Editor’s Note: This week’s PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Members Kevin Jeffries and Lance Nickell — the fourth and final installment in a four-part series addressing the most critical element of officer safety: the need to think first! In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. If you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members, simply send us an e-mail with your story.
By Kevin Jeffries, Probation Safety Specialist, Arizona Supreme Court
and Lance Nickell, Probation Safety Specialist, Arizona Supreme Court
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines complacency as “...an unawareness of danger or trouble.” It has been my experience that we can place complacent officers in two broad categories: those who deny that the job holds danger, and those who see the dangers of the job but still become complacent. The former group is still complacent, as their denial shows an “unawareness of danger,” and they are hard to convince otherwise. Sadly, it will likely take a 9/11 moment for them to realize what other officers already know. In fact, they are not too likely to read this article past the first paragraph. Even though they recognize that they work with convicted felons in high-crime neighborhoods, they are still blind to the danger. Does a fish know that it is wet? Due to their constant denial and unconscious incompetence, these folks should not work in the criminal justice arena. Their lack of awareness could be a safety hazard to other officers.
At one time or another, we have all been a part of the second group of officers and have slipped in and out of complacency. It is a slow fade from being a well-trained, tactically-minded officer to a totally complacent officer. This group is teachable because they acknowledge the premise that our jobs can be dangerous. Three major factors can cause us to be complacent officers: laziness, hurriedness, and offender cooperation. The first two need no explanation — we shortcut because it’s easier and faster.
As officers, we want and strive for offender cooperation. I tell our Arizona officers to not let yesterday’s cooperation lead to tomorrow’s complacency. There is no guarantee that just because an offender is constantly cooperative and even friendly with you, that you are safe in their presence. So even in the midst of the cooperation that we expect and enjoy, be a safety-conscience professional. Mind your safety issues just as strongly with those offenders who cooperate and smile at us, as we do with those offenders who seldom cooperate and sometimes scowl at us.
In 1981, a study was conducted that is still applicable to our jobs today. A group of researchers went to a prison and interviewed 53 violent offenders. They showed these violent offenders a video tape consisting of 60 citizens walking up and down the street. They asked those offenders whom they would choose to victimize from this group? Overwhelmingly, the violent inmates chose people who appeared to lack confidence (Grayson, B. and Stein, M., 1981).
So what should officers take away from this study? Act confidently.
What about officers who lack self-confidence?
The answer is simple: Fake it — act confidently.
Studies show that while it is difficult to think your way to a new way of acting, you can act your way to a new way of thinking. When we act a new way and receive positive feelings regarding that action, our beliefs change and our behavior will follow suit (Kenagy, J., 2010). So act confidently, and you will see that, over time, you will grow into a person of confidence. While you are growing into that confident person, you will seem less vulnerable to human predators.
Bear Bryant was right: Most of us have the will to win or be successful, but the victor is the one who plans, prepares and ponders what it will take for success. So prepare to win by practicing your defensive tactics techniques and with all your safety-related tools. However, do not underestimate the importance of the mental preparation and knowledge as it relates to safety. Mentally rehearse possible negative situations that could occur. Have a plan to be successful when any of those negative situations occur (remember — not if, but when).
Exercise situational awareness by scanning the environment and subject(s) and assessing the demeanor of the subject(s). Know the OODA loop cycle and how to use that to your advantage. Be on the lookout for threats, and know how to assess them. Never let yourself become complacent by laziness, hurriedness or trust…
Just think first!
About the Authors
Kevin Jeffries is currently employed by the Arizona Supreme Court in the Education Services Division as the Probation Safety Specialist. Kevin is considered a Subject Matter Expert in Defensive Tactics, Firearms and Use-of-Force. Prior to his employment at AOC he was a unit supervisor with the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) supervising the Mahoning County Probation Unit. While with the APA he was an Unarmed Self-Defense Instructor, Field Tactics Instructor and Chairman of the Akron Regional Training Advisory Council.
Kevin is a Lead Firearms and Lead Defensive Tactics instructor for the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts and was instrumental in developing both the firearms and defensive tactics curriculum. Kevin has presented Officer Safety trainings for the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and is a guest columnist for APPA’s Perspectives Magazine. Kevin also instructs on a national level as an adjunct faculty member for the Community Corrections Institute. He holds certifications as a Simunitions instructor, TASER instructor, NRA Tactical Firearms Instructor, NRA Handgun Instructor, and Glock Armorer.
Kevin received his Bachelor of Science in Law Enforcement Administration from Youngstown State University and his Master’s Degree in Public Administration at Western International University.
Lance Nickell is the Lead Firearms Instructor and Range Master for the Maricopa County Probation Department and develops curriculum and policy for his department’s officer safety related topics. In his 17 years as a Probation Officer, he has had numerous assignments including the Sex Offender Unit, Fugitive Location Unit, and Staff Development and Training. Lance assisted in establishing and currently manages his department’s firearms training programs and leads the department’s 20 firearms instructors.
Lance is also a Lead Firearms Instructor and Use of Force subject matter expert for the Arizona State Supreme Court. He has been recognized twice by this court as the Firearms Instructor of the Year. He has presented nationally for both the American Probation and Parole Association and the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology. As an avid shooter, Lance has won numerous Gold, Silver, and Bronze in the Arizona Police Games and continues competing at area matches.
References
De Becker, G., (1997). The Gift of Fear. Dell Publishing, New York.
Gillespie, T., Hart, D., and Boren, J., (1998). Police Use of Force, A Line Officer’s Guide. Varro Press, Kansas City.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).
Grayson, B. and Stein, M. I., (1981). Attracting assault: Victims’ nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31, 68–75.
Grossman, D., (1995). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Little, Brown and Co., New York.
Kenagy, J., (2010). Acting your way to a new way of thinking. For Your Advantage, retrieved 3.16.11 from http://kenagyassociates.com/resources.writing.php
Petrowski, T. D., (2002, November). Use of force policies and training, a reasoned approach (Part 2). The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 71 (11), 24-32.
Pinizzotto, A., Davis, E., and Miller, C., (2006). “Dead Right” Recognizing Traits of Armed Individuals. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, retrieved 3.18.11 from http://www2.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/publications/leb/2006/mar06leb.pdf
Prymer v. Ogden, 29 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir 1994).
Thompson, L. and Mesloh, C., (2006). Edged weapons: traditional and emerging threats to law enforcement. The Law Enforcement Bulletin, retrieved 12.21.10 from http://www2.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/publications/leb/2006/mar06leb.pdf
Thornton, Robert L.,(2003). New Approaches to Staff Safety, 2d ed. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Wardlaw v. Pickett, 1 F.3d 1297, 1299 (1993).
