Force Science News #23
July 11, 2005
The Force Science News is provided by
The Force Science Research Center, a
non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free,
direct-delivery subscription, please visit forcesciencenews.com and click on the
registration button. For reprint clearance, please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
STUDY REVEALS IMPORTANT TRUTHS HIDDEN IN THE DETAILS OF OFFICER-INVOLVED
Ideas for research projects can germinate from the least likely moments, as when
a student asked Firearms Trainer Tom Aveni if he'd ever visited the ACLU's
website. He hadn't ("Why would I even want to go there?"), but out of curiosity
There in a section dedicated to "police abuse" he read a statistic he regarded
as probably exaggerated: that 25 per cent of all law enforcement shootings
involve unarmed suspects. That launched him on a long and continuing quest for
more details about officer-involved gunfights that has turned up a series of
Not only did the ACLU statistic turn out to be not as far off as he imagined but
Aveni has made other unexpected discoveries--pertaining especially to hit
ratios, low-light shootings, multiple-officer confrontations, mistaken judgment
calls and less-lethal technology--that have convinced him police firearms
training needs a significant overhaul.
"There's little resemblance between what we train officers for and what they
actually encounter on the street," he told Force Science News recently. "There
are glaring deficiencies in the way cops are prepared for what turn out to be
fairly typical circumstances in gunfights."
Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at
Minnesota State University-Mankato, says that by pursuing "important and
different kinds of questions," Aveni has produced "valuable new insights into
officer-involved shootings." His findings are expected to provide "a
cutting-edge demographic foundation" for upcoming research projects at FSRC that
hopefully will result in "profound changes in law enforcement training in the
An ex-cop with 23 years' training experience, Aveni now heads the Police Policy
Studies Council, a research, training and consulting corporation based in
Spofford, NH, and is a member of FSRC's National Advisory Board, as well as a
busy expert witness in police litigation. Like other trainers, he says, he "made
a lot of assumptions that are not true" until his research provided "an epiphany
for me" about some of the nuances of police shootings.
He was struck first by how tough it is to find out anything meaningful on the
subject from law enforcement agencies. Most don't compile detailed data on their
shootings, fearing in some cases (perhaps rightly) that it would be
misinterpreted and misused by the media and "agenda activists" if available. Of
the few departments that do collect deadly force information, "even fewer freely
share it," Aveni claims. If they don't outright suppress it, they tend to
present it in bare-bones, "sterilized table formats" that have no standardized
consistency and that "make detailed analysis difficult." Aveni observes: "The
devil is in the details, and the details of police shootings have always been
After refusals to cooperate by a variety of agencies, he finally was able to
secure 350 investigative narratives of officer-involved shootings in Los Angeles
County, CA. These concerned incidents experienced primarily by L.A. County
Sheriff's deputies, plus cases investigated by LASD for smaller municipal
agencies, across a 5-year period.
Aveni spent more than 6 months dissecting that material according to different
variables. That information, combined with limited statistics he managed to
obtain related to shootings on other major departments, including New York City,
Baltimore County (MD), Miami, Portland (OR) and Washington (DC), has allowed him
to spotlight a number of deadly force subtleties that have not been so
thoroughly examined before.
For example, it has long been believed that officers overall have a dismal
15-25 per cent hit probability in street encounters, suggesting truly poor
performance under the stress of a real shooting situation. Actually, this
figure, while essentially true in the aggregate, is markedly skewed by certain
shooting variables, Aveni found.
During a 13-year span, the Baltimore County PD, which Aveni regards as one of
the best trained in the country, achieved an average hit ratio of 64 per cent in
daylight shootings-not ideal, but clearly much better than commonly believed. In
shootings that occurred in low-light surroundings, however, average hits dropped
to 45 per cent, a 30 per cent decline. The data from Los Angeles County (LAC)
reveals a somewhat comparable 24 per cent decline.
"Until this research," Aveni says, "performance has never been accurately
matched to lighting conditions," even though as many as 77 per cent of police
shootings are believed to occur under some degree of diminished lighting. Some
departments tally "outdoor" versus "indoor" shootings, but most appear not to
precisely differentiate between low-light and ample-light events, despite the
preponderance of shootings during nighttime duty tours.
