University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Nebraska at Omaha

DigitalCommons@UNO DigitalCommons@UNO

Student Work

2-1-1976

Proactive Weaponry Planning: A Systemic Policy Formulation Proactive Weaponry Planning: A Systemic Policy Formulation

Model for Law Enforcement Agencies Model for Law Enforcement Agencies

Kevin Parsons University of Nebraska at Omaha

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Parsons, Kevin, "Proactive Weaponry Planning: A Systemic Policy Formulation Model for Law Enforcement Agencies" (1976). Student Work. 2168. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/2168

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact unodigitalcommons@unomaha.edu.

PROACTIVE WEAPONRY PLANNING: A SYSTEMIC POLICY

FORMULATION MODEL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

A Thesis

Presented to the

Department o f Criminal Just ice

and the

Faculty o f the Graduate College

Univers i ty o f Nebraska at Omaha

In Par t ia l Fu l f i l lm e n t

o f the Requirements fo r the Degree

Master o f Arts

by

Kevin Parsons

february 197G

UMI Number: EP73710

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Qlsseridt n Publishing

UMI EP73710

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

Abstract

PROACTIVE WEAPONRY PLANNING: A SYSTEMIC POLICY FORMULATION

MODEL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES deal s with the process through

which taxonomies o f c r i t e r i a may be developed to designate e f fe c ­

t i v e weaponry to be u t i l i z e d in a va r ie ty o f law enforcement con­

f ron ta t ions . The study conceptualizes current academic and tech- / '

nica l formulation methodologies (c lass ic and react ive weaponry plan­

n ing). An a l te rna t ive paradigm termed proactive weaponry planning

(PWP) in which c r i t e r i a d e f in i t i o n predates weaponry analysis is

then postu lated.

Proactive weaponry planning is a f ive-phase open systems

perspective which i n i t i a l l y incorporates a delineated agency ro le

model based upon extra-agency and inter-departmental m u l t ip le access

channels o f communication. Weaponry c r i t e r i a are seen as contingent

upon confrontat ional needs which are in turn a fac to r o f the derived

agency ro le model. The i n i t i a l three phases impact in a l in e a r

systemic f low upon speci f ied weapons and t h e i r analysis.

I t is the i n i t i a l t r i a d w i th in the model which forms the

th rus t o f the analys is , f o r i t is w i th in th is segment o f the para­

digm tha t s ig n i f i c a n t and far-reaching po l icy decisions are formu­

la ted . P a r a m i l i t a r i s t i c uniform patro l is employed as an exemplar

to i l l u s t r a t e the planning methodology. The t re a t is e concludes. with

discussion o f inves t iga t ion p r i o r i t i e s essential to precise

d e f in i t io n s o f law enforcement confrontat ional needs and proposes

addi t ional typologies f o r examination in l i g h t o f the proactive

methodology.

THESIS ACCEPTANCE

Accepted fo r the fa c u l ty o f The Graduate College o f the

Un ivers i ty o f Nebraska a t Omaha, in p a r t ia l f u l f i l lm e n t o f the

requirements fo r the degree Master o f Arts.

Graduate Committee

Name

Name

Department

Departrfteiyt

Chai man

11

This p ro jec t was supported by grant number 73N1991022

awarded to the Univers i ty o f Nebraska at Omaha, Department of

Criminal Just ice by the United States Department o f Jus t ice , Law

Enforcement Assistance Admin is tra t ion, National I n s t i t u te o f Law

Enforcement and Criminal Jus t ice , under the Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act o f 1968, as amended. Points o f view, research

techniques, methodologies and opinions expressed in th is document

are those o f the author and do not necessari ly represent the o f f i ­

c ia l pos i t ion or po l ic ies o f the U.S. Department o f Just ice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Proactive research in the f i e l d o f weaponry po l icy formula­

t io n is as embryonic as the d is c ip l in e o f cr iminal ju s t i c e to which

i t applies. Credit fo r immense assistance in the i n i t i a l concep­

tu a l iz a t io n o f th is p ro jec t must be given Dr. Vince Webb, Chairman,

Department o f Criminal Just ice , Un ivers i ty o f Nebraska at Omaha.

Information regarding spec i f ic areas o f contention w i th in

the spectrum o f law enforcement weaponry planning would not have

been possible but fo r the kind assistance o f manufacturers and

a u th o r i t ies too numerous to c re d i t here, but c i ted in reference.

Special acknowledgment is afforded Major E. J. Land, Command Center,

United States Marine Corps, whose personal contacts and broad knowl­

edge o f weaponry u t i l i z a t i o n served as a constant data source through­

out the pro jec t period.

Numerous loca l , s ta te , and federal agencies including the

Los Angeles Police Department, the Delaware State Police (espec ia l ly

Lieutenant Valvert Fox), the Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion , United

States Drug Enforcement Agency, and United States Secret Service

provided essent ial background data.

Impetus to review the h is to r ic a l evolution o f American law

enforcement in an attempt to derive agency ro le models must be

c re d i t Dr. Samuel Walker. The incorporation o f organization

perspectives as a v i t a l component o f proactive weaponry planning is

a re su l t o f assistance from Dr. Wil l iam Clute.

Consultation with personnel through the United States,

correspondence with agencies and manufacturers regarding problem

areas, and data re t r ie va l from diverse national sources was made

possible through a fe l lowship from the Law Enforcement Assistance

Adminis trat ion.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ................................... . v i i

LIST OF FIGURES ................... . . . . . . . . v i i i

Chapter

I . PROBLEM STATEMENT . . . . . . .................................................. 1

Classical Weaponry Planning ................................................. 2Reactive Weaponry Planning ............................................. 6Proactive Weaponry Planning ................ 11Methodology ...................................................................... 13

I I . PRELIMINARY DELINEATIONS ........................... . 17

Phase One--Delineation o f Agency Role Model .................... 19Phase Two—Delineation o f Confrontational Needs . . . 27

Train ing and E d u c a t i o n ..................................................... 28Patrol A c t i v i t i e s . . ........................................ 30Tactical Constraints . . . . . . . . . 35Personnel Considerations ................................................. 36

I I I . PHASE THREE—DELINEATION OF WEAPONRY CRITERIA .................... 38

Si dearms ......................................................................... . . 40Holsters and L e a t h e r ............................................................. 43Long Arms . . . ...................................................................... 45Impact Weapons . ................................................................. 46Chemical A g e n ts ............................ 47

IV. POINTS OF DEPARTURE...................................................................... 50

FOOTNOTES............................................ 55

REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................... 56

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. D is t r ib u t io n o f Assault Incidents by O f f ice r■ Assignment—1'973 ............................ 32

2. Law Enforcement Off icers K i l led by Type of A c t i v i t y1969-1973 34

3. Law Enforcement O ff icers Slain/Most Dangerous Hours1964-1973 42

vi i

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Classical Weaponry Planning ......................... . . . . . . . 4

2. Reactive Weaponry Planning ........................................................ 9

3. Proactive Weaponry Planning .................................................... 12

vi i i

CHAPTER I

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The f i r s t years o f th is decade served to accentuate the

resu l ts o f unthinking, untrained men reacting to s i tua t ions o f

stress. Media coverage and commission studies have dramat ica l ly

emphasized the need to estab l ish theore t ica l c r i t e r i a bases to be

u t i l i z e d when planning fo r and dealing with social confronta t ions.^

The dilemma is espec ia l ly acute in the area o f law enforce­

ment weaponry systems. Policy makers are not cer ta in o f the purpose

o f po l ice armament. Is weaponry a la s t resor t means of s e l f ­

p ro tec t ion , an a l te rn a t ive to assure the safety o f c i t izens or a

method o f punishing cr iminals? The absence o f such fundamental

conceptual bases leads to haphazard and often impract ical solu t ions

to perceived, yet unver i f ied problems.

Abstracts fo r the se lect ion and evaluation o f law enforce­

ment weaponry systems based upon the spec i f ic types o f behavioral

confrontat ions in which enforcement agencies p a r t ic ipa te have f a i le d

to mater ia l ize . The absence o f such essent ial typologies is a t t r i b u t ­

able to the t ra d i t io n a l methodologies employed by researchers.

This study seeks to delineate two t ra d i t io n a l weaponry plan­

ning methodologies (c lass ic and react ive weaponry planning) and

conceptualize an a l te rn a t ive stratagem (proactive weaponry planning).

The postulated conceptualization is intended to y ie ld weaponry

2

c r i t e r i a based upon confrontat ional needs which are in turn con t in ­

gent upon a delineated agency ro le model.

The a l te rn a t ive format is termed Proactive Weaponry Planning

(PWP) as c r i t e r i a d e f in i t i o n predates weapon analysis . PWP is con­

t rasted with a react ive format which allows fab r ica t ion o f c r i t e r i a

to " f i t " ex is t ing armament. In add i t ion to the immediate benef its

o f an in tegrated, systemized evaluation process fo r determining

c r i t e r i a p r io r to weapon acqu is i t io n , the proposed proactive plan­

ning function necessitates agency ro le model de l ineat ion. Such,

conceptualization is conducive to improved planning throughout a l l

segments o f a specif ied agency.

This work deals with the process through which taxonomies

o f c r i t e r i a may be developed to designate e f fe c t iv e weaponry which

may be u t i l i z e d in a va r ie ty of law enforcement confrontat ions.

Confrontations are here defined as encounters in which pol ice

o f f i c e rs may d is t r ib u te s i t u a t io n a l l y j u s t i f i e d force. Armament

employed in such encounters may range from less le tha l chemical

agents, through impact instruments to le tha l f irearms. The e f fe c ­

t iveness o f any weapon in a confrontat ion is a funct ion o f the par­

t i c u la r weapon, the o f f i c e r , the subject with whom he is dealing,

and the minimum degree o f force necessary to implement con tro l .

Classical Weaponry Planning

A t ra d i t io n a l research format with regard to weaponry selec­

t io n has been to (a) estab l ish what weaponry is cu r ren t ly in use by

law enforcement agencies in the United States and (b) to determine

by case studies how e f fe c t iv e th is spec i f ic weaponry has been in

3

speci f ied types o f behavioral confrontat ions. From these data

invest iga tors hoped to estab l ish c r i t e r i a fo r the se lect ion and

evaluation o f weaponry by ind iv idua l departments (see Figure 1).

The procedure has proven t o t a l l y unsuccessful.

At the present t ime, information regarding the charac te r is ­

t i c s o f ex is t ing armament or the effect iveness o f present weaponry

systems is not ava i lab le on a quant i f ied national basis. The cur­

rent dilemma was best summarized by Professor A l len P. Bristow

(1975) in a personal l e t t e r to the author.

