the home with them. The other was their mother.    

I’ve been out of law enforcement for nearly 20 years and I still had to put the article down for a minute after reading it to fully absorb that last fact. In all my years working homicide, there were cases which stayed with me – cases where the perpetrator was someone the victim should have been able to trust with their life. Those were always the hardest. And, they never got easier.

One of the things I always appreciated about working in a major metropolitan homicide unit was the breadth of expertise on the squad. When I came up through the ranks, the veterans didn’t just hand you a case and wish you luck – they mentored you, challenged you and held you to a standard. Operation Eclipse reminds me of that same culture of expertise applied on a global scale. INTERPOL provided real-time intelligence sharing and strategic guidance. The UNODC provided training and technical support to investigative and prosecutorial units across the region. These aren’t just bureaucratic functions; they’re the architecture of a successful investigation. When you get the structure right, the results follow. The suspects arrested in this operation were not a monolithic group of strangers lurking in the shadows. Investigators noted that the alleged perpetrators came from across the spectrum of a child’s social world: relatives, friends, neighbors, educators, online predators, and foreign tourists. There is no single profile. There is no easy checklist. And that, frankly, is what makes this crime so devastating and so difficult to prosecute – the offender is often the person the child’s own family trusted.

Cyril Gout, INTERPOL’s Acting Executive Director of Police Services, said something which resonated with me as a former detective: Pursuing older cases isn’t only about delivering justice – it’s about preventing further harm. That’s an important principle. A cold case isn’t a closed case, nor is an unidentified victim a forgotten one. If you walk away from the unsolved ones, you’re not just letting a perpetrator walk free – you’re leaving a door open for the next victim. The detectives and investigators who worked Operation Eclipse clearly understood that.

As I write these columns, I find myself toggling between pride in law enforcement – what it can accomplish when it operates at its best – and genuine worry about the world these children are growing up in. I teach high school criminal justice now. My students are juniors and seniors, many of them are the same age as some of the older victims in this case. I think about that. I think about how many of them are online, trusting, accessible – and how predators know that, too. The INTERPOL database holding nearly five million images of child abuse didn’t fill up overnight. It filled up one child at a time, one crime at a time, across years and decades – and, for most of those children, help was very slow in coming, if it came at all. Operation Eclipse chipped away at that backlog in a meaningful way: 60 arrests; 65 children identified – cases which had gone cold for a decade, or more, finally resolved.

Is it enough? Of course it’s not. It’s never enough when we’re talking about children. But, it’s something. It’s the work being done the right way, by dedicated professionals operating across borders and languages and legal systems, driven by the same purpose: Protect the child.

I started this column with a question. Is there any crime worse than that which hurts a child? I’ve sat with that question through two decades in homicide and another decade and a half of teaching young people who would never fully understand why I asked it with such feeling. The answer, every single time, is the same: No, there isn’t. And, the men and women who got up every day for a year and worked Operation Eclipse knew that, too.

My hat is off to every one of them.

Ramesh Nyberg retired from law enforcement in November 2006 after 27 years of police work. He lives in Miami and teaches criminal justice at a local high school. He also teaches regional law enforcement courses through Training Force, USA. He enjoys getting feedback from readers and can be reached at ramesh.nyberg@gmail.com. Also, Ram has written a new book, Badge, Tie and Gun: Life and Death Journeys of a Miami Detective, which is available on Amazon in both Kindle eBook and paperback. You can find it by visiting amazon.com/dp/B0CTQQKQTV

What Supervisors Should Reinforce Before, During and After Commercial Vehicle Stops

Law enforcement has seen too many recent examples of officers grabbing onto moving vehicles, reaching into driver compartments or physically attaching themselves to vehicles to keep someone from driving away. The intent may be understandable. The result can be catastrophic.

That risk increases sharply when the vehicle is a tractor-trailer (a recent example can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/2n73vzpw).

No officer can physically stop a 30,000 pound commercial motor vehicle with body weight, strength, urgency, or determination. Whether the vehicle is a sedan, pickup, box truck, or big rig, grabbing on, jumping on or placing yourself in the path of movement is a losing tactic.

Supervisors and trainers should say this plainly: Disengaging from a moving vehicle is not weakness. It is sound tactics. It preserves life, reduces agency exposure and keeps officers available to continue the investigation safely.

There is also a legal and administrative concern. When officers place themselves in danger through actions which did not need to occur, they create risk for themselves, the public and the agency. This is often discussed as officer-created jeopardy or officer-induced jeopardy. The issue is whether the officer’s actions escalated the encounter. That concern can surface in civil claims, workers’ compensation reviews, internal investigations, and insurance matters. The better answer is planning, positioning, communication, and discipline.

