January 2007

The Deadly Mix

56204.indd FC156204.indd FC1 11/28/2006 4:41:10 PM11/28/2006 4:41:10 PM

January 2007 / 1

He wouldn’t giveme a good shot.He stood too far

bring it back up in seconds,”advised an offender who hadattacked an offi cer whilehandcuffed.

“It’s a cost-benefi t ques-tion. Is the cost of catching thisperson at this time worth riskingmy life?” asked an offi cer ashe stated his views on pursuingsuspects.

“Retreat was my only op-tion. The subject had a rifl e, andI wasn’t sure where in the homehe was located. Obviously, I didthe right thing because no onegot hurt,” explained an offi cer

concerning an encounter he hadwith an armed subject.

These actual statementsgraphically illustrate the real-world experiences of lawenforcement offi cers and theoffenders they interact with ona daily basis. The authors inter-viewed these individuals andmany others for the third and fi -nal installment in their trilogy onlaw enforcement offi cer safety.1

Violent Encounters: FeloniousAssaults on America’s Law En-forcement Offi cers concludes anarduous yet rewarding journey

“back. I had to stretch around tofi re. Because of that, my shotswent low, and I missed,” saidan offender as he related whyhe had failed to shoot an offi cerin the head.

“I could jump through cuffsbefore your mind could thinkabout what happened. I used toput my gun on the coffee table,stand 4 or 5 feet away, jumpup in the air through the cuffs,come down, grab the gun, and

The Deadly MixOfficers, Offenders, and theCircumstances That Bring Them TogetherBy ANTHONY J. PINIZZOTTO, Ph.D., EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.S., and CHARLES E. MILLER III

56204.indd 156204.indd 1 11/28/2006 4:44:05 PM11/28/2006 4:44:05 PM

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Mr. Davis, a retired police lieutenant, is an instructor in the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy.

Dr. Pinizzotto is the senior scientist and clinical forensic psychologist in the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy.

Mr. Miller, a retired police captain, heads the Officer Safety Research and Training Program of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

undertaken for the sole pur-pose of saving the lives of law enforcement offi cers so they can continue to perform their sworn duties, protecting and serving their communities. During this sojourn, the authors witnessed transitions and various empha-ses in types of tactical training, physical conditioning, and men-tal preparedness. As researchers and law enforcement offi cers, they hope that their efforts will point to ways that help offi cers patrol more safely.2

THE DISCOVERY OF THE DEADLY MIX

One question remained dur-ing these years of inquiry into law enforcement safety. With all of the modern developments in technology and training, why do the numbers of offi cers killed

and assaulted each year remain, on average, the same? The law enforcement community knows many of the tactical problems and issues facing offi cers on the street. Instructors and agencies continue to redesign training to refl ect this ever-increasing knowledge. Offi cers themselves have sought additional training in street tactics and survival at their own expense. And, yet, these numbers of killings and assaults remain somewhat constant. Why?

Perhaps, a signifi cant part of the answer to this question lies in understanding the deadly mix as developed and explained in the authors’ fi rst study, Killedin the Line of Duty. The dead-ly mix consists of three compo-nents: 1) the offi cer, 2) the of-fender, and 3) the circumstances

that brought them together. However, it often remains dif-fi cult to determine the specif-ic role and amount of infl uence each of these played in a partic-ular assault. To further compli-cate quantifying these factors, elements within each compo-nent are affected by changes within each of the other two. As a way to better understand this, the authors present two incidents involving the same offender interacting with two different offi cers.

Assumptions and Perceptions

A lone offi cer stopped an of-fender for speeding but did not check the license plate num-ber of the vehicle or the viola-tor’s name in NCIC. Although he normally followed this pro-cedure in every traffi c stop, he

56204.indd 256204.indd 2 11/28/2006 4:47:58 PM11/28/2006 4:47:58 PM

January 2007 / 3

”

“How each component(officer, offender,

and circumstances)of the deadly mixinteracts with the

others represents theheart of the authors’

research.

planned to meet a fellow offi -cer for lunch in 5 minutes. Theoffi cer obtained the driver’s li-cense and registration and re-turned to the rear of his patrolunit to write the traffi c citation.The offender, wanted for a fel-ony violation in a nearby juris-diction, remained in his vehicleand closely watched the offi -cer in his side-view mirror. Atthat point, the offi cer received aradio transmission from the of-fi cer he was meeting for lunch.He answered the radio, con-fi rmed that he was on his wayto the restaurant, and then ap-proached the offender who shothim several times with a hand-gun and drove away.