Unfor tunate ly , there are not studies which document in deta i l the condit ions or armament o f pa r t ic ipan ts in po l ice f i r e f i g h ts . I attempted to do th is in my o r ig ina l research (1960), but was unable to obtain support.

In 1973, Bristow attempted to analyze one spe c i f ic area o f

law enforcement armament. His te x t , The Search fo r an E f fec t ive

Police Handgun, is the most complete analysis o f i t s type of date.

However, the work neglects a number o f s ig n i f i c a n t areas o f police

sidearm development. Because o f i t s l im i te d scope, the t rea t ise

f a i l s to examine a va r ie ty o f addit ional police weaponry categories.

This author's own e f fo r t s to secure qu an t i f iab le data regard­

ing one spec i f ic category o f armament (the type, ca l ib e r , and fea­

tures o f handguns sold to law enforcement agencies during the past

f i v e , ten, f i f t e e n , and twenty years) also proved f u t i l e . The

three p r inc ipa l American manufacturers, Colt , Ruger and Smith and

Wesson, indicated that th is type o f information was "not ava i lab le . "

The problem stems as much from marketing cha rac te r is t ics o f the

f irms involved as from reluctance to release in formation o f th is

4

CDCDUszCDCOfa-d

Q_

4 -J

oo

Q 4—

>

GOCD

4 -

CD

S-CD

CDQ

CD-aCD

uCDCL

GO

CDco03C_5>)-QCOCo

4->eCD5- CD

CD s- cnC U 03o CD COCD _C3

ZDCO CO >)03 ' I— S-

_d 1-- aa . _Q o

03 CL4—3 03co CDLU 3

OfOJC•aCDCD

cr>c' r—c:c03

r—Q->)i-e:oCL03CDroCJ

• i—COcoCT3

r—CD

CDi-CJ)

5

type to the publ ic . Mr. Bob Bo l l ing (1975) o f C o l t 's Patent Firearms

out l ined the s i tua t ion :

I could have a d is t r i b u to r somewhere s e l l in g some department and never know i t . We don ' t bid d i rec t from the fac to ry .For example, the c i t y o f Compton, C a l i fo rn ia bought 102 .45Vs la s t year from my d is t r i b u to r in Torrance, C a l i fo rn ia . Ionly heard about i t a f t e r the fa c t as they move thousands o fautomatics and a hundred or so is not remarkable.

I t is u n l ike ly tha t such quan t i f iab le in formation regarding

the types o f weapons curren t ly in use by American law enforcement

agencies w i l l become ava i lab le in the near fu tu re . The nature of

such s t a t i s t i c a l data is so vast and dynamic that a yea r ly , updated,

computerized format with mandatory reply procedure would be required.

Phase Two of the c lass ic research procedure, case studies

of the effectiveness o f spe c i f ic weapons in selected confronta­

t ions , has also proven unworkable. A l len Bristow (1963) pioneered

research in th is neglected area o f analysis . Unfortunately , his

Cal ifornia-based study included only 110 incidents invo lv ing 150

o f f i c e rs who had been shot during a three-year period between 1959

and 1961. A review o f the o f f i c e r f a t a l i t y s t a t i s t i c s o f the Federal

Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion fo r the same three years (Hoover, 1959;

1960; 1961) accentuates the l im i ted scope o f the Bristow thesis .

The Police Casualty Series of the In ternat iona l Association

o f Chiefs o f Police; the FBI repor t , A Summary Analysis o f Law

Enforcement O ff icers K i l led 1964-1973; and the Chapman, Swanson,

and Meyer repor t , A Descr ipt ive P ro f i le o f the Assault Incident

(1974) represent addit ional attempts to quant i fy the effect iveness

of present weaponry systems in a va r ie ty o f behavioral confrontat ions.

Although well executed, they lack the broad scope o f incidence

6

variables and deta i led analysis o f sp ec i f ic confrontat ions neces­

sary fo r meaningful analysis upon which to base po l icy decisions.

As with weaponry usage f igu res , deta i led national analysis

regarding the effect iveness o f armament categories in specif ied

behavioral confrontat ions is un l ike ly . A computerized c o l le c t io n

service s im i la r to the Federal Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion 's Uniform

Crime Report could provide a great deal o f v i t a l data. However,

a f i v e - to ten-year period o f analys is would be necessary to formu­

la te meaningful national trends. The problems inherent in the UCR's

s e l f - re p o r t in g system would be compounded when dealing with weaponry

incidence analysis.

While the t ra d i t io n a l format f o r de l ineat ion o f weaponry

c r i t e r i a has proven in e f fe c t i v e , the, conceptual mandates they attempt

to derive remain essent ia l . Because o f the lack o f r e a l i s t i c c r i ­

t e r ia standards, hardware that f a i l s to meet the confrontat ional

needs o f user agencies and the pub l ic they serve has p ro l i fe ra te d .

Reactive Weaponry Planning

A wide va r ie ty o f weaponry is purchased each year by law

enforcement agencies. The preponderance o f hardware acqu is i t ion

tha t characterized the ear ly years o f LEAA grant requests provides

a dramatic example. The trend is understandable i f o f questionable

v i r tu e . Weaponry is a h igh ly v i s ib le , popular (among departmental

personnel) , and read i ly quan t i f iab le e n t i t y . Short-term acqu is i t ion

goals, "To modernize the patrol d iv is ion by equipping each o f f i c e r

with a .357 Magnum revolver by December 30," are read i ly obtainable

given adequate funding. Performance standards, "To reduce the

7

incidence of confrontat ional overreaction 2% by December 30,11 are

more d i f f i c u l t to achieve or measure e f fe c t i v e ly . Media and gen­

eral public a t ten t ion are more read i ly focused upon spectacular

hardward demonstrations than mundane s t a t i s t i c a l indices o f inc re ­

mental progress.

Departmental weaponry purchases have a profound e f fe c t upon

the agency, i t s personnel, subjects with whom they deal, and the

publ ic . Weaponry is an e f fe c t iv e measure o f agency p ro fe ss iona l i ­

zation. Those departments which have a sound cognit ion o f t h e i r

service-peacekeeping ro le are unimpressed with the fads, gimmicks,

or a r t i f i c i a l standards tha t sway t h e i r less astute counterparts.

The d is t in c t io n between a serv ice-or iented peace o f f i c e r and

p a r a m i l i t a r i s t i c law enforcer is c r i t i c a l ' . O f f icers t ra ined and

armed as an assault force w i l l be perceived and react as aggressors

ra ther than pro tectors . The e f fe c t o f ro le d is t in c t io n upon sub­

je c ts is i l l u s t r a t e d by the New York C ity Police Department's Cr is is

In tervent ion Unit . Perception o f a pol ice o f f i c e r as threatening

or supportive is a c r i t i c a l determinant o f subject response.

The necessity o f weaponry in twentieth century law enforce­

ment is not questioned. For the purposes o f th is study, i t is

assumed that police weaponry is a ta c t ica l necessity in the modern

American context. The discussion concerns the base l in e c r i t e r i a

upon which weaponry se lect ion is contingent. In response to the

c lass ic school o f weaponry planning, current trends are in the realm

o f react ive analysis.

8

Reactive weaponry planning concerns the app l ica t ion o f

a r t i f i c i a l standards to ex is t ing weaponry in an attempt to de l ine ­

ate confrontat ional c r i t e r i a (see Figure 2). Technical performance

c r i t e r i a are the most common and fa l la c io u s . For example: There

is l i t t l e question th a t the Smith & Wesson model 29 is an extremely

well tuned, accurate, and dependable handgun. However, there is a

c r i t i c a l question regarding the need fo r .44 Magnum revolvers in a

law enforcement context. What is techn ica l ly acceptable is not

necessari ly prudent in a given operational framework.

A second type o f a r t i f i c i a l standard is inappropr ia te c r i ­

t e r i a . Departments which adopt a spec i f ic type o f rapid revolver

reloading device because i t w i l l "not break when dropped on cement"

have committed such a log ica l fa l la c y . The s ig n i f i c a n t question is

whether or not there is a need fo r speedloading devices in a law

enforcement se t t in g . . I f such a need ex is ts , c r i t e r i a should be

speed, ease o f re loading, and r e l i a b i l i t y of in se r t ion , not an

a r t i f i c i a l standard o f i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y .

A th i rd type o f fa l lac ious standard is the i n s u f f i c i e n t c r i ­

te r ia ch a ra c te r is t ic o f manufacturers. Blatant examples come from

l ig h t -w e ig h t , h igh -ve loc i ty p ro je c t i l e proponents. Jacketed Hollow

Point (JHP) and Jacketed Soft Point (JSP) ammunition w i l l theore t ­

i c a l l y increase stopping power, reduce r icochet p o te n t ia l , and

decrease the danger o f penetration. However, a wide va r ie ty of

s i tu a t iona l contexts and u t i l i z a t i o n factors decrease the potent ia l

fo r such performance. Addit ional analysis regarding lack o f expan­

sion, inadequate penetration, and social reaction to employment must

9

coS-

4 -C

O) o rdO) CJ) ' r—c- S-

JC <4— O)h - o 4->

•r~a; sc S-</> o C_>rd • I—

sz +-> f—C L rd ro

a> c:■ cc o

• i— •r~r— +->cu rd

Q +->

scc :coC l

c :OC l

ra co* 1— ra <D

• • Sw • r— rd 2C a> u • r—

o ra +-> <u s~ CL)C L • r — •i— +-> CL> >

Z D s_ s_ • I— +■> ■r~a> C J S - • i— 4 ->

O * o +-> C J S - <J3 a> • i— CL) o <d

1— CO S - 4 -> 4 -> CL)CO o rd c : + J D C

a> C D • i— CL) cCO r— S - • i— CL)ra CO rd C L O -M •

j EC • r * a O •r~ CO C \JQ _ CO •r~ S - 4— •p—

> > C C L 4— X CU_ c C L CJ CL) s -

ra o ra to c :c : a> sc SC o a >

• a : i— i— i 1— 1 z •r~

A

scoCL

O) rd£C O)

o :2O) uto •r—ra 4 -

■ CTQ_ <J

a>CL

oo

10

be conducted. Departments adopting such loadings upon the basis

o f manufacturers1 reconmendations and peer agency popu la r i ty are

i n i t i a t i n g po l icy with far-reaching impl icat ions on the basis o f

i n s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a .

