When veterans become cops, some bring war home - should police recruitment strategies be altered?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**DarkTraveler777**

I am both troubled by, and fascinated with, the current, tense, state of affairs that exists between elements of the civilian population and police in the United States. In my relatively short lifetime I have personally seen my image of the police change from trusted authority figures to that of suspicious, potential criminals, some of whom act above the law. As a white male in his mid-30's I have never had overtly negative experiences with police, but the few times I have interacted with them officially, they presented questionable behaviors that, over time, have lead me to re-evaluate my trust in them.

One of my big concerns is what has been dubbed the militarization of police forces across the United States through the acquisition of military-grade hardware. The idea that police are equipped and trained as a paramilitary force is troubling to me. Coupled with the regular occurrences of police shootings, botched SWAT raids (flash bang in a crib, etc.) and the difficulty in prosecuting errant police behavior, I spend a lot of my free time wondering what law enforcement will look like in 10, 15, 20 years, and what positive changes can be implemented in our society to try and curb the distrust between civilians and police, and reduce the amount of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

When I learned last year that police also favor hiring military veterans, I wondered if that policy may, in some way, be contributing to the problems between police and civilians.

That question was posited in a thread last year (posted below) about a North Carolina police shoot, and I admittedly did not have any real evidence to back up my inquiry, but today I found this article which made me want to re-open the discussion about military veterans becoming police, PTSD, and the effects a PTSD sufferer could have when placed in a policing role.

Just to be upfront, I am not anti-police, but I do not trust the police. I think there are systemic issues with our justice system that make trust impossible, but I recognize the need for police and understand the job they perform is difficult, and potentially deadly (though not as deadly as other professions). I also think the current trend of distrust among civilians is untenable and detrimental to both sides, so I'd like to see a change. I am also not anti-veteran. I have military veterans in my family, and among my close friends, so this isn't an attack against them, either.

What this thread is an attempt to discuss the possibility that current practices in police hiring, police culture, and military culture, may be exacerbating the violent encounters between police and civilians and if those practices should be altered or amended in some way to create positive change.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/30/when-veterans-become-cops-some-bring-war-home/99349228/

William Thomas, a retired Newark police sergeant, left his home in a body bag.

To his dismay, he was still very much alive. A team of police officers and medical technicians had strapped his limbs together, stuffing his body into a mesh sack to restrain him after he tried to fight them off.

Six hours earlier, Thomas, a decorated narcotics investigator and a veteran of the New Jersey Air National Guard, tortured by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of his service in Iraq, had downed a fistful of prescription sleeping pills with an entire bottle of Bermuda rum. He collapsed onto his stepson’s bed, calmly waiting to die. This was the second time since returning from war and rejoining the police force that he had tried to take his own life.

The debate over the militarization of America’s police has focused on the accumulation of war-grade vehicles and artillery and the spread of paramilitary SWAT teams. What has gone largely unstudied, however, is the impact of military veterans migrating into law enforcement. Even as departments around the country have sought a cultural transformation from “warriors” to “guardians,” one in five police officers are literally warriors, returned from Afghanistan, Iraq or other assignments.

The majority of veterans return home and reintegrate with few problems, and most police leaders value having them on the force. They bring with them skills and discipline that police forces regard as assets. But an investigation by the USA TODAY Network and The Marshall Project indicates that the prevalence of military veterans also complicates relations between police and the communities they are meant to serve.

To the obvious question — are veterans quicker to resort to force in policing situations? — there is no conclusive answer. Reporters obtained data from two major-city law enforcement agencies and considerable anecdotal evidence suggesting veterans are more likely to get physical, and some police executives agree.

But any large-scale comparison of the use of force by veterans and non-veterans is hampered by a chronic lack of reliable, official record-keeping on police violence.

Some other conclusions about military veterans in the police force emerged more clearly:

Veterans who work as police are more vulnerable to self-destructive behavior — alcohol abuse, drug use and, like Thomas, attempted suicide.
Hiring preferences for former service members that tend to benefit whites disproportionately make it harder to build police forces that reflect and understand diverse communities, some police leaders say.
Most law enforcement agencies, because of factors including a culture of machismo and a number of legal restraints, do little or no mental health screening for officers who have returned from military deployment, and they provide little in the way of treatment.
When Thomas returned to Newark, the police department offered no services for returning veterans, and he says he probably wouldn’t have applied for help anyway, fearing a stigma. “I just went back to work like nothing happened,” he says.