Initial Considerations

The initial steps for stopping a tractor-trailer are similar to any other motor vehicle stop. The officer must be able to articulate the legal reason for the stop; know the location and direction of travel; assess roadway and traffic conditions; and advise dispatch of the intended stop, vehicle description, direction, and any risk factors.

The differences begin with size, weight, stopping distance, blind spots, and terrain. A tractor-trailer cannot safely stop or reposition like a passenger car. The driver may need additional time and distance to find a safe place to stop, whether that is a shoulder, ramp, rest area, or parking lot large enough to accommodate the rig and keep everyone clear of traffic.

This is where supervisory messaging matters. Officers should be trained to think ahead before activating emergency equipment. Where will this stop occur? Is the shoulder paved and stable? Is traffic heavy? Is there an off-ramp, weigh station, rest area, truck stop, or large parking lot nearby? A few extra seconds of planning can prevent a dangerous roadside contact.

Choosing the Stop Location

The stop location is one of the most important tactical decisions in any commercial vehicle encounter. Whenever possible, look for a flat, paved, stable surface. A soft shoulder can create problems quickly. A tractor-trailer may sink into dirt, gravel, mud, or grass. In worse conditions, the vehicle may become stuck, lean or create a rollover risk. That can quickly become a traffic, safety and liability issue.

Officers assigned to highway details often wait until the vehicle reaches a safer location, such as a rest area, off-ramp, weigh station, or wide paved shoulder. That is usually the better choice when circumstances allow.

If the initial stop occurs in a poor location, the officer is not locked into that decision. If the driver is cooperative and conditions allow, direct the driver to move to a safer place, such as a well-lit parking lot, an off-ramp lane or a wider shoulder. The first stopping location does not have to be the final one.

Getting the Driver’s Attention

Because of the height, length and blind spots of a tractor-trailer, the driver may not immediately see the patrol vehicle. The officer may need to move where the driver can see the emergency lights, but this must be done with caution.

Avoid driving alongside the tractor-trailer and remaining there. The area next to a big rig is hazardous. The officer may be in a blind spot, exposed to traffic and vulnerable if the driver makes a sudden lane movement.

Once the driver becomes aware of the stop, do not assume noncompliance simply because the vehicle does not pull over immediately. Many commercial drivers understand the limitations of their vehicles and may be avoiding a narrow shoulder, bridge, curve, construction zone, or area with no safe escape path. Officers should remain alert, but evaluate the totality of the circumstances before deciding the driver is fleeing or resisting.

Respect the High Ground

The driver and any passengers in a tractor cab sit above the officer. That creates an immediate tactical disadvantage. The officer is looking up, often from a position where the driver’s hands are difficult to see.

For that reason, standing directly beside the cab door may not be the best option. One safer alternative is to move forward of the cab, where the officer can look through the front windshield and better observe movement inside the cab. A driver could fire through the windshield, but the same threat exists at the door, where the officer may have even less visibility. The goal is to improve visibility, control distance and avoid unnecessary exposure.

If conditions allow, the officer can direct the driver to exit and walk back to a safer contact position. This keeps both out of the traffic lane and gives the officer a chance to evaluate body language, compliance, balance, and demeanor.

Officers who work commercial vehicle enforcement may sometimes be trained to step onto running boards to inspect documents, observe the cab or check a logbook. That practice deserves careful review. The value of seeing a logbook entry or minor contraband does not outweigh the risk of falling, being trapped, being dragged, or losing reaction time at the side of the cab.

Positioning the Patrol Vehicle

There is no single patrol vehicle position which works for every tractor-trailer stop. Roadway design, traffic, shoulder width, lighting, weather, terrain, and the officer’s objective all matter. The primary factor is officer safety. A sound position should provide protection from passing traffic, give the officer a view of the driver and create options if the encounter changes.

The Left Offset Position

In a left offset position, the officer stops behind the tractor-trailer with the patrol vehicle offset slightly to the driver’s side. A distance of about 15 to 25 feet behind the trailer provides a wider field of view and avoids crowding the vehicle. As with cover, crowding limits visibility, movement and reaction time.

From the left offset position, the officer may choose a driver-side approach, passenger-side approach or call-out. If using a passenger-side approach, the officer can move around the rear of the patrol vehicle and approach from the side which best reduces exposure to traffic. Some officers may choose to move between the patrol vehicle and trailer to get to the passenger side. This should be done only when it is safe and necessary. If a position limits visibility, movement or safety, it is the wrong position for that stop.