In extreme cases departments baseweaponry po l icy upon non­

ex is ten t c r i t e r i a . The popu la r i ty o f b a l l i s t i c armor among small

and medium-sized police departments is a case in po in t . Mega agency

emulation in the purchase o f equipment is sophomoric and short

sighted. The commitment o f valuable soc ie ta l resources without

proper evaluation or cognit ion o f ind iv idua l departmental needs,

while lauded by manufacturers, is t o t a l l y unacceptable in a public

agency context.

The c lass ic school o f weaponry planning is impract ical given2

current data bases which cannot delineate current weapon usage or

effect iveness in speci f ied confronta t ions. A comprehensive case

study approach to determine effect iveness would be cost p ro h ib i t i v e ,

given the d iv e r s i f i c a t i o n o f s ig n i f i c a n t var iab les. Select ive

studies o f sp ec i f ic weaponry c la s s i f i c a t io n s would be at best a r b i ­

t ra r y , a t worst p re ju d ic ia l . The d iv e rs i f i c a t i o n o f re levant pre-

c i p i t a t i v e confrontational factors demands a more cosmopolitan

perspecti ve.

The c lass ic school also suf fers from lack o f an adequate

agency ro le conceptualization base; i . e . , general service, peace­

keeping, or enforcement. The model does employ a feedback loop.

C r i te r ia f o r the se lect ion o f weaponry based upon past performance

w i l l a f fe c t fu tu re weaponry design.

nThe react ive model o f weaponry planning incorporates no

feedback loop. Armament is evaluated against techn ica l , inap­

propr ia te , i n s u f f i c i e n t , and often nonexistent c r i t e r i a . Once

"analyzed," a category o f u t i l i t y is constructed. The major weak­

ness o f react ive planning is tha t confrontat ional c r i t e r i a are

arranged to f i t armament instead o f evaluating weaponry in terms

o f the confrontat ional context. No attempt is made to analyze an

agency's basic ro le .

Proactive Weaponry Planning

A need ex is ts to develop a taxonomy of weaponry c r i t e r i a

based upon dimensions of the behavioral confrontat ions in which

law enforcement o f f i c e rs are engaged. The typology must be pro­

act ive with weaponry measured against spec i f ic behavioral c r i t e r i a

which are in turn based upon a speci f ied agency ro le (see Figure 3).

The analysis must be based upon predefined confront ive needs as

d i s t i n c t from react ive planning in which confrontat ional c r i t e r i a

are defined as a re s u l t o f weaponry analysis . Feedback and m od i f i ­

cation must be viewed as not only desirab le , but v i t a l to survival

o f the system.

Del ineat ion o f agency ro le which a f fec ts confrontat ional

needs and thus weaponry c r i t e r i a is based upon a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f

extra-agency and intra-departmental forces; i . e . , c i t y council ,

unions, f ra te rna l organizat ions, employee groups, courts, prose­

cutors, professional organizations such as the In ternat iona l Asso­

c ia t ion o f Chiefs o f Police, pressure and in te re s t groups, funding

12

<u>

CD0003

_eD_

CO03C

t

d*:0 (13 jQ "OCDCD

1 ,i

Q_

c:oCL03CD

3 :o

CDCDCLoo/N

oc:o

• i—4->

n3CDc:CDQ

03• r~s_CD4->

•r—s-o>1s_cr001 03 CD

DOC

•i—cc03

i—Ol

>>S-CoQ .03CD5

CD>•r—+->CD03OS-Qu

A

Eo03CDE

CDQ

03Eo

•r*4->03+JEos-M—eo

CD

t/J*oCDCD

00

CDs-1303

CD*oM— o

CDO

E e CDo o r—

•r- oCD 4-> Q 3CO 0303 CD > »

J C E CDD _ •r— e

r—- CDCD c n

Q <

13

organizat ions, subunit organizational goals (both s t a f f and l i n e ) ,

the media, the mayor and/or c i t y manager, specia l ized c l i e n t groups,

C iv i l Service Commission, the agency funding body, and outside

consu l tants .

Proactive weaponry planning is an open systems model with a

strong agency ro le conceptualization. I t del ineates weaponry c r i ­

t e r ia from a theore t ica l base o f confronta tional needs. The taxonomy

o f c r i t e r i a precedes examination o f spe c i f ic weaponry. Analysis

based upon confrontat ional needs thus feeds back and modif ies the

sp ec i f ic weaponry types, but not the c r i t e r i a base which is a l te red

through re d e f in i t io n o f the agency ro le .

As a model to i l l u s t r a t e th is type o f proactive weaponry

planning, the most common area o f law enforcement a c t i v i t y , uniform

pa t ro l , w i l l be examined. The analysis w i l l focus upon the types o f

questions that must be asked and the types o f research tha t must be

conducted i f i l 1-conceived p r i o r i t i e s and shorts ighted planning are

to be avoided.

Methodology

A technical evaluation o f ex is t ing law enforcement armament

is beyond the scope and in te n t o f th is work. There is T i t t l e debate

in law enforcement c i r c le s concerning the need fo r e f fe c t i v e , impar­

t i a l , ongoing weaponry evaluation programs. There is less agreement

upon the type o f evaluat ion to be conducted or the c r i t e r i a against

which weaponry w i l l be assessed.

Usage and function c r i t e r i a fo r evaluation o f sp ec i f ic

weaponry systems (c lass ic model) are w i th in the purview of an agency

oriented tes t f a c i l i t y such as the Weapons Data Service o f the In te r3

national Association o f Chiefs o f Police. Studies o f special ized

armament areas conducted by ind iv idua ls and departments^ also f a l l

w i th in purview of the t ra d i t io n a l evaluat ive model and are unac­

ceptable from a planning perspective.

Adherence to manufacturing spec i f ica t ions and the es tab l ish ­

ment o f general ' technical c r i t e r i a fo r a va r ie ty o f equipment cate­

gories is present ly being monitored by the Law Enforcement Standards5

Laboratory o f the National Bureau of Standards. Addit ional tech­

nical evaluat ion is ava i lab le from independent, impart ia l research

f a c i l i t i e s in the p r iva te sector such as the H. P. White Laboratory.

Central ized technical spec i f ica t ions are obtainable from agencies

such as the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers I n s t i t u t e . ^

Unfortunately, such technical evaluations from a react ive

weaponry planning basis leave questions o f a fa r more basic nature

than design spec i f ica t io n contro l and mechanical fu n c t io n a l i t y

unanswered. A weapons system may be techn ica l ly acceptable and yet

of l im i ted u t i l i t y in spec i f ied behavioral confrontat ions. Chemical8agent DM is a case in point .

The proact ive planning model is a process which may be

employed to establish taxonomies o f c r i t e r i a fo r the se lect ion and

evaluation o f law enforcement weaponry systems tha t have proven

impossible through the c lass ic or react ive methodologies o f weaponry

researchers. Far from a technical t re a t i s e , the PWP po l icy formula­

t ion paradigm is a theore t ica l construct which may be applied to

weaponry regardless o f mechanical, conceptual, or funct ional design.

The i n i t i a l p ro jec t phase discusses the process o f delinea­

t ion o f a generalized agency ro le model fo r the uniform patrol func­

t ion . Because o f the cosmopolitan perspective o f th is research,

the s ign i f icance o f open system inputs tha t p rec ip i ta te agency ro le

formulation is reviewed.

Delineation o f confronta tional needs o f the uniform patrol

funct ion is discussed in Phase Two. Types o f t ra in in g received and

a c t i v i t i e s in which o f f i c e rs may be engaged are discussed. A survey

o f past research is conducted in an attempt to construct a national

perspective o f ta c t ic a l considerations (types and frequency o f con­

f ron ta t ion by t ime, geographic area, population group, and agency

organizational s t ruc ture) tha t must be analyzed. Personal char­

a c te r is t i c s (race, sex, education, background, height, and psychologi­

cal makeup o f o f f i c e rs and subjects involved in sp e c i f i c types o f

encounters) are also considered. From th is analysis the process o f

spec i f ic confrontat ional needs based upon a generalized agency ro le

model is ou t l ined .

Based upon the preceding data, Phase Three discusses the

process o f del ineat ing weaponry c r i t e r i a based upon confronta tional

needs. To impart a sense o f order to the discussion, considerations

are grouped under f i v e basic weaponry categories common to the un i­

form patrol func t ion . The mechanistic process o f analyzing i n d i ­

vidual products in terms o f the proact ive weaponry planning model

(Phases Four and Five) is l e f t to ind iv idua l agencies. I t is the

i n i t i a l three phases o f the model with which th is study is concerned.

The f in a l dyadic segments are e sse n t ia l ly cyc l ica l phenomena. I t is

16

w ith in the pre l im inary t r i a d o f the weaponry planning format that

s ig n i f i c a n t and far-reaching po l icy decisions are made. I t is in

the delineat ion o f these i n i t i a l phases^that the concept o f pro­

act ive weaponry planning (PWP) s ig n i f i c a n t l y departs from c lass ic

and reactive methodologies. I t is here tha t an open systems perspec­

t i v e based upon strong theore t ica l foundations may s ig n i f i c a n t l y

impact upon planning and po l icy formulat ion.

The f in a l chapter o f th is study presents points o f departure

and proposes two categories o f weaponry research. I n i t i a l discus­

sion concerns inves t iga t ive p r i o r i t i e s essential to precise d e f i n i ­

t ion o f confrontat ional needs. The section explores the type o f data

tha t is essential to proper formulation o f Phase Two PWP del ineat ions.

The second port ion o f the agenda presents addit ional confrontat ional

typologies fo r examination in l i g h t o f the proactive methodology.

C iv i l i a n uniform pa t ro l , agent and undercover in ve s t iga t ion , c i v i l

disturbance con t ro l , executive pro tec t ion , and an t i -sn ip e r operations

are discussed.

CHAPTER I I

PRELIMINARY DELINEATIONS

Egon B i t tn e r in his a r t i c u la te analysis o f the funct ions of

pol ice in modern socie ty t y p i f i e d the law enforcement ro le as

"nothing else than a mechanism fo r the d is t r ib u t io n o f s i t u a t io n a l l y

j u s t i f i e d force in soc ie ty . " He went on to poin t out:

I t is possible, ce r ta in ly not unthinkable, tha t a t some time policemen may be able to compel the desired outcome of any prob­lem without ever resor t ing to physical force. But i t appears that in the ex is t ing s t ruc tu re o f communal l i f e in our society such force is not wholly avoidable. This being the case, not only i t s avoidance, but i t s employment must be methodically normalized (B i t tn e r , 1970).