He lasted eight days in police uniform before his first suicide attempt. Tormented by memories of an explosion at the Baghdad airport that killed a favorite K-9 patrol dog, unnerved by crowds, spooked by loud noises and argumentative with superiors, “I tried to eat my gun,” he says.

His wife drove him to a nearby veterans hospital, where Thomas was diagnosed with severe PTSD. Thomas, now 57, is an advocate in the non-profit military and veterans support group Wounded Warrior Project.

The vet-to-cop pipeline

Policing has long been a favored career choice for men and women who have enlisted in the armed forces.

Today just 6% of the population at large has served in the military, but 19% of police officers are veterans, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by Gregory B. Lewis and Rahul Pathak of Georgia State University for The Marshall Project. It is the third most common occupation for veterans behind truck driving and management.

The attraction is, in part, the result of a web of state and federal laws — some dating back to the late 19th century — that require law enforcement agencies to choose veterans over candidates with no military backgrounds.

In states with the most stringent hiring preferences, such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, a police applicant who was honorably discharged from the military leaps over those who don’t have those credentials. Disabled veterans outflank military veterans with no documented health concerns. Thomas, the PTSD-afflicted Newark cop, held a secure place on the sergeant's promotions list because of his time with the New Jersey Air National Guard.

The Obama administration helped expand the preference: In 2012, the Department of Justice provided tens of millions of dollars to fund scores of veteran-only positions in police departments nationwide.

Official data on police officers who are veterans are scarce. Nearly all of the 33 police departments contacted by The Marshall Project declined to provide a list of officers who had served in the military, citing laws protecting personnel records or saying the information was not stored in any central place. The Justice Department office that dispenses grants to study policing said it had no interest in funding research into how military experience might influence police behavior.

But even those who advocate hiring combat veterans as police officers have raised alarms. The Justice Department and the International Association of Chiefs of Police put out a 2009 guide for police departments to help with their recruitment of military veterans. The guide warned, “Sustained operations under combat circumstances may cause returning officers to mistakenly blur the lines between military combat situations and civilian crime situations, resulting in inappropriate decisions and actions — particularly in the use of less lethal or lethal force.”

“A PTSD moment”

In 2012, Iraq War veteran and Albuquerque police officer Martin Smith responded to a call about a suspicious black SUV. Seconds later, he shot and killed the unarmed driver through the driver side window. In court papers, lawyers for the dead man’s family said Smith “later told his co-workers that he ‘blacked out’ and had a ‘PTSD moment’” during the shooting.

Smith had returned from deployment at a time when law enforcement across the country “was really trying to figure out how best to deal with the number of folks who were being activated,” then–police chief Ray Schultz said in depositions. According to court papers, Smith re-joined the force with a 100% disability rating, suffering from flashbacks, blackouts, and waking-nightmares; nevertheless, the department assigned him to patrol a high-crime area of town known as “the War Zone.”

The Albuquerque force has been cited by the Justice Department for a high rate of unconstitutional police-involved shootings. According to documents provided to The Marshall Project by Albuquerque police, of the 35 fatal shootings by police between January 2010 and April 2014, 11, or 31 percent, were by military veterans. Neither the Albuquerque Police Department nor the city attorney responded to questions about the shooting.

In two other cities that agreed to provide data to The Marshall Project — Boston and Miami — internal police records indicate that officers with military experience generate more civilian complaints of excessive force. Without knowing such details as age, duration of military service and the location of the incidents, it is impossible to rule out other factors, but in both cities the difference is noteworthy:

In Boston, for every 100 cops with some military service, there were more than 28 complaints of excessive use of force from 2010 through 2015. For every 100 cops with no military service, there were fewer than 17 complaints. Spokesman Michael P. McCarthy said the department would look into the disparity.
In Miami, based on data from 2013 through 2015, for every 100 veterans on the force, 14 complaints were filed; for every 100 officers without military service, 11 complaints were filed.
The Marshall Project also obtained data for the Massachusetts State Police, which showed no significant difference in complaints against veterans and non-veterans for excessive force.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the largest organization of policing executives,published a survey of 50 police chiefs in 2009 about their experiences integrating returning soldiers. Fourteen percent reported more citizen complaints against veteran officers, 28% reported psychological problems, and 10% saw excessive violence.