The Call-out Option

A call-out can be a strong option on tractor-trailer stops, especially when traffic, visibility, cab height, driver behavior, or officer safety concerns make an approach undesirable.

If traffic noise is manageable, use the public address system and direct the driver to exit the cab and walk back to the officer’s location. Tell the driver what to do, where to walk and where to stop. Keep the driver out of traffic and away from areas which expose the officer unnecessarily.

A call-out allows the officer to observe the driver before direct contact. Are the hands visible? Is the driver steady on his/her feet? Is he/she angry, confused, compliant, or looking around for an escape route? These observations help the officer decide how to proceed.

If the PA system is not working (which happens all too often), the driver may still be watching through the side mirrors. Once positioned near the rear of the trailer on the safer side, the officer can use hand gestures to direct the driver back. The officer should not rush into a poor position simply because the first communication method failed.

The Parallel Position

The parallel position places the patrol vehicle directly behind the tractor-trailer, aligned with the curb or shoulder. This may be necessary because of roadway design or limited space. The advantage is simplicity. The officer remains behind the rig and can maintain a view of the vehicle. As with other positions, increased distance can improve visibility.

The disadvantage is that this position does not create much of a protected area for a driver-side approach. For that reason, a passenger-side approach or right-side call-out is often preferable, depending on traffic and shoulder conditions.

The Pull-around Position

The pull-around position can provide a high level of officer safety in the right environment, but it is not appropriate everywhere. After the rig has stopped, the officer pulls around on the left when safe, then parks approximately 45 to 50 feet in front of the rig at an angle, outside traffic. From there, the officer can stand behind the patrol vehicle and call the driver forward or back to a controlled contact position.

The advantage is distance and frontal control. A tractor-trailer is slow to accelerate from a dead stop which gives the officer more time to react and reposition if needed. The patrol vehicle may also provide some cover if the officer comes under fire.

The drawback is traffic visibility. Vehicles approaching from the rear may not see the patrol vehicle or emergency lights until they are alongside the tractor-trailer. That makes this position unsuitable for high traffic roadways, narrow shoulders, curves, hills, and other locations where approaching drivers have limited warning. This tactic depends on preplanning and is best reserved for open areas, rest areas, ramps, parking lots, or locations where traffic exposure is minimized.

Supervisory Priorities

Middle managers shape how officers handle these stops. Policy, training and culture should send the same message.

First, officers should not use their bodies to stop vehicles. This includes grabbing door frames, reaching through windows, standing in front of vehicles, jumping on running boards during movement, or otherwise placing themselves where vehicle movement creates an immediate deadly threat.

Second, officers should be trained to preplan commercial vehicle stops. The safest stop often begins before the emergency lights are activated.

Third, supervisors should review body-worn camera and dash camera footage not only for mistakes, but for teachable moments. Good tactics should be reinforced. Unsafe habits should be corrected early before they become accepted practice.

Finally, commercial vehicle stops should not be treated as rare exceptions. Big rigs are involved in traffic violations, impaired driving, stolen property movement, human trafficking, drug transportation, and other enforcement concerns. Officers should not be intimidated by the size of the vehicle, but they must respect it.

Final Thoughts

A tractor-trailer is not mysterious. In many ways, it is a very large motor vehicle with a professional driver who is required to have a valid license, valid registration documents for the tractor and trailer, and proof of insurance. The stop may begin with a simple violation and develop into something more, just like any other traffic stop.

The difference is consequence. A poor decision around a passenger car can be dangerous. A poor decision around a tractor-trailer can be unforgiving.

The officer’s mindset should be simple: Slow down, think ahead, choose the location carefully, communicate clearly, use distance, and do not create unnecessary jeopardy.

There are heroes in law enforcement. None of them are bulletproof and none of them can stop a big rig by hand.

Michael T. Rayburn has been involved in law enforcement since 1977 and is the author of five books. He is a former Adjunct Instructor for the Smith & Wesson Academy and is the owner of Rayburn Law Enforcement Training. He can be reached at combatgunfighting.com

Off duty carry offers critical protection, but safe, effective use depends on judgment, training and knowing when to intervene.

A unique aspect of American law enforcement is that officers may carry a firearm while off duty. This practice has long been supported by police unions, administrators and officers themselves. Unions back it because officers may be called upon to take enforcement action even when off the clock. Administrators have also favored the idea, recognizing the value of armed trained professionals in the community. For individual officers, however, the primary reason is personal protection, since encountering dangerous individuals from past interactions remains a very real possibility.