Although seriously wound-ed, the offi cer survived. Au-thorities captured the offend-er 2 days later in a neighboringjurisdiction. When asked aboutthe incident, the offi cer replied,“I wasn’t aware at any time thatI was in danger. The offend-er appeared very cooperativeand polite.” When asked whatprompted him to attack the of-fi cer, the offender said, “It wasnothing personal. The offi cerseemed like an okay guy. I waswilling to take a traffi c ticketfor speeding; that was the leastof my worries. But, when I sawthe offi cer talking on the radio,I thought he discovered I waswanted on a felony warrant. Ifhe had not gotten on that radio,I would have thought every-thing was okay, taken the ticket,

and left.” In this incident, theperceptions of both the offi cerand the offender proved incor-rect. The offender perceivedthe offi cer’s acknowledgmentof the lunch appointment as athreat, assuming that the offi cerwas talking to the dispatcher re-trieving information regardinghis felony warrant status. Con-versely, the offi cer perceivedthe offender’s courteous and co-operative behavior as posing nothreat to him.

his side-view mirror and, at onepoint, made eye contact withhim. He saw the offi cer touchthe back of his car, look in therear passenger area, and take aposition slightly behind the cen-ter post of the car. The offenderdecided, “It wasn’t worth takingthe chance that I might get overon him. He had his stuff togeth-er. I didn’t feel I’d be able to getmy gun without getting hurt.”

How each component (of-fi cer, offender, and circumstanc-es) of the deadly mix interactswith the others represents theheart of the authors’ research.By altering only one aspect ofonly one component in an eventwhere an offi cer and offendercome together, the outcomecan change dramatically. In thetwo incidents presented, it wasthe offender’s perception ofboth offi cers’ behaviors and theassumptions that he made thatsignifi cantly altered his actionsand resulted in the attack onthe one offi cer and not on theother.

After examining the offi -cer’s behavior in the fi rst situ-ation, some may conclude thathe made what could have beena fatal error. But, looking at theincident on three levels—theoffi cer’s view, the offender’simpressions, and the context inwhich they came together—canreveal critical implications.The offi cer failed to notify thedispatcher of the license platenumber and his location,

In contrast, this same of-fender advised that under asimilar set of circumstancesin the past, another offi cer hadstopped him. In that situation,the professional manner of theoffi cer (i.e., the offi cer focuseddirectly on him and the move-ments he made in the vehicle)impressed the offender so muchthat he did not use the weaponhe had under his seat. The of-fender watched the offi cer in

56204.indd 356204.indd 3 11/28/2006 4:47:50 PM11/28/2006 4:47:50 PM

4 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

”“ The aspects

within each of thecomponents of the

deadly mix that resultin an officer’s death

or injury are fluidand dynamic.

certainly an important consider-ation. However, stopping at thatpoint will dilute the meaning ofthis encounter and miss a sig-nifi cant training principle: theperceptions and assumptions ofthe offender and the offi cer andhow they affected the outcomeof the situation. Instead, a reex-amination of the scene wouldshow that what eventuallybecame an assault on the offi cerbegan in the offender’s mind.His assumption that the offi cerreceived a broadcast that wouldlead to his arrest, combined withwhat he perceived about theoffi cer’s inattentiveness, re-sulted in the attack. The inaccu-rate meaning the offi cer gave tohis perceptions of the offenderheightened the threat level.Although the offi cer accuratelyperceived the courteousness andcooperation of the offender, hebelieved that this indicated alack of dangerousness.

In this offender’s past, asimilar situation had arisen.Stopped by an offi cer for a traf-fi c violation, he perceived thatthe offi cer was too professionalfor him to attempt any offensiveaction even though he fearedarrest and jail. He quicklyevaluated the offi cer’s abilitiesand matched them with his ownand determined that this situa-tion did not indicate a favorableoutcome for him.