The Other ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

When police officers return to work after a military deployment, federal law — the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act — prohibits their departments from requiring blanket mental health evaluations. Because of the Americans With Disabilities Act, police departments can’t reject a job candidate for simply having a PTSD diagnosis.

The only time most of America’s law enforcement officers are required to sit for a mental health analysis is during the initial hiring process, and the rigor of the screening varies widely. Fewer than half of the nation’s smallest police departments do pre-employment psychological testing at all, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Many offer “screenings” in name only, says Stephen Curran, a Maryland police psychologist who has researched the transition from the military to policing — in some cases simply a computerized test with no face-to-face interview.

Where there is systematic testing of would-be police, military veterans are more likely to show signs of trauma.

Matthew Guller,

a police psychologist, is managing partner of a New Jersey firm, The Institute for Forensic Psychology,

that works with about 470 law enforcement agencies across the Northeast, screening for impairment.

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Officers with a history of mental health problems — even those who have been treated and are now healthy — can pose a twofold problem for departments who hire them. First, their history can become a liability if the department is sued. Second, it can be used to attack their credibility on the stand if they’re called to testify.

Advocates say the safety net for struggling officers at most police departments is minimal to non-existent. Even departments sensitive to mental health are in a difficult position: Top brass needs to be able to take unstable police officers off the street lest they hurt someone or themselves on the job. Yet officers must feel they can ask for help confidentially, without jeopardizing their careers, or “you're never going to get cops to come forward” for treatment, says Brian Fleming,

a retired Boston police sergeant who ran the department’s peer support unit from 2010 to 2014.

The lack of official attention in many cities has spurred police unions and individual officers to construct their own safety nets, programs where officers can open up about pain they would never show at a station house.

“I’ve never been at a roll call and someone says: ‘Know what, Sarge? I feel sorta sad today,’” says Andy Callaghan,

a Philadelphia police narcotics sergeant who spends his spare time at the Livengrin Foundation for Addiction Recovery

outside Philadelphia, counseling police and combat veterans with mental health struggles. “Early intervention is the key. Waiting for someone to self-destruct is what we do, and it's terrible.”

Additional reporting by Tom Meagher, The Marshall Project

This article was reported in partnership with The Marshall Project, a non-profit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletter, or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.

Here is the thread from last August. I am highlighting one of my posts in particular because the article above addresses some of the points under discussion back then.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/700362.page#top

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Hordini wrote:
What makes you think that veterans aren't already evaluated like everyone else?

I didn't say they weren't. I said they should be evaluated like everyone else. During an application process they should not be prioritized due to their veteran status (which many departments do), and perhaps if more research bears out that veterans are more susceptible to mental health problems, then they should be even more stringently evaluated before being added to a force.

Hordini wrote:
And why do you think soldiers would treat everyone they meet like an enemy?

Not soldiers, cops. I was responding to OgreChubbs comment about US police treating every traffic stop as if it is life threatening. That is problematic to me. Yes, police work is dangerous, and yes some traffic stops result in violence, but I'd wager the majority don't (no data, but feel free to prove me wrong). Treating civilians like they are threats, i.e. enemies, is a wrong minded approach to policing. Add in a veteran's potential for developing service-related mental health problems that could exacerbate this adversarial mindset and that doesn't make for a very good equation in my opinion.

Therefore I wonder if seeking out vets for roles in police is a good idea in the first place.

And with that I am out for the day. Going to job #2.

**d-usa**

I have mixed feelings about the whole issue.

On one hand I am worried that the difference between a police force and a military force becomes diminished. The missions between the two concepts are just so different, and I think that there are already too many police officers who think about the police as more of an occupying force than a neighborhood partner. I worry that more military in civilian law enforcement might increase the "us vs them" and decrease the "we are in this together" mindsets.