A rite of passage when one begins a law enforcement career is getting that first off duty gun. You quickly come to terms with the fact that you not only have the power of life and death while on duty, but on your own time as well. Make no mistake about it, this is a huge responsibility and, in fact, requires a few lifestyle changes. It could include the clothing you wear, places you go and the consumption of alcoholic beverages. But, with some minor adjustments, you can still go about your routine as long as you pay attention to some details.

The World Is a Dangerous Place!

Although today’s officers are better trained and equipped than ever before, violent crime and attacks on police have spiked and there is still an element of risk when off duty. When it’s least expected, an officer could get caught up in a violent confrontation while defending themselves or others. Consider for a moment the following recent incidents:

Van Nuys, CA – A Beverly Hills officer driving down a road encounters two men fighting, one armed with a pipe and the other with a gun. He attempts to control the situation, but is threatened by the man with the gun. The subject is killed and the man with the pipe flees the scene, but is located later.

Chicago, IL – An off duty officer intervenes in a fight between a man and a woman. The man, armed with a knife, stabs the women and the officer fires two shots, striking the subject. The subject leaves the scene, but is found a short time later dead in a vehicle. Unfortunately, the woman also dies as a result of her injury.

Jacksonville, FL – A 24 year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office was fatally shot after trying to intervene in a violent argument between a man and woman at a Northside truck stop. Authorities said the officer was off duty when he arrived just after 1:15 a.m. and heard the dispute near a Ford Mustang^®. After he stepped in, the man told him it was a “family matter,” then struggled with the woman and pointed a gun at the officer. Police said the suspect fired as the couple drove away. The veteran officer later died at a hospital.

Prince Georges County, MD – A police officer attempts to come to the aid of a neighbor in the midst of a heated domestic incident. The subject produces a gun and fires at the officer. This intervention saved the woman’s life, but both the subject and officer are killed.

Without question, we can uncover numerous incidents when an officer took action which saved someone’s life. Unfortunately, many of these stories do not end well. Even more disturbing are off duty incidents when an officer crossed the line and used deadly force when it was not justified, with some examples originating from road rage or incidents in bars. In some cases, this has resulted in a movement to disarm off duty police. These sorts of incidents often paint the involved agency in a bad light and result in termination, criminal prosecution and incarceration for the involved officer. Don’t be that guy!

Training and Policy

Does your department have a policy relative to officer actions while off duty? Policies need to be crystal clear as to what sort of events in which an officer should or should not get involved. I’m not suggesting that we turn a blind eye, but there are certain instances when intervention could be dangerous to the officer or bystanders.

In those situations, it might be best to act as a trained observer, take in as much information as possible and summon the uniformed troops. However, in situations when a subject has used, or is about to use, violence, the game changes 180 degrees. But, before jumping in with both feet, ask yourself, “Is my intervention likely to result in a good outcome?”

As distasteful as it might seem, observing some sort of illegal behavior when off duty and letting it go for the moment can be a bitter pill to swallow. This might include certain types of property crimes, motor vehicle violations, disorderly persons, or other less serious offenses. Violence directed at you or others is a whole different ball game. But, before getting involved, consider the following.

Do you have the proper safety equipment? As we all know, confronting people for even the most minor offenses can set them off and spiral out of control. You might have your handgun, but what about handcuffs, a less-lethal weapon, body armor, and a way to summon backup?

Agency policy should also include a statement on what sort of firearms may be carried, holsters, ammunition, and standards for qualification. I’m often bewildered by departments who allow officers to merely drop a smaller handgun in their duty holster, run through the mandatory qualification course and call that training. Clearly, there is much more to the picture than that and realistic training will incorporate drawing the concealed handgun from the holster and the clothing worn by the officer on their own time.

Another element often neglected in training is how to interact with responding officers should you be involved in any sort of shootout. You might think you are emitting some type of good guy aura, but, more than likely, responding officers don’t know you from the man in the moon. All they see is a possible threat holding a gun. I am familiar with one incident when an off duty officer produced a firearm in an attempt to control a group of gangbangers inside a fast food restaurant. When uniformed officers responded, the off duty officer (who was not known to them) made a move they interpreted as threatening and he was shot and killed. Training should include how to react to responding officers so they do not appear to be a threat. In short, do exactly what they say!