The aspects within each ofthe components of the deadlymix that result in an offi cer’s

death or injury are fl uid anddynamic. Misperceptions andinaccurate interpretations ofperceptions continue to affecthow offi cers and offendersreact.

write more traffi c citations, re-spond to more calls for service,and initiate more interactions.Because they have more con-tact with members of both thegeneral public and the criminalelement, they become the targetof more complaints. These of-fi cers also appear more likely toget involved in incidents whereproperty damage and injury tothe offi cer and offender may oc-cur. When their agencies reviewthese complaints and injuries,they may see the same offi cers’names emerge, causing them topunish, rather than reward, theoffi cers.

On the other hand, poten-tially serious administrativeand safety issues can arise withhardworking offi cers. Somemay take unnecessary safetyand procedural shortcuts toincrease their levels of pro-duction. They may rush intoa building totally engulfed infl ames to save a family pet;they may continue a pursuit thatcould increase their chancesof being injured or killed; theymay charge headfi rst into asituation where, logically andtactically, most offi cers wouldretreat. The community and themedia often consider these asacts of heroism and applaud anoffi cer for taking needless and,perhaps, irresponsible risks.This kind of reaction can senda harmful message to other of-fi cers, “If I work hard and gettoo many complaints, I may be

Officers

In all three of the authors’studies, the offi cers generallyhad been raised in warm, car-ing, and stable environments bytheir biological parents. Mostexperienced relatively little,if any, exposure to violence intheir childhoods. They chosethe law enforcement professionbecause they wanted to betterthe communities they served.

Some of the descriptorsdeveloped for the offi cers re-mained constant. In particular,the term hardworking seemedto apply to every offi cer inter-viewed. Hardworking usuallyhas positive connotations. Inlaw enforcement, however,some possible negative conse-quences can result. Hardwork-ing offi cers effect more arrests,

56204.indd 456204.indd 4 11/28/2006 4:48:17 PM11/28/2006 4:48:17 PM

January 2007 / 5

disciplined or possibly lose my assignment. But, if I take un-necessary and foolish chances, I may be rewarded.” Where this occurs, supervisors should recognize this dynamic and take the necessary steps to correct it.3

Another descriptor of the offi cers that remained constant throughout all three of the authors’ studies was the abil-ity to “read” people and situa-tions. This belief, rarely found in relatively inexperienced offi cers, usually was held by veteran offi cers. The amount of street time needed to lose the rookie status varies from agency to agency. Many of-fi cers expressed that this gen-erally occurs after spending 5 years on patrol and becoming comfortable with their position in the law enforcement profes-sion, feeling that they can deal with anything from a traffi c violation to a homicide. They have successfully handled so many intoxicated individuals, so many disorderly incidents, and so many domestic disputes that they believe that they can accurately read people and situ-ations and predict the successful outcome of an incident before it actually happens. They begin to depend on experience to get them through situations because it always worked in the past. This can result in offi cers walk-ing a dangerous tightrope. They become complacent, thinking

that they can shortcut a thor-ough examination of a situation. Complacency, however, is the worst enemy of the veteran offi cer.

An example shows how this belief can become dangerous. An offi cer encounters an indi-vidual who fi ts a certain pattern of behavior that he has seen

Offenders

What qualities, aspects, preconceived notions, and emo-tions does the offender add to the other two components (the offi cer and the circumstances) that can result in an assault or death of a member of the law enforcement profession? The authors determined from their research that no clear profi le of an offender who assaults or kills a law enforcement offi cer exists. And, yet, many offi cers continue to possess a picture of this imaginary offender. Many anticipate a physically dominat-ing individual who exudes dan-ger from every pore. Research, however, does not support this image.

Overall, some offenders had criminal records; some had psychiatric histories; some belonged to gangs; some consis-tently carried weapons; and, yet, many defi ed placement in any category. The only well-defi ned characteristic the offenders shared was that they assaulted or killed a law enforcement offi cer.

Some qualifying aspects of these offenders, however, frequently reoccurred. In Vio-lent Encounters, for example, the authors noted that a number of offenders were affi liated with gangs, many more were exposed to violence at a much earlier age than their counter-parts, and most abused alcohol and other drugs. Most of all, the

many times.4 He feels comfort-able with this person because he knows how the subject will re-act. The offi cer tests his theory. After giving several commands and seeing that the individual complies, the offi cer’s level of caution begins to wane. With the person’s increased compli-ance, the offi cer now makes a fatal error: he drops his guard. Although previous subjects fol-lowed the offi cer’s commands, this one does not. This suspect waited for an opportunity to take the advantage away from the offi cer, and the offi cer gave it to him.