Formulation o f the normative po l ic ies tha t B i t tn e r spoke o f is beyond

the in te n t and scope o f th is t re a t is e . Further, the value of such

normalization is debatable without p r io r de l ineat ion o f the type

suggested in th is work. Two points are s ig n i f i c a n t . I n i t i a l l y , the

types o f weapons employed w i l l have a dramatic impact upon the nor­

mative pronouncements needed. I f automatic weapons are not issued

to personnel, normative constra in t upon th e i r contextual use may

be avoided. Second, the pronouncement o f regu la t ive norms may have

unexpected p re c ip i ta t i v e e f fec ts .

Harrison and Pepitone (1972) concluded tha t the frequency o f

punishment through weaponry is p a r t i a l l y a funct ion of the range of

pun i t ive power o f the weapons being carr ied . In t h e i r study

17

18

regarding the use o f r i o t batons by o f f i c e rs carry ing f i rearms, but

forbidden to employ them and o f f i c e rs not carry ing weapons, the

researchers found tha t ind iv idua ls forbidden weapon usage tend to

compensate by applying sanctioned arms with increased l e t h a l i t y .

The issuance o f prohib i ted weaponry in addit ion to approved arma­

ment funct ions as a scale anchor, causing the use agent to under­

estimate the punishment he is de l ive r ing while j u s t i f y i n g to himself

the use of increased punishment.

I t would seem fa r more prudent to i n i t i a l l y determine the

confrontat ional needs o f enforcement personnel, then issue approp­

r ia te armament. Issuance o f a myriad o f weaponry with contextual

u t i l i z a t i o n contingent upon a va r ie ty o f normative condit ions which

may be obscure to even the issuing agent is undesirable. The a p p l i ­

cation o f such norms requires a degree o f analysis not often pos­

s ib le in the heat o f a confronta tional encounter.

The prel im inary delineat ion phase o f proactive weaponry

planning involves conceptualization o f a generalized agency ro le

model from an open systems perspective. The approach invokes a

cosmopolitan perspective (Gouldner, 1957). While Gouldner's analy­

s is dea l t with la te n t social roles in an educational context, his

conclusions are here extrapolated to include law enforcement personnel.

Local and state police organizations are extremely divergent

with regard to agency po l icy , degree o f p ro fess iona l iza t ion , and

organizat ional s t ruc tu re , i . e . , goals, e f fect iveness, s ize, complex­

i t y , fo rm a l iza t ion , power, c o n f l i c t , leadership, communication,

decision-making processes, environments, and s u s c e p t ib i l i t y to change

19

(Ha l l , 1972). Construction o f ind iv idua l agency ro le models ( fo r

small, medium, and large pol ice departments, s h e r i f f ' s departments,

and state pol ice agencies) would be supe r f ic ia l and of marginal

u t i l i t y . Instead, "cosmopolitan l icense" has been taken in th is

work. The e f f o r t is directed at d i s t i l l a t i o n o f generalized ro le

models to be employed as " ideal types" in much the same manner as

Max Weber's (1947) concept o f an idealized bureaucracy. I f the

" idea l " agency ro le model is nonexistent as a pure form in the real

world, i t must be remembered tha t the presentation is only o f an

ideal. The formulation is o f u t i l i t y merely as a means of concep­

tu a l iz in g proactive weaponry po l icy . Nonexistence of a pure form

should not be construed as a negation o f the centra l th rus t o f th is

work. The id ea l iza t ion is merely a delineated concept upon which to

base fu ture decisions.

Phase 0ne--De1ineation o f Agency Role Model

James Q. Wilson in his perceptive work, Var ie t ies o f Police

Behavior--The Management o f Law and Order in Eight Communities, d is ­

t inguished three p r inc ipa l law enforcement s ty les . When the opera­

t iona l code o f a department, w i th regard to s i tua t ions tha t do not

involve serious crime, revolves around order maintenance (ra ther than

law enforcement) as the p r inc ipa l funct ion, Wilson terms the agency

o f a "watchman s t y le . "

What is the def in ing ch a rac te r is t ic o f the patrolman's ro le thus becomes the s ty le or s trategy o f the department as a whole because i t is re inforced by the a t t i tudes and po l ic ies of the police adminis trator (Wilson, 1968, 140).

20

The " l e g a l i s t i c s ty le " encompasses comparison o f observed behavior

with a legal standard and the invocation o f a r res t i f the legal

standard has been v io la ted . Law enforcement ra ther than order main­

tenance is emphasized in th is s ty le o f agency behavior. The th i rd

s ty le in Wilson's agency-orientation t r ia d is termed "serv ice" :

The police take ser ious ly a l l requests fo r e i th e r Taw enforce­ment or order maintenance (unl ike police with a watchman s ty le ) but are less l i k e l y to respond by making an a r res t or o ther­wise imposing formal sanctions (un l ike pol ice with a l e g a l i s t i c s ty le ) . The police intervene f requent ly , but not formal ly (Wilson, 1968, 200).

In his analysis o f the h is to ry o f urban police in the United

States, James F. Richardson (1974) made a s im i la r d is t in c t io n between

agency ro le models o f law enforcement, serv ice, and peacekeeping.

Richardson's contention tha t policemen "spend most o f t h e i r act ive

duty time in service and peacekeeping pu rsu i ts , " is consis tent with

the analysis o f Neiderhoffer (1967). Perhaps discrepancies between

the t ra d i t io n a l po l ice ro le as an ob jec t ive , impart ia l law enforcer

( ideal ized in police academies) and the p ract ica l r e a l i t y o f f i e l d

procedures (McNamara, 1967) p rec ip i ta tes the incidence of cynicism

revealed by Neiderhoffer (1967).

Because proact ive weaponry planning employs an open systems

perspective, i t is appropr iate to examine the fac tors in f luencing

formation o f a generalized agency ro le model whether i t be watchman

(peacekeeping), l e g a l i s t i c (law enforcement), or service. While

soc ie ta l , geographic, and ecological var iables w i l l ce r ta in ly impact

upon the generalized ro le model, they do not possess the s ign i f icance

of what may be termed m u l t ip le access channels o f communication

(Golembiewski, 1972). These var iables are defined as external

21

sources of inf luence which do not fo l low the t ra d i t io n a l bureau­

c ra t i c chain o f command. Major access channels impacting upon the

proact ive weaponry planning funct ion are included to provide more

adequate understanding of ro le model formation.

Local po lice agencies receive planning inputs from c i t y

councils while regional law enforcement agencies such as s h e r i f f ' s

departments may acquire th is type of in f luence communication from

supervisory boards. State agencies and federal a u th o r i t ie s receive

s im i la r inputs from le g is la tu res . The baseline poin t o f commonality

inherent in a l l communication is the presence o f p o l i t i c a l overtones

(part isan or n o t ) .

The growth and impact o f unions upon publ ic sector agency

planning was well documented and e f fe c t i v e ly analyzed by Pursley

(1973). D irect inf luence may be invoked, i . e . , sp e c i f ic equipment

demands such as the procurement o f revolver speed reloading devices

under the heading of safety equipment by C a l i fo rn ia communities

( G r i f f i s , 1975). In add i t ion , budget increases brought about

through union demands may s ig n i f i c a n t l y reduce a l loca t ions a v a i l ­

able fo r equipment purchases. The phenomenon is espec ia l ly acute

in the publ ic sector where funding resources are r e la t i v e l y stable .

The strength o f f ra te rna l organizations and employee groups

was well i l l u s t r a t e d by the issue of a C iv i l i a n Review Board in New

York C i ty . The NYPD Patrolmen's Benevolent Association documented

i t s power base with re jec t ion o f the board concept during a public

referendum (Ni.ederhoffer, 1967, 181-190). The potent ia l o f such

employee groups to e f fe c t change w i th in the weaponry planning context

22

is i l l u s t r a t e d by agency compliance to issuance demands fo r l i g h t ­

weight b a l l i s t i c armor presented by patro l personnel in numerous

communities (Perkins, 1975).

The inf luence o f court personnel is a major determinant o f

agency roles and thus o f weaponry procurement po l icy . The le g a l i t y

o f jacketed hollow poin t (JHP) and jacketed so f t poin t (JSP) ammu­

n i t io n remains a major issue. Opinions by d i s t r i c t attorneys con­

cerning the u t i l i z a t i o n o f equipment ranging from aluminum f la s h ­

l ig h ts (K e l le r , 1975) to chemical agents (Nelson, 1975) impact

s ig n i f i c a n t l y upon procurement standards o f ind iv idua l agencies.

Influence o f professional organizations such as the I n te r ­

national Association o f Chiefs o f Police and the National S h e r i f f ' s

Association, both d i re c t ( tes t ing and evaluation, dissemination o f

data regarding weaponry typologies, and recommendations concerning

acceptable usage techniques) and in d i re c t (establishment o f pro­

fessional standards) may insp ire formulation of agency ro le models.

Pressure and in te re s t groups such as the American C iv i l

L ibe r t ies Union (ACLU), National R i f le Association (NRA), and

National Association fo r the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

a f fe c t both procurement and usage po l ic ie s . Lobbies provide in d i re c t

in f luence, spe c i f ic actions; i . e . , protests and legal su i ts provide

d i re c t input, and programmatic measures such as the C e r t i f ie d F i re ­

arms Ins t ru c to r program and t ra in in g classes o f the National R i f le

Association inf luence po l icy formulation and equipment standards.

Major funding impact upon law enforcement agencies in recent

years has come from the Law Enforcement Assistance Admin istrat ion

(LEAA) through State Planning Agencies (SPAs). The p ro ! i t e ra t io n

23

of weaponry-related requests during i n i t i a l funding phases was as

much a funct ion o f poor program conceptualization on the part of

LEAA as inadequate re a l iza t ion o f organizational def ic ienc ies by

p a r t ic ip a t in g agencies. Regional, s ta te , and local funding organi­

zations continue to a f fe c t agency ro le model formation.

Special ized goals o f organizational subunits whi le part o f

the agency context are often divergent from general i n s t i t u t io n a l

pronouncements (E tz ion i , 1960). Preeminence of Special Weapons and

Tactics Teams, a concept pioneered by the Los Angeles Police Depart­

ment (1974) and since emulated by agencies throughout the United

States, o f fe rs an exce l lent case in po in t . The weaponry planning

func t ion , while id e a l l y compatible with general organizational

goals, may be s ig n i f i c a n t l y a l tered by specia l ized d iv is ions .

Media coverage (or Tack o f coverage) has t r a d i t i o n a l l y

inf luenced the en t i re pol ice planning funct ion. A desire to improve

the publ ic image of departments (the po l ice community re la t ions move­

ment) and to draw upon favorable media coverage whenever possible,i

has produced a preoccupation with weaponry. Armament is an extremely

sensational phase of law enforcement a c t i v i t y . Spectacular demon­

s t ra t ions o f f irepower a t t r a c t more public in te re s t and thus media

coverage than s t a t i s t i c a l indices regarding program rev is ion , per­

sonnel improvement, or agency reorganizat ion.