On the other hand I personally know a lot of former and current military people that look at the way our police departments are policing the neighborhoods and confronting threats, from individuals to protest to riots, and struggle to understand just what the hell the local police officers were thinking. It frequently feels like our military personnel have more training and restraint when they are in actual enemy territory and under constant threat of attack than our local cops do when they are standing behind a barrier while people are protesting.

As for the mental health aspect, it shouldn't matter if they are civilian or former military, any officer should be thoroughly screened and vetted and have a long probationary period to screen out any potential problems. Being a vet doesn't make you a ticking time bomb, and being a civilian doesn't mean that you won't be a ticking time bomb. Screen every applicant, have systems in place to supervise officers, and strong processes to rid the department of anyone that becomes a problem.

**DarkTraveler777**

d-usa wrote:
Being a vet doesn't make you a ticking time bomb, and being a civilian doesn't mean that you won't be a ticking time bomb. Screen every applicant, have systems in place to supervise officers, and strong processes to rid the department of anyone that becomes a problem.

Agreed, though it seems that screening is hit and miss and up to the individual departments. That needs to change.

**Spetulhu**

d-usa wrote:
I have mixed feelings about the whole issue.

Your points are good.

Most civlized countries (the USA included) have laws that forbid using military personnel to enforce order over civlians unless an emergency has been declared, precisely because of the difference in what the two services should be. The police apprehends criminals and investigates crimes, the military uses force against other armed forces. Treating your own citizens like you'd treat hostile foreigners isn't the way to build a functioning society. Giving the police military hardware without the training to properly judge when to use it is just stupid.

And the military has a strict chain of command and (hopefully) better discipline. For example one police shooting I read about here on dakka, the first officer on the scene was already talking down a suicidal armed man when the next patrol arrived and one of them promptly shot the guy dead without thinking. Yes, soldiers too will have to consider people possibly hostile, but they'll usually wait for the commanding officer to give orders before shooting someone.

So no, I don't think veterans in police service is automatically bad. I think bad leadership and practices in police work is bad, which can ofc get even worse if you let Rambo loose in a kindergarten hostage situation.

**Vaktathi**

There's a lot of issues with policing in the US and militarization is one. Not sure that veterans are part of that, a symptom, or unrelated, but the heavy emphasis on such in many agencies does not fill me with warm fuzziness. Soldiers and police have very different aims, but that doesnt mean a former soldier cant be a good police officer either.

That said, it's also not the first time this question has come up. In Germany for instance, former East German police had hard times getting police jobs after reunification because their training largely boiled down to "reach for the truncheon early and often", which caused issues.

Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that, in general, the less police presencr around me, the less interaction I have with the police, the happier I am and safer I feel. Police are not there to protect or serve anyone, that is not a requirement of their profession according to the supreme court, they absolutely can and will lie in official and unofficial capacities (and is in fact a routine part of police work), they have far too many legal and political exemptions for me to be comfortable with (whether it is powerful unions, firearms laws exemptions for retired LEO's, etc) and in general I see very limited upside to their presence within the bounds of my life. Their profession is necessary, but the way it has evolved and been expressed in the modern US I feel is not terribly positive.

**Galas**

I don't know how things are in USA, but in Spain, the police its filled with the guyts that in Highschool just repeat throught the years and don't know what other thing to do. Obviously, you have nice people here, but they are a minority.

The special forces, anti narchotic and all those special coprs are really trained men and women with their mind clear.

The worst its the Riot Police. Oh boy, you have to see how they pick those. Its like the goverment just look for the most inestable and violent people out there to give them authority to smash heads.

There have been photos of the locker rooms of Riot Polices full of Franquist, Fascist and Nacionalsocialist symbology and even in Twitter, Riot Police officers talked 2-3 years ago when the biger protest where running, how they wanted to go to them to "Smash some heads", and "A shame I can't go to that Protest, it will be like a children in a candy shop"

But as I like to say, Spain its a country that thinks of himself as European, but we are much more similar to our Southamerica siblings

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
There's a lot of issues with policing in the US and militarization is one. Not sure that veterans are part of that, a symptom, or unrelated, but the heavy emphasis on such in many agencies does not fill me with warm fuzziness. Soldiers and police have very different aims, but that doesnt mean a former soldier cant be a good police officer either.