56204.indd 556204.indd 5 11/28/2006 4:48:30 PM11/28/2006 4:48:30 PM

6 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

”“Do hardworking,

dedicated, andservice-oriented

officers also projectthe image of beingattentive, vigilant,and professional?

authors found that an analysisof these offi cer-offender en-counters offered some lessons.Not unlike anyone who interactswith another person, offendersassess people, including lawenforcement offi cers. This inter-action may involve an exchangeof money or drugs or an inter-view by an offi cer. The higherthe stakes in the encounter, thegreater and more extensive theassessment.

Most dangerous in suchsituations are the offendersoften described as predatoryor as psychopaths or antisocialpersonalities. Even in life-and-death circumstances, these typesof offenders can coldly calcu-late their chances of survival.Because they do not experi-ence the same levels of anxietyas most people, they are lessdistracted by either internal orexternal factors. Quickly anddecidedly, they weigh theirchances and options and makea choice. Where they believethat they can overcome an of-fi cer, they attempt an assault ormurder. In circumstances wherethey feel that an offi cer has theedge, they respond as one suchpredator advised, “I just sitback and wait, somebody gonnamake a mistake. That’s when Iwin.”5

Only the offenders knowhow high the stakes are in aparticular situation. They havemore information—or believethey do—than offi cers. This

puts offi cers at a disadvantagefrom the beginning of the en-counter and greatly increases itwhen they judge dangerousnessbased on the erroneous beliefthat offender risk is displayedby physical characteristics. Inseveral incidents, offi cers, bytheir own admissions, missedobvious danger cues because

offi cer—it can be anyone.Whether they chose to assaultan offi cer came from their as-sessing a signifi cant number ofitems in an astonishingly shortamount of time. Although someassaults occurred during an ex-tended interaction with an offi -cer, many were more impulsiveand reactive.

Because the deadly mixalways involves an offi cer, anoffender, and the circumstancesin which these two individu-als meet, the way in which thatencounter begins and developshas a dynamic effect on theoffender and the choices thatperson makes. Those decisionswill have an important effect onthe way the offi cer acts. And,so, the dynamic continues andchanges.

Constant assessment andreassessment on the part of theoffenders, although at times rap-idly accomplished, determinetheir next move. Their internalenvironment, including theirthoughts, feelings, expectations,fears, hopes, and experiences,interacts with their externalsurroundings, which, of course,include the offi cer.

Circumstances

In the majority of casesin the authors’ research, thehardworking offi cers initiatedcontact with the offenders whosubsequently attacked them.In other instances, dispatcherssent offi cers to the scene of the

they viewed the offender assafe. They based these judg-ments on assessing physicalcharacteristics without givingany thought to what might bethe offender’s emotional stateor possible mind-set.

What, then, is known aboutoffenders who have assaultedor killed law enforcement offi -cers? Because offenders cannotbe described by their physicalcharacteristics and do not meetany profi le, this apparent dearthof information paradoxicallybrings to light the most salientfact regarding individualswho might assault or kill an

56204.indd 656204.indd 6 11/28/2006 4:48:46 PM11/28/2006 4:48:46 PM

January 2007 / 7

Source: Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, and Charles E. Miller III, U.S. Department of Justice,Federal Bureau of Investigation, Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America’s Law EnforcementOfficers (Washington, DC, 2006).

An Overview of Violent Encounters:Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers

The authors examined 40 cases selected from over 800 incidents of felonious assaultssupplied by the law enforcement community nationwide. They visited the crime scenes,reviewed all case data, and conducted in-depth interviews to obtain, in detail, pertinentinformation concerning the interaction of 43 offenders with 50 offi cers.

The report includes a chapter on how the offenders acquired and used their weapons,how often and where they practiced with them, and why they believed that they couldsuccessfully defeat the offi cers. It also identifi es the commonalities and traits of armed of-fenders, including similarities and differences between males and females, who attemptedto or did kill law enforcement offi cers.

The study points to the need for nationally accepted defi nitions and reporting proce-dures regarding the phenomenon of suicide by cop and includes recommended guidelines.The effects on offi cers, families, and local communities following incidents where offend-ers have deliberately compelled offi cers to use deadly force are both traumatic and longlasting. Offi cers involved in these tragedies reiterated the necessity of additional training,an increase in conscious awareness of these incidents within their communities, and greaterinteraction with the media to correctly and adequately cover these occurrences.