And the Best Off Duty Gun Is…

When I entered law enforcement, the revolver was the near universal duty weapon and off duty, snub revolvers dominated. In the 1980s, agencies began shifting to semiautomatic pistols, prompting officers to rethink what they carried off duty. Although small pocket pistols had been around for some time, I never considered them especially reliable and the rounds they fired were not particularly impressive. As a result, my backup/off duty gun remained a snub revolver until retirement.

But, technology marches on and today’s officers have far better choices from which to select. In my estimation, the best choice for off duty is a compact, subcompact or micro version of the pistol you carry on the job. No doubt, you have invested quite a bit of time training with your duty pistol. Having a system with the same grip angle and placement of vital controls flattens out the learning curve. Industry leaders such as GLOCK^®, SIG SAUER^®, S&W^®, and Springfield Armory^® all make downsized versions of their duty pistols and these would be an ideal choice for carry in soft clothes.

Carry the biggest gun you can effectively conceal when dressed in the type of clothing you normally wear. Ideally, your off duty gun should be chambered for a service cartridge as it affords the greatest potential for stopping a determined adversary.

Carry Modes

I prefer to carry my concealed handgun on the strong side hip. This is the same familiar location where I carried my duty gun for years and it simplifies the process of getting into action quickly. Other than clearing your clothing away, the draw stroke is very similar to drawing from a duty holster. Reality often gets in the way and, depending on the weather, type of clothing, or even the social setting, I may have to make an adjustment. Truth be told, I probably have three or four different holsters for everyday carry pistols.

Strong side belt holsters can be worn either inside or outside the waistband and can be had in different styles and made from different materials. Much of this comes down to personal preference and qualities such as comfort, ride height, angle, weapon security, and the ability to effectively hide the gun come into play. Inside the waistband rigs remain the most discreet, but I remain very particular in what sort of holster I can wear in relative comfort. Appendix inside the waistband holsters have become very popular as they boast very fast weapon access and concealment qualities. I will confess to having some misgivings about placing a short trigger-action pistol down the front of my pants, but ultimately that’s your decision.

There are of course other styles such as shoulder, pocket, crossdraw, and ankle holsters, but these remain a distant second choice to a good belt holster. They may be a good choice when dressed in some types of clothing, but ready access can be problematic in extreme close quarters.

A complication we often face is how to carry a pistol in hot, humid weather or when dressed in athletic clothing. While bags aren’t nearly as efficient as a belt holster, you will have your gun on your person and, with practice, you can get into action fairly quickly. When going on my boat or for a bike ride around the neighborhood, I have grown fond of the Vertx^® Everyday Fanny Pack. This small bag doesn’t shout gun and I have affixed a KYDEX^® holster to the VELCRO^® loop panel for stability. Another possibility from the Vertx line is the Long Walks Multipurpose Waistpack which features a front storage compartment and quick access pull tab. My Long Walks bag can accommodate a larger handgun which is secured by Tactigami to the back panel and has proven to be a great companion.

Other Gear

If you carry a handgun, you need to carry spare ammunition. Although the need to reload is very remote, you certainly don’t want to be caught short. Magazine pouches for both the pocket and belt are available from a wide variety of sources. Just be advised that a magazine pouch printing through your shirt will give you away just as easily as that pistol in your holster. You may want to check out the Magna-Clip Magazine Carrier by N8 Tactical. This innovative carrier is available from Crossbreed Holsters and enables you to securely carry a spare magazine tucked inside the waistband.

When dressed in uniform, most officers have at least one lethal force option, but that all changes when off duty. A small impact weapon or OC unit is a possibility, but I doubt if most officers would bother. I make it a point to carry a small tactical flashlight which can be used for illumination purposes or personal defense like a yawara. Likewise, I doubt if many officers would burden themselves carrying handcuffs.

By all means, carry your police identification and have it someplace where you can get to it quickly. In addition to my ID folder, I clip my retired badge just forward of my holstered pistol to avoid any misunderstandings and minimize the possibility of being mistaken for a bad guy.

Final Thoughts

Today, departments generally take a neutral stance or encourage off duty carry (I fall into the latter camp). In some situations, especially minor offenses, not taking action may be the best choice, particularly if friends or family are with you and could be affected by your intervention. Still, most officers would find it hard not to act when confronted with certain crimes, especially violence against others. At the top of the list, however, is personal defense, whether against random street crime or an unsavory person from your past seeking payback.

Avoiding risky places, people and late-night situations can reduce the chances of a violent encounter, but sometimes bad luck puts you in one anyway. In those moments, being armed, using sound tactics and thinking clearly may give you the means to prevail. A firearm remains that final ring of safety.