That said, it's also not the first time this question has come up. In Germany for instance, former East German police had hard times getting police jobs after reunification because their training largely boiled down to "reach for the truncheon early and often", which caused issues.

Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that, in general, the less police presencr around me, the less interaction I have with the police, the happier I am and safer I feel. Police are not there to protect or serve anyone, that is not a requirement of their profession according to the supreme court, they absolutely can and will lie in official and unofficial capacities (and is in fact a routine part of police work), they have far too many legal and political exemptions for me to be comfortable with (whether it is powerful unions, firearms laws exemptions for retired LEO's, etc) and in general I see very limited upside to their presence within the bounds of my life. Their profession is necessary, but the way it has evolved and been expressed in the modern US I feel is not terribly positive.

I agree with everything in the post. I would also add that I don't think you can pin the problem on veterans themselves, I think the real problem is police standards. There should be precise standards, physical and psychological to become a police officer and departments shouldn't be accepting applicants that don't meet both. Too often politicians want to placate voters by appearing tough on crime by promising to increase the size of police departments and issuing them more milsurp gear instead of promising to make sure that police departments have the best officers with the best training. We'd be better off with smaller police departments with great highly trained (including how to de-escalate situations, when to use force, how much force to use and how to apply it properly) cops rather than larger departments that include mediocre or subpar cops. A bad cop can do a lot of damage to both the department and the community.

**CptJake**

I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

Many vets worked with very restrictive ROEs while on active duty and have more training in NOT escalating than pure civilian cops.

Generally when folks talk about 'militarization' of a police force it has to do with equipping, training, and structuring of the force. For example, before every podunk LEA had an MRAP and SWAT team, you didn't see a lot of zero dark thirty no-knocks. Give them MRAPs and SWAT and they feel the urge to use them...

**aldo**

Galas wrote:

But as I like to say, Spain its a country that thinks of himself as European, but we are much more similar to our Southamerica siblings

I like to think we are a tiny bit better than the capital of kidnapping, the corralito or any of the lovely places over there. Then I remember Ciutat Morta. Sometimes its as if nobody bothered to purge the army and police after the transition and 23F.

Maybe because nobody bothered.

At least the GAL aren't a thing anymore. That's something... right? We don't have government-organized terrorist death squads! Oh we are so European!

**Galas**

Why should they have purged the army and the police force? They have no reason to do it.

This was not germany, here the Franquism won the war, and then we didn't make a democratic rupture.

We transitioned from Franquism to Franquism 2.0: Electric SocialDemocracy

But this its offtopic. Sorry guys!

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

I will concede that is true if you will concede that it's largely because there is terrible data on police shootings in general, there being no requirement to track unjustified shootings.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

I will concede that is true if you will concede that it's largely because there is terrible data on police shootings in general, there being no requirement to track unjustified shootings.

What I will concede the stories that make it into the media of bad or suspected bad shootings, we rarely hear "And the cop was a veteran of the armed forces'.

**jmurph**

Yeah, I would rather have a vet who knows what pulling the trigger means than some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge.

Experience and training matters.

**DarkTraveler777**

jmurph wrote:
Yeah, I would rather have a vet who knows what pulling the trigger means than some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge.

Experience and training matters.

If all things are equal I definitely agree. But they aren't.

Where there is systematic testing of would-be police, military veterans are more likely to show signs of trauma.

Matthew Guller, a police psychologist, is managing partner of a New Jersey firm, The Institute for Forensic Psychology, that works with about 470 law enforcement agencies across the Northeast, screening for impairment.

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

If police applicants have almost double the impairment of non-military applicants, I might be swinging towards wanting an applicant who is a "blank slate" and isn't bringing an over abundance of their own traumas to an already traumatic job.

I don't think anyone wants "some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge" and instead want officers who will treat civilians as NOT THE ENEMY.