A chapter on how offi cers and offenders acknowledged the details of their encounterscovers perception, memory, and retrieval of information, all dynamic processes. After re-viewing one theory of how humans perceive their environment, it goes on to examine andexplain how offi cer and offender perceptions at the crime scene may have affected their ac-tions, as well as their recollections of what transpired, during their encounters. The chapterends with a discussion of the implications of these fi ndings for law enforcement training.

Through the interview process, both offi cers and offenders identifi ed what they con-sidered as important training issues or how the lack of training resulted in the outcome oftheir encounters. Case examples supplement a discussion of these training issues, whichalso identifi es implications for administrators, trainers, supervisors, and offi cers.

encounter. Those who initi-ated contact with the offendersgenerally chose an environmentthat they believed was tacti-cally advantageous to them. Insome cases, offenders did notstop at a location of the offi cers’choosing but attempted to fi nd

When dispatched to a loca-tion while answering a call forservice, offi cers had no controlover the site of the encounter,only their approach. Of course,in any situation, offi cers andoffenders cannot control certainelements, such as weather

a spot where they felt they heldthe advantage. For example, anoffi cer attempted to make a stopin a well-lit area. However, theoffender did not comply but,instead, eventually pulled overat a place that provided muchless light.

56204.indd 756204.indd 7 11/28/2006 4:48:54 PM11/28/2006 4:48:54 PM

8 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

”

“…a complicated issuecompounded further

by an officer’s actionsor the decision not toact that may affect thesafety of other officers

and the public.

conditions, pedestrian and ve-hicular traffi c, natural lighting,availability of cover, and thedistance of backup units fromthe scene.

Any encounter where anoffi cer was assaulted or killedtranspired as an evolving scenethat included the perceptionsand interpretations of the offi cerand the offender. These percep-tions and the concomitant inter-pretations were altered by theactions of each person as theyinteracted. And, based on thoseassessments of each other’s be-haviors, each acted accordingly.At that point, the participantshad set the potential of a deadlymix in motion.

THE IMPLICATIONSOF THE DEADLY MIX

Understanding the deadlymix can offer many benefi tsfor use-of-force investigators,academy and in-service train-ers, fi rst-line supervisors, lawenforcement managers, andoffi cers. By evaluating all threecomponents (offi cer, offender,and circumstances), they canmore clearly grasp some of thedynamics that result in seriousassaults or deaths.

Offi cers

Do hardworking, dedicated,and service-oriented offi cersalso project the image of beingattentive, vigilant, and pro-fessional? Their appearanceand the verbal and nonverbalmessages they communicate

can potentially protect themas much as their weapons andbody armor. Offi cers alwaysmust be alert, attentive, andprofessional. Their demeanormust convey that, if necessary,they can become a formidableopponent. Although offi cerscannot control certain elementsof a deadly confrontation, theycan greatly infl uence others.

realistic training can betterprepare offi cers for potentialviolent encounters. This trainingcan bring together the multipletasks of report writing, hand-cuffi ng, and defensive tacticsin the same scenario. Alteringjust one element of the deadlymix can provide a multitudeof changing circumstances andoutcomes with which to chal-lenge each offi cer. Law enforce-ment training must teach offi -cers to be vigilant, attentive, andmentally prepared to deal withever-changing circumstances onthe street.

Field training offi cers needto observe the behaviors andmessages that recruits projectas they interact with the pub-lic. They must ensure that theirtrainees never evaluate indi-viduals based solely on physicalcharacteristics. They must instillthe knowledge that part of beinga professional law enforcementoffi cer is to remain mentally fo-cused for the unexpected duringthe entire tour of duty.

First-Line Supervisors

Supervisors should moni-tor offi cers constantly to ensuretheir compliance with depart-mental safety policies andpractices. They should scruti-nize their offi cers’ interactionswith citizens and evaluate themessages these offi cers project.Supervisors should not com-mend offi cers for inappropriaterisk-taking behaviors that placethem, their fellow offi cers, or

Use-of-ForceInvestigators

Investigators should re-main aware of the components,interactions, and implications ofthe deadly mix. Understandingthe complexities of perceptionand memory, including sensorydistortions and informationstorage and retrieval by bothoffi cers and offenders, can assistthose charged with investigatinguse-of-force incidents.