Captain Mike Boyle served with New Jersey Fish & Wildlife, Bureau of Law Enforcement, and has been active in use-of-force instruction for over 40 years. He is an instructor in multiple firearms and less-lethal disciplines and has been a police academy assistant director, instructor and rangemaster. He is the author of three books; three training videos; and hundreds of magazine articles on firearms, training and tactics. Mike served 21 years on the Board of Directors of IALEFI and is a member of NLEFIA and ILEETA. He continues to work part-time as a law enforcement training specialist and resides in Forked River, NJ.

Crime Known to Law Enforcement, 2024 presents national and subnational estimates of crime offenses and victimizations for violent and property crime. Findings in this report, the second in an annual series, are based on BJS’s and the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Estimation Program. NIBRS collects detailed information on crime incidents reported to law enforcement throughout the United States.

A copy of this publication can be found at https://tinyurl.com/yc8ewp89

The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, 2015–2024 presents rates of violent and property crime from BJS’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the NIBRS Estimation Program’s Summary Estimates for the most recent ten year period (2015 to 2024). The NCVS measures nonfatal criminal victimizations, reported and not reported to police. The NCVS and NIBRS collections have different purposes; use different methods; and measure a set of criminal offenses which are similar, but not identical. Taken together, the information they produce provides a comprehensive understanding of crime in the United States.

A copy of this publication can be downloaded at https://tinyurl.com/4hzv6twe

Too often, law enforcement firearms training is built around passing a test instead of surviving a violent encounter.

Protection means shielding yourself from injury, danger or loss. For many people, that means buying a firearm, installing cameras or reinforcing a home. Those measures may create a sense of security, but they require limited skill. Defense is different. Defense is active. It means responding to a real attack and fighting through a violent encounter. To survive that kind of situation, a person needs realistic instruction from a qualified experienced trainer.

Most people think about protection. Far fewer think seriously about what defense requires. In my experience, defense has two sides: physical and psychological. The body must be trained, but so must the mind. Anyone who may be forced to fight, or even take a life to save one, has to confront the emotional and moral weight of that reality. Some people simply could never do it.

Over the past four decades, I have trained thousands of law enforcement officers, military personnel, military police, and legally armed citizens. Officers are required to complete a basic firearms course and qualify before they can carry a service handgun on duty. After that, they must continue to qualify, usually at least once a year, to keep carrying that weapon. What has always puzzled me is how many officers (roughly 90%) only go to the range when policy requires it. They treat lifesaving skills as an obligation instead of a priority. In my view, part of the problem is the gap between qualification and realistic training.

Qualification

A qualification course is a standardized test. Its purpose is to measure basic marksmanship and safe firearms handling with issued or approved weapons. The conditions are controlled. Targets are unobstructed, directly in front of the shooter and usually presented under ideal lighting.

A typical law enforcement qualification still resembles the old FBI Practical Pistol Course developed in the 1950s. That course involved 60 rounds fired at silhouette targets from seven, 25, 50, and 60 yards with a double-action revolver. Shooters fired from positions which included one-handed hip shooting, two-handed standing, kneeling, sitting, prone, and barricade work on both sides. At the time, it was advanced training. Today, stripped-down versions of that same structure are still used annually, biannually or quarterly, depending on the agency. But, qualification remains a repetitive marksmanship exercise. It has little to do with deploying a firearm effectively in a fast, chaotic, life-or-death encounter.

For many officers, tests create stress. That stress gets worse when they struggle with the material. Officers who have trouble qualifying often put it off or avoid it because they fear embarrassment and possibly losing their jobs. What they need is not repeated attempts until they barely pass. They need added instruction from a capable instructor who can build confidence, improve skill and replace fear with competence.

Most qualification courses have almost nothing to do with an actual gunfight. If someone is trying to kill you and you respond with a firearm to protect yourself or another person, that is a gunfight. Qualification mainly serves an administrative purpose. Agencies want documentation that an officer passed, usually with a minimum score of 70 percent. That score sheet often matters more to administrators and attorneys than whether the course actually prepared the officer for a real-world shooting. In court, shooting scores are among the first records attorneys ask to review after an officer-involved shooting.

During qualification, officers operate in what I call range mode. They follow commands from range staff step-by-step, with very little thinking required. They are told when to fire, how many rounds to fire, from what position, and when to stop. Decision-making is almost entirely removed from the process. But, on the street, there is no instructor standing beside the officer giving calm directions when a sudden, violent attack unfolds.