**Future War Cultist**

It seems as though the vets make better cops because of the training, experience and mindset. For example, I don'think a vet would have opened fire on some kids over a lawn.

Also, I just want to say, the Police Service Of Northern Ireland are some of the most professional officers in the world. In some ways they are in occupied territory and yet you don't see them flipping their lids and killing people (unlike the rest of the police in the UK, they do carry guns).

**jhe90**

Future War Cultist wrote:
It seems as though the vets make better cops because of the training, experience and mindset. For example, I don'think a vet would have opened fire on some kids over a lawn.

Also, I just want to say, the Police Service Of Northern Ireland are some of the most professional officers in the world. In some ways they are in occupied territory and yet you don't see them flipping their lids and killing people (unlike the rest of the police in the UK, they do carry guns).

Veterans also given some US stories in past have a higher Level of general training on weapons, radio gear etc.
Police may like they have all the basics down from military and makes training easier and all have at least a set level of training and proficiency.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

I will concede that is true if you will concede that it's largely because there is terrible data on police shootings in general, there being no requirement to track unjustified shootings.

What I will concede the stories that make it into the media of bad or suspected bad shootings, we rarely hear "And the cop was a veteran of the armed forces'.

Right. You're implying that it's rare, and I'm saying we have no idea of how rare it is, in either direction, because these stats aren't collected. I could just as easily make any manner of claims because I know perfectly well it's utterly impossible to check them in a meaningful way.

Anyway my feeling is it doesn't much matter, ultimately. I have a lot of cops in my family and the thin blue wall culture gets ingrained very quickly regardless of your prior background.

**Ensis Ferrae**

CptJake wrote:
I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

I actually went into this thread thinking about the guy in West Virginia, a former Marine who was in his probationary period DIDN'T shoot a suspect (according to him it was a very clear suicide by cop situation, both based on the radio call, and his initial assessment). . . Remember, he got fired for not capping someone.

I too do not see this as a Vet-Not Vet issue. It's about departmental priority and mindset.

What I have problems with, is the "Thin" Blue Wall and union protectionism that runs rampant around the country, and how many specifically target minorities for anything/everything whether someone wrong was done or not. I have problems with cops viewing people as a revenue source. I have issues with guys with small pee-pees hiding behind a big badge (for instance, the retired cop who wasted a dude in a movie theater in Florida, or the drunk donkey-cave in Michigan who was pulled over by a "good" cop for DUI). Those types of "hurr-hurr look at me I'm so fething awesome" types that crop up in places like the military, are swiftly laughed at, and generally won't be very successful.

**Future War Cultist**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

I actually went into this thread thinking about the guy in West Virginia, a former Marine who was in his probationary period DIDN'T shoot a suspect (according to him it was a very clear suicide by cop situation, both based on the radio call, and his initial assessment). . . Remember, he got fired for not capping someone.

I too do not see this as a Vet-Not Vet issue. It's about departmental priority and mindset.

This says it all really.

**redleger**

The title had me a bit ticked off but it seems to have righted itself. Another POV is type of military affiliation. LEO from OP seemed to have been national guard which I suspect make up large numbers of the police force. Training between active and guard is the longest running joke amongst the active duty force. So although a NG Soldier may be a civilian most of the month when they make a mistake suddenly they are a vet or Soldier. So that alone could skew possible studies.

**Co'tor Shas**

I'm actually for more vets becoming cops (as long as they don't have severe PTSD or something), simply because of the fact that they have the experience in stressful situations to be able to not shoot when they don't need to, where as your average cop out of the police academy won't. Although I haven't really put any research into it. The Militarization of police is an issue however, but that's caused by police chiefs, executives, mayors, ect, not your average joe cop.

**Frazzled**

Spetulhu wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I have mixed feelings about the whole issue.

Your points are good.

Most civlized countries (the USA included) have laws that forbid using military personnel to enforce order over civlians unless an emergency has been declared, precisely because of the difference in what the two services should be.

Thats not accurate. Countries throughout the Americas use the military to help keep order. Asia is the same. Further you are using Western Europe as an example and not Eastern Europe especially pre USSR downfall.