A multiple-officer shooting, in which more than one officer fires during a
deadly force engagement, has an even greater influence on hit probability, Aveni
According to the LAC data, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the
average hit ratio was 51 per cent. When an additional officer got involved in
shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 per cent. With more than 2 officers
shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 per cent--"a whopping 82 per cent
declination," Aveni points out.
Multiple-officer shootings, Aveni told Force Science News, are three times more
likely to involve suspects with shoulder weapons than single-officer shootings.
This tends to "increase the typical stand-off distance," he says. Many of these
confrontations also embody fast-changing, chaotic and complex circumstances.
These factors, Aveni believes, help explain the negative impact on accuracy.
Aveni also discovered a correlation between multiple-officer shootings and
number of rounds fired.
With LAC shootings involving only one officer, an average of 3.59 police rounds
were fired. When 2 officers got involved, the average jumped to 4.98 rounds and
with 3 officers or more to 6.48. "The number of rounds fired per officer
increases in multiple-officer shootings by as much as 45 per cent over
single-officer shootings," Aveni says.
Again, he judges distance to be a likely factor. "A higher volume of fire may be
used to compensate for the lower hit ratio as distance increases," he
speculates. He believes the highly violent nature these events often present may
be influential, too. Anecdotally bunch shootings appear to encompass "many of
the barricaded gunman scenarios, drawn-out foot and vehicular pursuits, subjects
experiencing violent psychotic episodes, gang attacks and encounters involving
heavily armed suspects," such as the infamous FBI Miami shootout and the North
Hollywood bank robbery street battle.
"Emotional contagion," where officers fire merely because others are shooting,
is almost certainly an element of at least some multiple-officer shootings,
Aveni concedes. But the extent of this assumed influence is difficult if not
impossible to document. Certainly the claim, sometimes made after high-profile
group shootings, "that cops are firing their weapons empty in panic, is not
supported by the facts," he stresses.
The shooting of unarmed suspects is another phenomenon on which Aveni's research
sheds new light.
The ACLU's statistic that got him started on this project turned out to be based
on fatal shootings that occurred before the landmark Supreme Court decision
Tennessee v. Garner, when nearly half the states still legally permitted the
shooting of any fleeing felon, regardless of the threat he or she presented.
After the restrictions imposed by Garner, "you'd expect fewer unarmed suspects
to be shot," Aveni explains.
Not necessarily true, though, Aveni found. In a recent 12-year period,
Metro-Dade (Miami) PD reported 34 shootings in which suspects were "clearly
unarmed" or in which officers thought they saw a gun but none was found.
All told, about a third of all shootings in
which suspects were shot and killed by that agency's officers were considered
"questionable." In a recent Texas study, 25 per cent of suspects shot by
officers in one metropolitan county were found to be unarmed, 33 per cent if
shots fired at moving vehicles are included. LAC's data put the unarmed target
figure at 18 per cent, well below the ACLU's pre-Garner assertion.
Higher or lower, many of these shootings are "mistake-of-fact" (MOF) situations,
Aveni says. Usually a suspect is displaying an item that is falsely but
reasonably perceived to be a deadly weapon (a cell phone, for example), or the
suspect is behaving in such a way that in context is believed to constitute an
immediate lethal threat (making a fast, furtive movement toward the waistband,
A "significant number" of MOF shootings involve "other misleading threat cues,"
such as one or more officers seeing a fellow officer stumble and fall and
wrongly believing he is under attack. "When an officer's fall involves a
unintentional discharge of his firearm," Aveni says, "it can set off a powerful
chain of events."
Aveni points out that 51 per cent of the time furtive movement was involved in
the MOF shootings. As many as 75 per cent of the MOF shootings he examined
occurred at a time of day that "we'd generally associate with reduced light
conditions." (Yet in only one report was there any indication that officers used
flashlights to better identify possible threats!)
"I've joked for a long time that given low light and the right contextual cues,
I could get Mother Teresa to shoot the Pope," Aveni says. "Cops never think
they'd shoot an unarmed person inappropriately. But on the street when they have
to make split-second decisions, it can happen easier than they think."