The input o f a u x i l ia r y s t a f f un i ts (planning and research or

tes t ing and evaluat ion) should th e o re t ic a l ly have s ig n i f i c a n t impact

upon ro le model d e f in i t i o n and subsequent formation o f weaponry

po l icy . Organizational problems inherent in the bureaucratic l in e

24

and s t a f f dichotomy (Dalton, 1959) has often led to ju r i s d ic t io n a l

disputes w i th in law enforcement agencies. The re jec t ion o f s t a f f

recommendations by l in e personnel and general resentment o f an

invasion of t e r r i t o r i a l prerogatives has resul ted in genera l ly poor

ro le conceptualizations. Weaponry planning, c lass ic or react ive ,

has therefore lacked coherence.

Input o f elected mayors and appointed c i t y managers may

involve organizational d i rec t ives which p re c ip i ta te po l icy formation.

General admin is tra t ive a t t i tudes w i l l a f fe c t the type and q u a l i t y o f

po l ic ing demanded in a given community. Such in d i r e c t inf luences

w i l l dramat ica l ly impact upon the formulation o f a generalized agency

ro le model (Hamilton, 1975).

In much the same manner, special ized c l i e n t groups (down­

town merchants) may in d i r e c t l y inf luence the police posture o f a

given community. Preoccupation with order maintenance (watchman

s ty le ) and s t r i c t law enforcement espec ia l ly with regard to t r a f f i c

and parking ( l e g a l i s t i c s t y le ) , as opposed to service may a f fe c t

the shopping cha rac te r is t ics o f c i t ize n s . Negative in f luence fac­

tors resu l t ing from a p a r t i c u la r po l ic ing s ty le w i l l normally feed

back from such c l i e n t groups through le g is la t i v e bodies ( c i t y coun­

c i l s ) and executive branches (mayor or c i t y manager).

Despite the observation o f Fe l ix Nigro (1972) tha t the

impact o f C iv i l Service Commissions has diminished in recent years,

t h e i r input in to the formulation o f a generalized agency ro le model

must be included in any comprehensive analysis . Trad i t iona l com­

mission postures have favored the l e g a l i s t i c s t y l i z a t io n (an

25

ob ject ive , impart ia l enforcer o f ex is t ing laws) as the agency idea l .

Bureaupathology (Thompson, 1961) is f a c i l i t a t e d , s t ruc tured, and

re in forced by the status quo preoccupation o f C iv i l Service Com­

missions. Perhaps i t is a major contr ibu tory fac to r to the d icho t­

omy between organizational ideal and agency pract ice discussed by

McNamara (1967) and leads to a high degree o f cynicism (N iederhof fer ,

1967). Both factors are counterproductive to establishment o f

r e a l i s t i c agency ro le models.

A pol ice commission or governing board o f fe rs d i re c t ro le

input through po l icy formula tion. As a supervisory agency, t h e i r

ro le is t h e o re t ic a l ly o f c r i t i c a l s ign i f icance. In r e a l i t y , impact

may be d r a s t i c a l l y reduced through competition with other govern­

mental agencies; bargaining with suppl iers , consumers, and other

organizat ions; co-optation o f threats to s t a b i l i t y or existence

(Selznick, 1966); and c o a l i t io n with other organizations, i . e . ,

law enforcement, publ ic serv ice, or nonassociative (Thompson &

McEwen, 1958). Internal goal change may come about as a re su l t of

displacement (E tz ion i , 1964) or what Bertram Cross (1968) labels

"number magic," i . e . , moves to become more competit ive and thus

receive a la rger share o f the public budget due to quan t i ta t ive or

q u a l i ta t i v e increases.

The f inance department or bureau charged with budget formu­

la t io n may exercise control ranging from general supervision o f bud­

get appropr iations in a l ine - i tem format, through performance

budgeting, to input regarding the value o f program object ives in a

26

Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) (Henry, 1975,

159-170).

Impact o f outside consultants upon the po l icy formulat ion of

a law enforcement agency is often dependent upon re c e p t iv i t y o f

admin is tra t ive personnel (Cooper, 1975). Detai led data analysis

such as the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (Ke l l ing , Pate,

Dieckman & Brown, 1974) may tend to ind icate a need fo r s ig n i f i c a n t

a l te ra t io n o f agency a c t i v i t i e s that would u l t im a te ly lead to r e d e f i ­

n i t io n o f agency ro le models. Actual organizational impact is sub­

je c t to addi t ional constra ints .

Manufacturers, espec ia l ly w i th in a weaponry context, s ig ­

n i f i c a n t l y inf luence the ro le o f p a r t ic u la r agencies by the type o f

armament tha t is developed and marketed. There is a vast ro le d is ­

t i n c t io n im p l i c i t in the purchase o f police "c lubs"-(an of fensive

instrument o f aggression) by one agency (Anderson, 1975) and the

purchase o f police "batons" (a defensive instrument o f contro l) by

another (Pederson, 1975).

Professional publicat ions a f fe c t the type o f ro le seen as

appropriate in a modern social context through e x p l i c i t e d i to r ia l

statements and im p l i c i t programmatic a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . , media outputs

and acceptance or re jec t ion o f a r t i c l e s .

Educational in s t i t u t io n s are the la s t major c la s s i f i c a t io n

o f m u l t ip i e-access communication channels. The attempt to s i g n i f i ­

cant ly in f luence agency ro le model formation was a basic precept o f

August Vollmer. I t continues through LEAA impetus in the development

27

of col lege and u n ive rs i ty cr iminal ju s t i c e programs (Charnel in , Fox,

& Whisenand, 1975, 305).

The emphasis upon mult iple-access channels o f communication

in the formation o f a generalized agency ro le model should not be

construed as a negation o f in te rna l organizational impacts. The

s ign i f icance o f inter-departmental inputs is taken as a given.

The emphasis upon external input channels in the open systems per­

spective o f proact ive weaponry planning merely recognizes the area

o f greatest potent ia l fo r formulative in f luence.

I t is the contention o f th is author tha t recognit ion and

d ispos i t ion o f the m u l t i p l i c i t y o f p re c ip i ta t i v e var iables which

impact upon formulat ion o f agency ro le models is imperative. Poor

perception o f the factors which a f fe c t th is i n i t i a l phase o f the

proactive weaponry process negates the concept o f a "planning" func­

t ion . The procedure would thus be relegated to a d is jo in te d ,

i n a r t i c u la te movement categorized by Lindblom (1959) as "muddling

through."

Phase Two--De1ineation of Confrontat ional Needs

Del ineation o f p ro jec t model dimensions, in th is case con­

f ron ta t iona l needs o f the uniform patrol func t ion , is dependent upon

four major considerat ion categories. Each category ( t ra in in g and

education received, a c t i v i t i e s in which engaged, ta c t ic a l con­

s t ra in t s , and personnel considerations) is in turn contingent upon

a generalized agency ro le model. The purpose is to develop a scheme

fo r weaponry evaluation based upon a knowledge of the context in

28

which they w i l l be employed. What types o f t ra in in g and education

do enforcement personnel receive? In what capacit ies that mandate

weaponry use are they l i k e l y to be engaged? What are the ta c t ic a l

constra in ts (geographic, population group, time of day, and deploy­

ment s t ruc tu re ) w i th in which they must function? Are there per­

sonal factors (race, sex, age, background, height, and build.) o f

patro l o f f i c e rs and persons with whom they w i l l have contact that

may a f fe c t the outcome o f a given confrontation?

The preeminent shortcoming associated with any analysis of

confrontat ional needs stems from the s i tu a t io n s p e c i f i c i t y o f a

confrontat ional context. For th is reason, l i t t l e meaningful data

analysis has been conducted in th is area. The general spectrum o f

confrontational research is f e r t i l e fo r methodologically sound

s t a t i s t i c a l analys is . The impl ica t ions of computerized confronta­

t iona l simulations based upon a JUSSIM-type format are in t r ig u in g

in th is respect.

Train ing and Education

I t was Egon B i t t n e r 's astute perception tha t " i t must be

made c lear as unambiguously as possible . . . education does matter

in police work" (1970, 83). To th is end the American Bar Associa­

t i o n 's I n s t i t u te o f Jud ic ia l Admin is tration delineated a basic

dichotomy between t ra in in g and education:

Train ing programs should be designed, both in t h e i r content and in t h e i r format, so tha t the knowledge that is conveyed and the s k i l l s tha t are developed re la te d i r e c t l y lo the knowl­edge and s k i l l s tha t are required o f a police o f f i c e r on the job. Educational programs tha t are developed p r im a r i ly fo r

29

police o f f i c e rs should be designed to provide an o f f i c e r with a broad knowledge o f human behavior, social problems and the democratic process ( I n s t i t u t e o f Jud ic ia l Admin is trat ion,1972).

A question ex is ts regarding the e f fe c t o f t ra in ing and education

upon performance o f the po l ice func t ion , whatever the agency ro le

model (McNamara, 1967). Perhaps there is a d i s t i n c t po lice per­

sona l i ty upon which education can have no e f fe c t . A c lus te r o f

fac tors (F Scale cha rac te r is t ies o f conventionalism, au tho r i ta r ian

submission, au tho r i ta r ian aggression, a n t i - in t ra c e p t io n , stereo­

typing, power and "toughness," destruct iveness, cynicism, projec-

t i v i t y , and exaggerated concern with sexual "goings on") are popu­

l a r l y categorized as making up a "po l ice personal i ty" t y p i f i e d by

suspicion, convent iona l i ty , cynicism, pre jud ice, and d is t r u s t o f

the unusual (Buckner, 1967; Skolnick, 1967).

Robert Balch's scho lar ly analysis o f ava i lab le data regarding

the existence of a p a r t ic u la r "po l ice persona l i ty " type led him to

conclude:

The devotion o f social s c ie n t is ts to the personal i ty model has obscured the important ro le tha t organizational factors play in shaping police behavior. A t t ra c t in g be t te r people to the same old job is not necessari ly an improvement. In the case o f po l ice work, i t may simply mean tha t col lege gradu­ates w i l l be "busting heads" instead o f high school dropouts (Balch, 1972).