Its not a great militarization of the police (although this is happening). In many jurisdictions it is a greater occupation nature of the police.

This is a direct correlated result of "the war on drugs." I remember police raids in the apartment complex in Cali. Helicopters, men in black with ARs (M4s didn't exist at the time). The whole spiel.

**jmurph**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
jmurph wrote:
Yeah, I would rather have a vet who knows what pulling the trigger means than some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge.

Experience and training matters.

If all things are equal I definitely agree. But they aren't.

Where there is systematic testing of would-be police, military veterans are more likely to show signs of trauma.

Matthew Guller, a police psychologist, is managing partner of a New Jersey firm, The Institute for Forensic Psychology, that works with about 470 law enforcement agencies across the Northeast, screening for impairment.

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

If police applicants have almost double the impairment of non-military applicants, I might be swinging towards wanting an applicant who is a "blank slate" and isn't bringing an over abundance of their own traumas to an already traumatic job.

I don't think anyone wants "some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge" and instead want officers who will treat civilians as NOT THE ENEMY.

Yeah and PTSD != SHOOT EVERYONE. It can manifest in depression like symptoms, for example, and is often linked to self destructive behavior. So while it is an important issue, it doesn't indicate that they would somehow make "worse" police. I would bet if you compared officers with more experience to new officers you would also see a demonstrably higher rate of PTSD. Same if you compared officers who work specialty divisions like homicide, sex assaults, child cases, etc. So, the question seems to be is the additional experience, training, and transferable skillsets worth the higher occurrence of costs associated with said experience.
From http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired

Stephen James, a researcher at Washington State University, who has been testing police officers' reactions in simulators. The testing should tell researchers if police who are veterans react differently than police who are not. James said that past research suggests that, like Mader, vets are more "patient." He said, "Combat vets who've been exposed to extreme violence have a different 'threat threshold,' which means that they're in more control of their physiology, and they're not allowing this fight-or-flight response to drive them into action."

**Future War Cultist**

I get the feeling that being out in a warzone will temper your mentality like that. It keeps you humble in a way.

Contrast it with a wannabe super cop who joined the force straight out of high school and who's on a power trip, thinking that they're invincible (and untouchable). Maybe that's too harsh and simplistic but I'd trust a vet over the other type any day.

**DarkTraveler777**

jmurph wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
jmurph wrote:
Yeah, I would rather have a vet who knows what pulling the trigger means than some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge.

Experience and training matters.

If all things are equal I definitely agree. But they aren't.

Where there is systematic testing of would-be police, military veterans are more likely to show signs of trauma.

Matthew Guller, a police psychologist, is managing partner of a New Jersey firm, The Institute for Forensic Psychology, that works with about 470 law enforcement agencies across the Northeast, screening for impairment.

Of nearly 4,000 police applicants evaluated by Guller’s firm from 2014 through October of 2016, those with military experience were failed at a higher rate than applicants who had no military history — 8.5% compared with 4.8%.

The higher rates of trauma are exacerbated by the fact that service members with PTSD often aren’t diagnosed and keep quiet about their suffering. Although up to 20% of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD, only half get treated, according to a 2012 National Academy of Sciences study. Veterans are 21% more likely to kill themselves than adults who never enlisted, according to a report in August by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

If police applicants have almost double the impairment of non-military applicants, I might be swinging towards wanting an applicant who is a "blank slate" and isn't bringing an over abundance of their own traumas to an already traumatic job.

I don't think anyone wants "some guy hyped up on being a badass with a badge" and instead want officers who will treat civilians as NOT THE ENEMY.

Yeah and PTSD != SHOOT EVERYONE. It can manifest in depression like symptoms, for example, and is often linked to self destructive behavior. So while it is an important issue, it doesn't indicate that they would somehow make "worse" police. I would bet if you compared officers with more experience to new officers you would also see a demonstrably higher rate of PTSD. Same if you compared officers who work specialty divisions like homicide, sex assaults, child cases, etc. So, the question seems to be is the additional experience, training, and transferable skillsets worth the higher occurrence of costs associated with said experience.
From http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired

Stephen James, a researcher at Washington State University, who has been testing police officers' reactions in simulators. The testing should tell researchers if police who are veterans react differently than police who are not. James said that past research suggests that, like Mader, vets are more "patient." He said, "Combat vets who've been exposed to extreme violence have a different 'threat threshold,' which means that they're in more control of their physiology, and they're not allowing this fight-or-flight response to drive them into action."