Finally, the number of shootings that followed unsuccessful attempts to use
less-lethal alternatives surprised Aveni. In 12 per cent of the LAC incidents,
control of suspects was first tried with beanbag munitions, OC spray, Tasers or
some combination thereof.
In some cases, officers were injured because deadly force could not be delivered
fast enough when less-lethal options failed. He fears that officers may be
placing too much faith in the success of less-lethal technology and not having a
deadly force alternative ready as a failsafe.
In other cases, deployment or threatened deployment of less-lethal devices
seemed to "actually provoke subjects to do something aggressive. They decided to
attack rather than wait for these devices to be used against them," Aveni says.
Because definitive information is skimpy, he believes further investigation is
needed, with an eye to refining tactical strategies.
What's most important about his research, Aveni feels, is the wake-up call it
embodies for American law enforcement training. He explains:
"Good risk management would suggest that resources should be allocated to
problems that are seen frequently and to infrequent problems that are very
severe when they do arise. We don't allocate resources that way in firearms
training. In fact, training by and large has been part of the problem, not part
of the solution."
Use of deadly force is infrequent in the full sphere of police performance, yet
its consequences in terms of life and lawsuits are severe. Within the realm of
police shootings, Aveni's findings identify commonalities that do arise
frequently, such as confrontations in low-light settings, mistakes of fact and
judgment and the phenomenon of multiple officers shooting. Yet for the most part
"we have neglected these issues or have only paid lip service to them in
training," he charges.
"We are forced to try to accomplish too much in too little training time.
Because of limited range time, firearms instructors are forced to heavily
emphasize a lot of shooting in order to build that important proficiency.
This results in a disproportionate amount of
time spent with scenarios in which officers need to pull the trigger. This, in
turn, creates an emphasis on a 'muzzle-heavy' approach and the over-emphasis on
the handgun as a problem-solving tool.
"On the street, this contributes to the problem of officers putting themselves
in untenable situations tactically and then feeling compelled in often unclear
circumstances to shoot." He cites a case from the Midwest in which an officer
pursuing a suspect with minor outstanding warrants followed him into a dark
alley. The officer did not wait for backup and did not make use of his
flashlight. As he doggedly ran after the suspect, the pursued man suddenly
turned toward him. The officer shot and killed him.
The suspect was unarmed.
"This is the kind of behavior we see in a lot of shootings," Aveni says.
"An officer is so focused on apprehension that he runs into a tactically
untenable situation, oblivious to the risk or subconsciously willing to
subjugate his personal safety to the goal of apprehension." He likens this to
the "prey drive" sometimes seen in dogs, where the master throws a stick into
the middle of a busy highway and the tunnel-visioned dog chases it, unconcerned
about the dangers involved.
Aveni draws another dog analogy--"fear biting"--which he feels results from the
heavy use of fear as a motivational tool in training cops. "On the street,
officers often exhibit 'fear biting' after drawing their handguns and then
engaging in inherently unsafe firearms handling, like putting their finger on
the trigger for emotional comfort. I think this is a downside of using
disproportionate lethal force scenarios in training."
Another example of fear interfering with good tactics and promoting questionable
shootings is the prevalent reluctance to use a flashlight in dim light
environments. "If we now have confirmed that as many as 18 to 33 per cent of
police shootings are in the mistake-of-fact genre and that as many as 75 per
cent of those occur in low light, we should be conditioning officers to deploy
their flashlights when walking into potentially threatening situations where
they can't clearly see what's unfolding.
"There's concern about a flashlight becoming a 'bullet magnet'-and it might, if
used improperly. But in all my years of research I have never been able to
document a single case of an officer being shot because he was using his
flashlight. I've found no statistical evidence whatever of this much-feared
consequence ever happening."
Some of the problems highlighted by Aveni's research Lewinski plans to address
in FSRC experiments now in development. "We have a major project awaiting
funding on the influence of contextual cues on decision-making,"
he says. "Another is underway regarding hit probability.
"Tom Aveni's research lays out an ambitious playing field for us and will help
greatly in designing some of our research and, ultimately, in developing better
training methodologies for the future."
(c) 2005: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints allowed
by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of The Force
Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at Minnesota State