Police t ra in in g and education (even since implementation o f mandated

t ra in in g acts) are extremely divergent in depth and scope o f subject

matter (Parker, 1949; Los Angeles Police Department, 1974; Fox, 1975;

Land, 1975). Accepting Balch's contention tha t a sp ec i f ic persona l i ty

type is not a t t rac ted to police work nor produced as a re s u l t o f

30

academy t ra in in g , the a b i l i t y o f po l ice education to inf luence beha­

v io r remains subject to question. N iederho f fe r ' s observation (1967)

that the New York Police Academy, rated second only to the FBI

National Academy, had minimal inf luence upon the confronta t ional

conduct o f o f f i c e rs is enl ightening in th is regard. More s ig n i f i c a n t

than t ra in in g and education are the organizational variables o f a

p a r t ic u la r agency. This is not to say that education and t ra in in g

have no impact. I t is merely a re a l iza t io n tha t when s t a f f ideal

c o n f l i c ts with l i n e p r in c ip le , the organizational s t ruc tu re o f

po lice agencies is such tha t l i n e p r inc ip les p reva i l .

Two remedial a l te rna t ives seem plausib le i f t ra in in g and

educational ideals are t r u l y desirable to admin is tra t ive personnel:

(a) increase organizational power of the s t a f f funct ion or

(b) decrease the so c ia l iz in g power o f the l in e funct ion by re s t ruc ­

tu r ing the organizat ion through techniques such as la te ra l entry and

team po l ic ing (Sherman, M i l ton , & Ke l ly , 1973).

Patrol A c t i v i t i e s

Few s t a t i s t i c a l indices ex is t regarding the types o f a c t i v i ­

t ie s engaged in by patro l personnel. General data regarding the

nature o f patrol work are ava i lab le from c lass ic texts such as

Wilson and McLaren (1963) and Payton (1967).

The pioneering work o f A lber t Reiss is noteworthy in i t s

attempt to understand "how police and c i t izens re la ted to one another

in the po l ic ing o f everyday l i f e " (Reiss, 1971). Analysis grew out

o f the author's 1963-1964 work in D e t ro i t and was expanded in 1965

31

upon request o f the National Crime Commission. Through p a r t ic ipan t

observation three ideal types o f pol ice command were viewed:

t r a d i t io n a l -e th n ic occupational (Boston), modern-bureaucratic

(Chicago), and professionalizing-modernized (Washington, D.C.).

Although a to ta l o f 5,360 encounters was recorded, data remain o f

l im i te d scope. The general nature o f observations is o f l i t t l e

u t i l i t y from the perspective o f confrontat ional analysis and weapon

po l icy formation.

Ind iv idual agency analyses such as those conducted by RAND

Corporation fo r the New York C i ty Police Department (1969) are too

organization sp e c i f ic , espec ia l ly with regard to mega agencies, to

be o f generalized weaponry-planning u t i l i t y .

A deta i led ind ica t ion o f the actual a c t i v i t i e s performed by

o f f i c e rs and the amount o f time spent in each was provided by data

resu l t ing from the Kansas C i ty Preventive Patrol Experiment (K e l l ing ,

Pate, Dieckman, & Brown, 1974). Due to the study's th ru s t , i n f o r ­

mation released thus fa r has been in the general category o f the

amount o f time engaged in job - re la ted and non-job-re lated a c t i v i t i e s .

In-depth review of 114 confrontations in th i r ty -seven south

central m un ic ipa l i t ies led Samuel Chapman and his associates at the

Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma to a descr ip t ive p r o f i l e o f the assault

inc ident (Chapman, Swanson, & Meyer, 1974). A d is t r ib u t io n by o f f i c e r

assignment (see Table 1) revealed tha t 86.4% o f the occurrences were

among o f f i c e rs assigned to some form of pa t ro l . The high incidence

of o f f i c e rs assigned to the patrol funct ion may p a r t i a l l y explain the

d is t r ib u t io n . The low incidence o f assault (4.6%) among detect ive

32

and vice work agents, two funct ions t r a d i t i o n a l l y considered extremely

dangerous w i th in the police occupation, raises a s ig n i f i c a n t ques­

t ion . Is there a fac to r or group o f fac tors pecu l iar to the patrol

funct ion tha t are p rec ip i tan ts o f assault incidents? Perhaps the

answer rests in the type o f a c t i v i t i e s performed, ta c t ic a l considera­

t ions invo lv ing place o f a c t i v i t y occurrence, or in personnel con­

s iderat ions a f fe c t ing the se lect ion and soc ia l iza t io n process fo r

detect ive and uniform patrol o f f i c e rs .

Table 1

D is t r ib u t io n o f Assault Incidents by O f f ice r Assi gnment—1973

Assignment Number Percent

Auto patro l 895 78.4

T r a f f i c patro l 79 6.9

Foot patrol 12 1.1

Vice, detect ive 53 4.6

Ja i l 41 3.6

Juveni1e 1 .1

Other 60 5.3

Total 1141 100.0

Source: Chapman, Swanson, & Meyer, 1974, 29.

33

No attempt is made in th is paper to analyze the m u l t i p l i c i t y

o f var iables tha t may p re c ip i ta te v io le n t confrontations with

enforcement personnel (Hale & Wilson, 1974; K ieselhorst, 1974;

Meyer, Swanson, Hale, & Regens, 1974; Morrison & Hale, 1974;

Swanson & Hale, 1974). There is l i t t l e question tha t de ta i led s ta ­

t i s t i c a l analysis o f po lice assault incidents should be conducted

(He l le r , Chapman, K ieselhorst , & Meyer, 1974; Morrison & Meyer,

1974; Regens, Meyer, Swanson, & Chapman, 1974). While methodologies

e x is t (Chapman, Meyer, & Swanson, 1974), such explorat ion is beyond

the scope o f th is work.

Summaries regarding the most dangerous segments of the police

funct ion are ava i lab le on a year ly basis from the Federal Bureau of

Invest iga t ion (Kelley, 1974). Annual summaries o f law enforcement

o f f i c e rs k i l l e d (Federal Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion , undated) and sup­

plementary analyses o f personnel f a t a l i t i e s over extended periods

(Federal Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion , undated) are also ava i lab le .

Table 2 re f le c ts a numerical breakdown o f the number o f o f f i ­

cers k i l l e d in the United States by type o f a c t i v i t y from 1969

through 1973. C lear ly the most hazardous a c t i v i t i e s fo r working

o f f i c e rs are robberies in progress, a r res ts , disturbance c a l l s , and

t r a f f i c pursu i ts . These s i tua t ions are most often encountered by

personnel engaged in p a r a m i l i t a r i s t i c uniform p a t ro l . While more

deta i led indices would be desirab le , the general re a l iza t ion tha t

uniform patro l per se is s t a t i s t i c a l l y the most dangerous phase of

pol ice work is ass is t ive . The data fu r th e r substantiate the types

o f confrontat ions which present the greatest le tha l potent ia l w i th in

34

the police operat ion. Generalized as i t may be, the information is

s u f f i c i e n t to place essential parameters upon a proactive weaponry

planning funct ion.

Table 2

Law Enforcement O f f ice rs K i l led by Type o f A c t i v i t y1969-1973

Confrontation Off icers K i l led

Robberies in progress or pursuing robbery suspects

Attempting other arrests (excluding robbery and burglary)

Responding to "disturbance" ca l l ( fam i ly quarre ls , man with gun)

118

113

73

T r a f f i c pursu its and stops 73

Burglaries in progress or pursuing burg lary suspects 39

Invest iga t ing suspicious persons and circumstances 35

Ambush (entrapment and premeditation) 31

Ambush (unprovoked attack) 25

Handling, t ransport ing , custody o f prisoners 21

Mentally deranged

C iv i l disorders (mass disobedience, r i o t , e tc . )

18

5

Total 551

Source: Federal Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion , undated, 11.

35

Any attempt to fu r th e r generalize ava i lab le f ind ings must be

conducted with an awareness tha t confrontat ions are s i tu a t io n spe­

c i f i c and have a pronounced temporal perspective.

Tact ical Constraints

Four ta c t i c a l considerations are seen as s ig n i f i c a n t with

regard to th e i r po tent ia l e f fec ts upon a proact ive weaponry plan­

ning funct ion . The f i r s t , geographic area of p a t ro l , includes not

only the region, s ta te , c i t y , and spec i f ic d i s t r i c t , but a breakdown

by type o f locat ion in which confrontat ions may occur, i . e . , s t ree t

or highway, p r iva te residence, commercial premise, p r iva te club,

open area, school or co l lege, ho te l , motel, recreation f a c i l i t y

(Chapman, Swanson, & Meyer, 1974, 28)..

A second ta c t i c a l constra in t ex is ts in regard to population

groups with which o f f i c e rs w i l l have contact. Related in substance

is the time and l i g h t condit ions during which such contacts may

occur. A preoccupation with weaponry designed fo r day l igh t usage

would be contrary to the tenets o f proact ive weaponry planning i f

the armament might be employed during lo w - l ig h t condit ions.

The f i n a l ta c t ic a l constra in t category re la tes to agency

deployment s t ruc tu re . Department decisions regarding one man or two

man, fo o t , motor, or automobile patro l are mandated. Patrol densi ty

and backup potent ia l must be considered. Proactive weaponry planning

is contingent upon such a l te rn a t ive s ; i . e . , agents operating in

crowded urban areas w i l l have basic concerns regarding f irearms

secur i ty not present in a rura l context.

36

Personnel Considerations

The f in a l dimension o f uniform patro l to be considered in a

PWP format concerns the personal charac te r is t ics o f o f f i c e rs and

the subjects with whom they are l i k e l y to have contact. The race,

sex, age, background, height, and bu i ld o f both agent and suspect

must be examined. In add i t ion , the o f f i c e r ’ s rank, tenure, and

t ra in ing and the employment status, combat s k i l l , weapon access,

and involvement with alcohol or drugs o f potent ia l assai lants must

be considered.

There is l i t t l e question o f the value to be gained through

sophis ticated data co l lec t ion and c ross-corre la t ion o f types and

q u a l i t ie s o f t ra in in g and education received by enforcement personnel;

a c t i v i t i e s engaged in during the patrol funct ion; ta c t ic a l con­

s t ra in ts invo lv ing geographic, population, t ime, and deployment

var iab les; and personal considerations regarding both enforcement

personnel and probable confrontat ional subjects. As discussed in

Chapter I , such methodology is more consistent with the c lass ic

weaponry planning methodology. There is serious question regarding

the f e a s i b i l i t y o f such analysis on a scope broad enough to be o f

proact ive value with de ta i l s u f f i c i e n t enough to be o f planning

u t i 1i ty .

Because confrontat ions are often s i tu a t io n and temporal

s p e c i f i c , the proactive weaponry planning methodology has been advanced.

Delineated in th is chapter have been the types of questions tha t must

be analyzed by any agency engaged in such an armament planning format.