Who is saying PTSD = SHOOT EVERYONE?

That is a strawman and I hope you know it.

The point of this thread was to question the preferences given to military veterans for police hiring when there are some studies indicating those applicants suffer from PTSD more than non-military veteran applicants.

No one seems to be commenting on the statistics in the OP article about how police applicants with military backgrounds screened for impairment failed at a rate almost double that of those applicants without military service.

That seems problematic to me. Especially since the US has a growing problem with citizens trusting the police, with police shoots, and with cops being held accountable for their actions. For those issues to be fixed ever facet of policing needs to be evaluated, including recruitment.

Instead of looking at recruitment practices this is turning into an echo chamber of "a vet with training is better than a badass-wannabe with a gun" which is entirely besides the point and is a no-gak-Sherlock statement.

I don't think anyone here would prefer to have a wild card with a badge running around the streets--veteran or civilian background, that person is a recipe for disaster.

However, as a culture, we seem to prefer our police to have a military background. We want our police trained in war so they can then deal with civilian situations. That seems counter intuitive to me, and though the evidence is sparse and needs additional research, there is some indication that this may be a backwards approach as it is currently being applied.

If more effective screening were in place by all police departments, if we could eradicate the stigma of mental health issues both within the military and police so soldiers and officers could get the treatment they need then my concerns would be lessened.

However, that isn't the case currently. Few departments screen applicants, and there is still a huge stigma associated with mental health treatment. Yet, our police departments still give preferential treatment to a group that is more prone to have mental health issues that could impact how they perform in law enforcement. Again, that is concerning to me.

**Frazzled**

I would trust a former combat veteran as an officer then a straight officer. Its not about them, its about the policies and the police culture. if the culture of the department is that everyone covers for the bad cops, that X are just troublemakers, that all arrests are made with no knock kick arrests via SWAT unit, well none of that is impacted whatsoever by whether or not its a vet.

Plus - unlike NYC PoPo - at least combat veterans can actually shoot straight.

**redleger**

I got nothing. By that logic then I should just curl up in a ball in 2 days when I get out, abandon my family and accept I am broken. Bull gak. We are people, fallible just like everyone else. The difference it most of us have matured and experienced more than most due to the nature of our lives. I did say lives not job, because military service is all encompassing. Secondly there are difference between branches and even job branches within each military branch. For example Army and Navy vary immesurably. So the term vet is not a narrow description. Combat vet is equally misleading as few vets have actually seen combat as you think of it.

Now the ability to follow instructions, maturity around fire arms are usually consistent. Then it begins to vary based on job. So what you are implying would be very hard to prove.

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
I suspect you will have a hard time showing cops who are veterans are more prone to needlessly capping folks than cops who were never in the military.

Many vets worked with very restrictive ROEs while on active duty and have more training in NOT escalating than pure civilian cops.

Generally when folks talk about 'militarization' of a police force it has to do with equipping, training, and structuring of the force. For example, before every podunk LEA had an MRAP and SWAT team, you didn't see a lot of zero dark thirty no-knocks. Give them MRAPs and SWAT and they feel the urge to use them...

well I remember one story, but it went a totally different way:

http://www.attn.com/stories/11357/police-officer-fired-over-using-military-training

Stephen Mader did what we expect cops to do, he evaluated and de esculated the situation, but then got fired for it.

**redleger**

It's been mentioned many times and rings true.ive said !Any of the things mentioned in that article in threads here.

**Ouze**

redleger wrote:
The difference it most of us have matured and experienced more than most due to the nature of our lives.

I assume you don't see the irony of posting that combat vets are mature, and having a line in your sig indicating you might get punched in the face if you make an ill-considered comment to a combat vet.

Which is it? Calm, mature guys that are ideal police candidates, or dangerous hotheads quick to resort to physical violence over imagined slights?