A score means very little in a real gunfight. Traditional qualification measures whether an officer can hit a large paper silhouette from certain distances and positions within a time limit. That is only a small part of real defense. Modern instructors and rangemasters need to build programs which balance officer safety with the threats officers are likely to face.

Competitive shooting sports such as IPSC, IDPA and Steel Challenge can help officers improve gun handling and shot placement. Those sports build useful physical skills, but they are still games. Shooters know the course in advance, can watch others run it and often get to practice it beforehand. Real-world gunfights offer none of those advantages.

Realistic Training

Law enforcement is one of the few professions which trains people to protect life through a use-of-force continuum which begins with presence and can end with deadly force. It is also a profession in which the instructor’s competence can directly affect whether officers and civilians live or die. Today’s instructors must not only teach well, but also document exactly what was taught and why because those records may later be examined in court.

The quality of a department’s training is only as strong as the people delivering it. It is rare to find one instructor who is truly competent across every discipline, but any instructor responsible for teaching weapon systems should have a deep mastery of each one. That means more than familiarity; it means being able to explain details, teach safe and effective deployment and understand each system well enough to prepare officers for actual use. Dedicated firearms instructors should constantly seek out the best training available and bring that knowledge back to their departments.

Any program which claims to be realistic and progressive must include psychological preparation. Defenders cannot be conditioned to stand still and fire on command. They must be trained to think. The mind is the most important weapon a person has.

I believe a serious firearms program should apply one standard to all sworn personnel, without exception. Officers should train with handguns, shotguns and rifles as they actually carry them on duty. Realistic training builds the mindset and control needed to manage both less-lethal and lethal encounters with discipline and competence. Survival-oriented courses which introduce physical and psychological stress should be central, not optional. Officers need training which forces movement to cover, demands realistic choices and builds the mindset needed to survive.

There are many real-world topics which should be covered and supported by relevant case law and liability standards. Law enforcement officers are expected to make reasonable decisions and agencies are expected to create policies and practices which protect the public as safely as possible. Departments are also expected to anticipate recurring risks and take reasonable steps to reduce harm. When a certain type of officer-citizen encounter can be reasonably foreseen, failing to train officers for it may be viewed as deliberate indifference. Well-trained officers are one of the strongest defenses an agency has against liability.

Documentation Matters

Whenever a firearms training course is created, several elements must be included in writing for legal reasons. If training is not documented, it may as well not have happened. The nature, scope and quality of the instruction must be recorded and its connection to job performance must be clear. Budget limitations usually do not hold up as a valid excuse for failing to train. Proper documentation shows not only that instruction took place, but that the program was relevant and appropriate for the work officers actually do.

A sound training record should include the date the course was presented, the equipment used, the purpose of the training, the objective, the performance standards, and a course narrative explaining how the training was conducted. For example, if the course teaches officers to draw safely while seated, the documentation should show the duty gear used, the expected outcome, the performance standard, and the exact scenario under which the officer performed the drill.

Psychological Effects of Elevated Heart Rate

Realistic, street-relevant training must also address how stress affects the human body. There is typically a performance zone between 115 and 145 beats per minute in which survival and combat effectiveness are at their peak. Within that range, visual reaction time, psychological response and many performance functions tend to work best.

This applies to fear- or hormone-induced increases in heart rate caused by sympathetic nervous system arousal. A heart rate elevated by physical exercise does not affect the body in exactly the same way.

Training should include instruction on the physical and psychological effects of stress and elevated heart rate. The Inverted U Model explains that increased arousal improves performance only up to a point. After that point, especially as tasks become more difficult, added stress causes performance to deteriorate rapidly.

At 60 to 80 beats per minute, heart rate is generally normal and at rest. At 115 to 145 beats per minute, survival and combat performance tend to be optimal. At around 115, fine motor skills begin to decline. By 145, complex motor skills begin to decline. At around 175, mental processing deteriorates and tunnel vision, reduced depth perception, loss of near vision, and auditory exclusion can occur. Above 175, flight, freeze, submissive behavior, involuntary voiding, and heavy reliance on gross motor skills may occur.

How strongly these effects are felt depends largely on two things: the defender’s physical condition and the quality of the training received. Mere qualification does little to prepare a person for a real fight. The most effective response to a personal attack is usually an immediate, aggressive counterattack.

Skillset Groups

The categories below are only a sample of what law enforcement officers need, but they focus on situations officers are especially likely to face during a normal tour of duty. Any technique taught should promote economy of motion and reduce wasted time in dangerous moments.