37

The process o f def in ing a generalized agency ro le model and spec i fy ­

ing confrontat ional needs was ou t l ined.

Chapter I I I analyzes a procedure fo r determining weaponry

c r i t e r i a based upon the derived confrontat ional foundations.

CHAPTER I I I

PHASE THREE--DELINEATION OF WEAPONRY CRITERIA

The Kansas C i ty Preventive Patrol Experiment (K e l l in g , Pate,

Dieckman, & Brown, 1974) and i t s subsequent discussion by Davis and

Knowles (1975), McNamara (1975), Murphy (1975), Ke l l ing and Pate

(1975), and Brown (1975) has given cause to question the deterrence

fac to r o f t ra d i t io n a l p a ra m i l i t a r i s t i c uniform p a t ro l . Despite

the study, proactive supervision o f American c i t i e s u t i l i z i n g a

m il i ta ry-based uniform and organization model is i n s t i t u t io n a l i z e d

in twent ieth century law enforcement.

A debate regarding the deterrence potent ia l o f proactive

uniformed patro l w i l l be l e f t to other authors. The attempt here

is to i l l u s t r a t e a weaponry po l icy paradigm applied to what has

been termed the cornerstone o f American law enforcement (Wilson,

1963). No advocacy pos i t ion is attempted. I t is due to the preva­

lence o f parami1i t a r i s t i c uniform patrol tha t the t ra d i t io n a l posture

has been employed as an exemplar o f the proact ive weaponry planning

methodology.

The i n i t i a l phase o f proactive weaponry planning, as out l ined

in Chapter I I , consisted o f agency determination o f a ro le model.

Wilson's typologies (1968) o f l e g a l i s t i c , order maintenance, and

service were presented as " ideal types." Agency i d e n t i f i c a t io n was

38

39

seen as a d i s t i l l a t i o n o f soc ie ta l , geographic, and ecological v a r i ­

ables combined with interdepartmental inputs. However, preeminent

in f luence potent ia l was afforded m u l t ip i e-access channels o f com­

munication such as le g is la t i v e bodies, unions, f ra te rna l organiza­

t ions , court o f f i c i a l s , professional organizations, pressure and

in te re s t groups, funding organizations, organizational subunits,

media, s t a f f personnel, mayors and c i t y managers, special c l i e n t

groups, c i v i l service commissions, po lice commissions, budget formu­

la t io n agencies, outside consultants, manufacturers, professional

journa ls , and educational i n s t i t u t i o n s . A l l are external sources o f

in f luence which a f fe c t the ro le formation, but do not fo l low the

defined chain o f command.

Phase Two o f the PWP process involved a delineat ion o f con­

f ron ta t iona l needs dependent upon dimensions o f the uniform patro l

funct ion. Train ing and education received, a c t i v i t i e s in which

engaged, ta c t ic a l constra in ts , and personal considerations o f o f f i ­

cers and the subjects with whom they deal were examined in an attempt

to gain perspective regarding the possible confrontat ional contexts

o f uniform pa t ro l .

The central th rus t o f Phase Three is a determination o f

weaponry c r i t e r i a based upon defined confronta tional needs. Approxi­

mately s ix hundred le t t e r s o f inqu i ry were dispatched between

January 1 and June 30, 1975. From the correspondence received, f i v e

c r i t i c a l areas o f contention regarding weaponry were categorized.

The subf ie lds .of armament study (sidearms, holsters and lea ther ,

longarms, impact weapons, and chemical agents) are u t i l i z e d to

40

i l l u s t r a t e the process o f def in ing weaponry c r i t e r i a . Each is based

upon confrontat ional needs which were in turn derived from a general­

ized agency ro le model, inf luenced to a major extent by m u l t ip le -

access channels of communication.

Si dearms

The process o f se lect ing handguns fo r uniform patro l o f f i c e rs

(Bristow, 1973) centers around determination o f s i tua t ions in which

the use of a f irearm is j u s t i f i e d . Such decisions are a funct ion o f

the type o f confrontat ion in which o f f i c e rs are expected to be

engaged, which w i l l in turn be based upon a generalized agency ro le

model.

Once decisions regarding confrontat ional context have been

derived (Phase Two of the proact ive weaponry planning model), more

spe c i f ic questions may be lo g ic a l l y constructed. Within the estab­

l ished s i tua t iona l parameters is there a problem o f stopping power

(Hatcher, 1927, 1935a, 1935b; Cooper, 1961, 1973; Canon, 1974;

DiMaio, Jones, & Petty, 1973; DiMaio, Jones, & Caruth, 1974; DiMaio,

1975; Grennell & Wil l iams, 1972; Parsons, 1974; Applegate, 1975;

Sestok, 1975), penetration (Canon, 1975; Kopsch, 1975; MBAssociates,

1975; Sestok, 1975; Turcus, 1968, 1969), r icochet (Jurras, 1975), or

weapon c o n t r o la b i l i t y (Amber, 1973; Ke l ly , 1975)? I f so, the ca l ibe r

of ind iv idua l weapons to be selected (Barnes, 1972; Sporting Arms

and Ammunition Manufacturer's I n s t i t u t e , 1975) w i l l become a fa c to r .

Is f irepower, i . e . , the lapsed time discharge potent ia l of

an arm, a consideration in the defined confrontat ional context? I f

so, a decision concerning revolvers (Keith , 1961; Jordan, 1970;

Applegate, 1975) versus semiautomatic p is to ls (1974) must be

resolved with regard to safety , hand!ing c h a ra c te r is t i c s , and func­

t iona l r e l i a b i l i t y .

Decisions regarding frame size (Green, 1973; J inks, 1975;

Vogel, 1975), barrel ' length (Davison & Severson, undated; Weston,

1968, 1970; Roberts & Bristow, 1969), and barrel weight (Abreus,

Kirsch, & Smith, 1975) a f fe c t not only performance standards during

combat, but more s ig n i f i c a n t , w i l l impact upon o f f i c e r fa t igue and

departmental image.

As mentioned in Chapter I I , the s ight ing system o f law

enforcement f irearms must be consis tent with agent funct ion i f the

tenets o f proact ive weaponry planning are to be preserved. Should

defined confrontat ional needs include lo w - l ig h t usage in a service

context (see Table 3), h i g h - v i s i b i l i t y n ight s ights (Caswell Equip­

ment Co., 1975; Cresap, 1975; Fox, undated) are imperative. This

is the essence-of a PWP model. A service typology would negate

accep ta b i l i t y o f a p a ra m i l i t a r i s t i c law enforcement s igh t ing po l icy

i . e . , " i n s t i n c t f i r e " in the "general d i rec t ion " o f a "perceived

t a r g e t . "

A s im i la r format ( ro le model formula t ion, confrontat ional

need, de l ineat ion o f c r i t e r i a ) must be adhered to regarding stan­

dards fo r weaponry involved in day l igh t confrontat ions (McGivern,

1938).

Items as seemingly inconsequential as handgun g r ip (F i tz ,

1975, Fox, 1975; Her re t t , 1975; Jay Scott , 1975; Lomax, 1975; Tyler

1975; Vogel, 1975), t r i g g e r , t r i g g e r guard (Theodore, 1975), and

42

Table 3

Law Enforcement O ff ice rs Slain/Most Dangerous Hours1964/1973

Time Span Number o f O f f icers K i l led

*10-11 PM 74* 1-2 AM 72*11-Midn ight ' 62* 2-3 AM 56*Midnight- l AM 49* 9-10 PM 48+ 8-9 PM 45+ 5-6 PM 43+ 7-8 PM 37

4-5 PM 346-7 PM 32

10-11 AM 3011-Noon 30

* 3-4 AM 293-4 PM 29

Noon- 1 PM 271-2 PM 272-3 PM 268-9 AM 22

+ 4-5 AM 229-10 AM 20

+ 6-7 AM 14+ 5-6 AM 13

7-8 AM 9

Total 850

*Dark hours o f the day.+Low-l ight or dark hours o f the day contingent upon time o f

year and region: 66% k i l l e d in lo w - l ig h t or dark; 46% k i l l e d in dark.

Note: While the Uniform Crime Report l i s t s 858 o f f i c e rs k i l l e d between1964 and 1973, only 850 deaths are recorded by hour o f day.

Source: Kelley, 1973, 44.

43

hammer design s t y l i z a t io n profoundly a f fe c t spe c i f ic modes o f combat

performance. In much the same manner, .construction material (Car­

penter Technology Corporation, 1973) and f i n i s h (Armoloy, 1975;

Cooper, 1974; Gould Engineering, 1975; Maguire, 1975) a l t e r sustained

aim f i r e h i t p ro b a b i l i t y , an essential var iab le w i th in the urban

context. Ignorance o f such p re c ip i ta t iv e fac tors may increase the

danger o f misplaced p ro je c t i le s during patro l confrontat ions. Such

items are in s ig n i f i c a n t so long as agency ro le remains unimportant.

When model d e f in i t i o n is attempted, a proactive weaponry planning

format must be employed i f agent performance and organizational

ob ject ive are to remain compatible.

Holsters and Leather

A 1e g a l is t ic -o rd e r maintenance ro le model is f a c i l i t a t e d by

pronounced weapon conspicuity (Bianchi, 1975). The service paradigm

favors a low v i s i b i l i t y (Safar i land, 1975) or concealed mode

(Theodore, 1975). The purpose o f patro l lea ther , a function o f th is

ro le d is t in c t io n , w i l l suggest equipment norms, i . e . , a c c e s s ib i l i t y

(Hume, 1975; Safety Speed, 1975; Sparks, 1975), secur i ty (Berns-

Mart in , 1971; Alpha P las t ics , 1975; Bianchi, 1975; J. M. Bucheimer,

1975; Hoyt, 1975; Shearer, 1975; Smith & Wesson Leather Products,

1975; T r ip le K, 1975), and serv iceab i1i t y (Land, 1975). Features

inc lud ing weapon re tent ion (p os i t i ve , mechanical, spr ing, or f r i c t i o n ) ,

pos i t ion , drop, s igh t p ro tec t ion , and l in in g impact upon departmental

image and o f f i c e r fa t igue as well as performance p o te n t i a l . A s im i la r

condit ion exis ts with regard to mater ia l , design, and construction o f

44

the equipment b e l t , handcuff case, and baton r ing* A service ro le

is incompatible with p a ra m i l i t a r i s t i c weaponry.

Revolver reloading systems ( loop, dump, l in e a r , and c i r c u la r )

o f fe r an exce l lent i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the proactive planning funct ion.