Trainers

Understanding the conceptof the deadly mix and incorpo-rating these principles into

56204.indd 856204.indd 8 11/28/2006 4:49:03 PM11/28/2006 4:49:03 PM

January 2007 / 9

citizens in danger regardlessof the outcome.

Managers

Managers set the tone for the entire agency. They must ensure that easily understood written policies and direc-tives that clearly outline safety policies and procedures exist and that supervisory personnel enforce them. Executive offi cers should not limit their training programs to their specifi c state’s established minimum standards but ensure that personnel con-tinually receive timely, updated in-service training. They should meet regularly with members of the local media and explain such matters as suicide by cop and policies and procedures regarding the use of force, in-cluding the use of deadly force. Managers also should interact frequently with civic groups and provide citizen academies with relevant safety training infor-mation so that members of the general public can better under-stand law enforcement safety matters and issues regarding the use of force. Executives should ensure that local citizens are educated on how to conduct themselves during situations, such as traffi c stops, where they may encounter sworn personnel in their offi cial capacity.

Law enforcement managers should recruit the best available applicants based on job-specifi c criteria. A major component

citizens to take the time to fully and impartially examine these events. In this way, America’s law enforcement offi cers will continue to ably protect and serve their communities and their brothers and sisters in the law enforcement family. Most of all, they will survive these encounters, return home to their loved ones each day, and continue to fulfi ll their roles as society’s guardians.

Endnotes

1 In their fi rst study, Killed in the

Line of Duty, published in 1992, the

authors presented the results of their inter-

views with offenders convicted of killing

law enforcement offi cers. In the second,

In the Line of Fire, published in 1997,

they provided the fi ndings from their

interviews with offenders who had as-

saulted law enforcement offi cers and those

with offi cers who had survived felonious

attacks.2 Violent Encounters: Felonious As-

saults on America’s Law Enforcement Of-

fi cers is available from the UCR Program

Offi ce, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow

includes safety, a complicated issue compounded further by an offi cer’s actions or the decision not to act that may affect the safety of other offi cers and the public.

CONCLUSION

Violent encounters between offi cers and offenders will continue to plague America, sometimes resulting in serious injury or death to those charged with safeguarding its citizens. Only by examining the vari-ous components of the deadly mix of offi cers, offenders, and the circumstances that brought them together will a greater understanding of these encoun-ters occur. Only by this kind of careful and complete review of each event will the facts of the case surface and an objective assessment be made.

It is in the best interest of all law enforcement agencies, offi cers, communities, and

56204.indd 956204.indd 9 11/28/2006 4:49:10 PM11/28/2006 4:49:10 PM

10 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Subscribe Now

Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or

by calling 888-827-6427. Readers who

wish to discuss the topic of offi cer safety

but do not want to request copies of Vio-

lent Encounters should contact Mr. Charles

E. Miller III, head of the Offi cer Safety

Research and Training Program, at

304-625-2939.3 Unfortunately, the inappropriate ac-

tions and overly aggressive behaviors of

a very small percentage of offi cers have

brought disgrace to all who have worn a

law enforcement uniform. These few

compromise the integrity of all dedicated

and professional offi cers who, fi nding

such behavior repugnant, would favor

the removal of these individuals from

their ranks.4 For illustrative purposes and to pro-

mote clarity, the authors refer to offi cers

as males.5 The authors recommend that offi cers

read Without Conscience: The Disturbing

World of the Psychopaths Among Us (New

York, NY: Guilford Press, 1999) by Dr.

Robert D. Hare, whose keen insight can

enable offi cers to identify many encounters

they have had with such a person.

The authors gratefully acknowledgeall of the individuals who have as-sisted them throughout their research.

Most of all, they thank the officers whoagreed to reveal their personal experi-ences, private reflections, and occa-sional demons associated with theseviolent encounters. As with all of theirprevious works, the authors dedicatethis article to all law enforcement of-ficers who serve and protect their com-munities without regard for their ownsafety and comfort. They also honorthe quiet heroes—the parents, siblings,spouses, and children of these braveofficers—who willingly share the bur-dens and sacrifices of their loved onesand anxiously await their safe returneach day.

56204.indd 1056204.indd 10 11/28/2006 4:49:22 PM11/28/2006 4:49:22 PM