Vehicle Ambush: Officers must learn how to fight in and around patrol vehicles. Shooting through vehicle glass from the inside out requires advanced study, careful planning and strong instructor oversight. Drawing a handgun while seated and belted inside a police vehicle presents safety concerns which must be addressed before training begins. Using a vehicle as cover also raises tactical issues. A dedicated training vehicle on the range is essential.

Up Close and Personal: When an officer is attacked by someone armed with a gun or knife from within seven yards, the response has to be immediate and decisive. Officers need to master quick draws, lateral movement and accurate close-range hits.

Use of Cover and Concealment: Officers need a clear understanding of what cover and concealment are and how to use both effectively. I teach officers to move to cover whenever possible and to move laterally when it is not. Standing exposed in a direct exchange with an armed attacker is a losing choice. My standard for cover is simple: It should stop the caliber being used against me. Concealment is not the same thing, but it can still be valuable when used correctly.

Rifles and Shotguns: Long guns are often neglected because they are stored in patrol vehicles and not routinely deployed. Realistic training requires officers to practice retrieving those weapons from locked mounts and using them under realistic conditions. They also need training on what to do if the weapon malfunctions or runs dry during an incident.

Low Light Tactics: Much of police work happens in poor lighting. Yet low light training is too often ignored, despite being an obvious operational need.

One-handed Gunfighting: Officers need training in one-handed drawing, shooting, reloading, and malfunction clearing with both the dominant and support hand.

Off Duty and Backup Carry: Many agencies provide little or no off duty firearms training which is a serious gap. Officers need guidance on suitable handguns; holsters; carry methods; caliber selection; and safe, efficient draw techniques. The same principles apply to backup weapons.

Physical Condition: Agencies have a responsibility to ensure officers remain physically fit and to provide ways for them to maintain that condition.

How Often Should We Train?

Case law makes clear that firearms training for law enforcement must be continuous, relevant to job performance and properly documented. Annual, biannual or quarterly qualification is only a marksmanship test. It is not true training. For training to be considered continuous, it must be ongoing, uninterrupted and tied directly to the job.

During my 31 years as a law enforcement rangemaster, instructor and armorer, I spoke with judges in both lower and higher courts about what they considered continuous firearms training. Their view was consistent: annual, biannual and quarterly qualification did not meet that standard.

Advantages of Realistic Firearms Training

The biggest advantage of realistic firearms training is that it builds skill instead of merely measuring it. These courses are not tests. They improve officer proficiency and strengthen confidence in both the officer and the weapon carried. Over time, they can also reduce the need for remedial training, qualification days, overtime costs, and unnecessary ammunition spending which helps stretch the training budget.

In the medium-sized Southern California police department where I managed range training, along with three outside agencies, every sworn member trained monthly, from the chief of police to the newest recruit. Each year, I wrote 11 distinct firearms training courses following the documented structure described earlier. In the 12th month, I conducted an armorer’s inspection of every personally owned and department-issued firearm used on or off duty.

Street real training does not require excessive ammunition or large blocks of time. Monthly courses were also run at night for officers assigned to night shifts. Our outdoor range operated two nights per week and every sworn officer had to complete a nighttime course twice a year. Each session usually required only six to 20 rounds and about 15 minutes per officer. Once a year, officers fired their old duty ammunition on an emotionally charged course, after which I issued fresh duty ammunition.

Officers typically attended these monthly sessions while on duty which made the training more realistic. They were in body armor, carrying the same weapons and gear they used on the street, and training under duty conditions.

For a street real program to work and last, two things are essential. First, command staff must support it and take part in it. Their participation gives the training credibility and shows the entire department that firearms instruction matters. It also allows leaders to see the program’s value firsthand. The standards must apply equally to all sworn personnel. Second, the rangemaster and instructors must be competent and committed. The quality of a department’s training will never exceed the quality of the people delivering it.

The greatest liability for any law enforcement agency is the improper use of physical force by its officers. Yet despite that reality, agencies often devote too little time to use-of-force training. Too often, training is the first thing cut when budgets tighten. Law enforcement has relied on qualification, with only modest results, for decades. I believe it is time to move beyond that model and embrace truly street real firearms training.

Larry J. Nichols retired in 2011 after 27 years of honorable service as Senior Rangemaster and Armorer for the Burbank, California, Police Department. Before that, he spent five years with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in California as a Firearms Instructor and Armorer.

He brings more than 40 years of experience as a professional firearms instructor, including over 31 years as a law enforcement instructor in lethal, less-lethal and less-than-lethal force. He is widely recognized internationally for his innovative and pioneering work in designing, developing and implementing realistic firearms training programs for law enforcement.