Rapid reloading o f police handguns was f a c i l i t a t e d by weapon design

revis ions (Nonte, 1975; Smith, 1969; Smith, 1973). A va r ie ty o f

"speed loading" devices (Friedman, 1975; Safar i land, 1975; Dade

Screw Machine Products, 1975; Matich, 1975; HKS Tool Products

Co., 1975; Second Six, 1975) have been marketed in recent years.

The assumption re la t in g to each design centers upon the need

to maximize f i repower in uniform patro l encounter. But, is there a

need fo r the rapid reloading o f si dearms w i th in a law enforcement

context? Determination must re la te to established confrontat ional

needs (PWP Phase Two) which are u l t im a te ly dependent upon a delineated

agency ro le model (PWP Phase One).

Before debates regarding the advantages o f mechanical versus

nonmechanical systems may be conducted, i t must be established tha t

uniform patro l personnel w i l l or should be engaged w i th in s i tua t ions

tha t mandate maximized reloading p o ten t ia l . Should such condit ions

ex is t , evaluations o f mater ia l , height, diameter, means of car tr idge

re ten t ion , amount o f compulsory gr ip mod i f ica t ion , release procedure,

jam p o te n t ia l , car tr idge re tent ion when dropped, and dependence upon

g rav i ty become germane. Rarely are such base l in e d is t in c t io n s ,

i . e . , ro le model, considered.

45

Long Arms

The astute perception by David Steele (undated) tha t law

enforcement j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r use of submachine guns should be

re s t r ic te d to extreme h igh- level secur i ty p rotect ion i l l u s t r a t e s an

ear ly example o f proact ive weaponry planning methodology. Steele

contended tha t ex is t ing law enforcement ro le models did not in co r ­

porate confrontat ional needs tha t would j u s t i f y weaponry c r i t e r i a

mandating automatic armament. The conceptualization is s ig n i f i c a n t

i f meaningful s t r ides in weaponry planning strategy are to be taken.

Selection o f 12 gauge pump act ion shotguns as preeminent

uniform patrol long arms (Applegate, 1969; Robinson, 1973) has seldom

been founded upon such deductive formulations. I n i t i a l determination

regarding the purpose o f long arms in a patrol context must be

resolved contingent upon confrontat ional needs and a defined ro le

model. Are long arms to f u l f i l l a confrontat ional void with regard

to deterrence, f i repower, penetrat ion, and h i t p robab i l i ty? I f so,

requirements o f safety (disconnect ion), handling ( leng th ) , and func­

t ion ( re c o i l , magazine capacity , s igh ts , and f in i s h ) must be con­

sidered.

I t remains essential tha t confrontat ional need c r i t e r i a be

defined independent o f and p r io r to ind iv idua l weapon evaluation

(PWP Phase Five). Deviation from the l in e a r planning format creates

opportuni t ies to manufacture c r i t e r i a based upon ex is t ing product

a t t r ib u te s .

Selection o f long arm ammunition is a funct ion o f c o n f l i c t

need defined from a ro le model and is therefore i l l u s t r a t e d .

46

Penetration (Applegate, 1970; M i l l e r , 1973; Robinson, 1973; McMahon,

1975; Interarms, 1975) and stopping power are considered essential

to the law enforcement ro le . An order maintenance o r ie n ta t io n may

seek less le tha l a l te rna t ives (Day, 1973; McCawley, 1974; Penguin,

1975; MBAssociates, 1975; Federal, 1975; A i r c r a f t Armament Incor­

porated, 1975). The service model may t o t a l l y re je c t use of long

arms such as the 12 gauge shotgun w i th in patro l encounters (Co l t 's

Patent Firearms, 1975; Gwinn, 1975; M i l l e r , 1975; Vogel, 1975).

Each need c r i t e r io n is u l t im a te ly derived from a d i s t i n c t ro le

typology.

Impact Weapons

The lo g is t i c s o f po l ice confrontat ions often preclude use

o f deadly force, while presenting contro l s i tua t ions beyond the scope

o f unarmed defensive ta c t i c s . The purpose o f impact weapons w i th in

the uniform patro l funct ion must be i n i t i a l l y determined, i . e . , two-

hand defensive instrument o f control (Applegate, 1964; Koga & Nelson,

1968; Kubota & McCaul, 1972), one-hand of fensive implement o f aggres­

sion, or a l te rn a t ive to deadly force.

Oriental impact arms such as the yawara (Gluck, 1962;

Moynahan, 1963; Matsuyama, 1969; St. Denise, 1964; K e l le r , undated;

Monadnock, 1968), nunchaku (Demura, 1971; Kaneshiro, 1971; Wortley,

1972; H irosh i , 1974; P h i l l i p s , 1972; Verycken & Hess, 1972; Sakagami,

undated), and tanjo (Draeger & Smith, 1969; Hatsumi & Chambers, 1971;

Saito , 1973) have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been received with greatest favor

by service agencies. M i l i t a r y der ivat ions such as chemical batons

( C o l le t t , 1972), e l e c t r i f i e d n igh ts t icks (Bar te l , 1972), and

47

truncheon-firearm combinations (MBAssociates, 1975) have found

greater acceptance with l e g a l i s t i c or order maintenance departments.

I t is the purpose o f proact ive weaponry planning to make such

co m pa t ib i l i ty a matter o f determined choice from a va r ie ty o f recog­

nized a l te rn a t iv e s . Too often se lect ion has been the resu l t o f tech­

n ic a l , inappropr ia te, i n s u f f i c i e n t , or nonexistent considerations

(c lass ic weaponry planning).

Chemical Agents

So l id , micropulverized, and l iq u id chemicals may be dissemi­

nated by means o f l i q u id expulsion, fog, and pyrotechnic devices

(Crockett , undated). The burning o f granulated chemicals to induce

vaporization (pyrotechnic) is uncommon in de l ive ry systems ro u t in e ly

carr ied by uniform o f f i c e rs . The use o f hot gases to vaporize a

chemical formulation is genera lly confined to c i v i l disturbance con­

t ro l equipment.

Unt i l the la te 1960's, micropulverized chemical agents were

often dispensed by means o f expulsion (Swearengen, 1966). The 1968

Gun Control Act banned the importat ion, production, or sale o f any

tear gas device capable o f chambering and f i r i n g a shotshell or

m e ta l l ic ammunition (Department o f the Treasury, 1969).

At approximately the same time aerosol chemical dispersion

units were gaining wide acceptance among pol ice deparments. L iquid

dissemination systems were s i l e n t , more precise, and o f la rger capac­

i t y than expulsion devices. A major leader in the f i e l d was General

Ordnance Equipment Corporation.

48

RGOEC Chemical Mace less - le tha l products have had a s i g n i f i ­

cant impact upon law enforcement weaponry thought (Smith & Wesson

Chemical Co., undated). Extensive tes t ing has been conducted regard-Ring the short-range and long-term e f fec ts o f Mace type formulat ions

(General Ordnance Equipment Corporation, undated; In ternat iona l

Association o f Chiefs o f Police, undated).

Despite wide acceptance, the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f general chemi­

cal agent issuance is subject to question from a proact ive weaponry

planning perspective. The base l in e question remains: What are the

c r i t e r i a based upon confrontational needs, compatible with delineated

ro le model, which must be developed fo r chemical weapons? To issue

armament without pursuing such a methodology may contr ibute to the

popu la r i ty o f an unacceptable weaponry a l te rn a t iv e .

The t h i r d chapter i l l u s t r a t e s questions which must be pro­

posed during the proact ive weaponry planning process o f de lineat ing

weaponry c r i t e r i a based upon confrontat ional needs. Phase Three in

a f ive -s tep l in e a r format, the funct ion encompasses the f in a l un i t

o f PWP conceptualization. I t concludes the most s ig n i f i c a n t port ion

of proact ive methodology.

Phase Four and Phase Five o f PWP include technical schema

which incorporate t h e i r own feedback loop. The f in a l phases cons t i ­

tu te a se l f -conta ined mechanical process. The feedback loop a f fec ts

Phases Four and Five, while excluding the i n i t i a l t r i a d . Examples

o f the function w i l l therefore not be provided as a port ion o f th is

study.

49

I t is w i th in the i n i t i a l three phases o f ro le d e f in i t i o n ,

confrontational need de l inea t ion , and weapon c r i t e r i a determination

tha t proact ive planning holds the greatest change p o te n t ia l . The

major th rus t o f th is work has been directed toward such a concep­

tual i zation.

The possible impact or proact ive weaponry planning w i l l be

discussed in Chapter IV. A research agenda o f inves t iga t ive p r i o r i ­

t ie s essential to precise d e f in i t io n o f confrontat ional needs w i l l

be proposed. Addit ional law enforcement typologies su i tab le fo r

weaponry d e f in i t i o n in l i g h t o f the proact ive methodology conclude

the analysis.

CHAPTER IV

POINTS OF DEPARTURE

The proact ive weaponry planning methodology p rec ip i ta tes

weapon analysis based upon c r i t e r i a derived from confrontat ional

needs which are compatible with delineated agency ro le models. I t

fos ters weaponry se lect ion compatible with the theorized funct ion o f

o f f i c e rs who w i l l employ the arms.

Thorough PWP analysis would reduce the potent ia l f o r armament

to ind isc r im ina te ly negate the model image an agency seeks to a t ta in .

The process does not assure role-weapon com pa t ib i l i ty . Nor does i t

assume the naive stand that models ex is t in pure form. James Q.

Wilson's t r ia d (1968), tempered by Richardson's h is to r ic a l perspec­

t iv e (1974), is presented as an ideal type. I t provides an abstracted

base from which to work.

At i t s best, proact ive weaponry planning o f fe rs a precise,

a r t i c u la te , reviewable methodology from which to construct respon­

s ib le po l icy decisions. I t obsoletes both c lass ic and react ive plan­

ning typologies while incorporat ing an open systems academic perspec­

t iv e in to a t r a d i t i o n a l l y closed, technical environment.

The greatest def ic iency with regard to weaponry study rests

w i th in the purview o f Phase Two. While i t is enlightening to possess

a defined agency ro le model, addit ional data could be f a c i l i t a t i v e .

50

Research is necessary regarding the actual combat needs o f

law enforcement personnel. L i t t l e quan t i f iab le information ex is ts

concerning the type, quan t i ty , and q u a l i t y o f t ra in in g and educa­

t ion received by enforcement o f f i c e rs . More s ig n i f i c a n t , l i t t l e is

known o f i t s e f fe c t . Is i t education, the in d iv id u a l 's persona l i ty

or the organizat ional s t ruc ture and environment 1n. which he must

funct ion which is preeminent in the inf luence o f his actions?

Few s t a t i s t i c a l indices e x is t with respect to a c t i v i t i e s

engaged in during performance o f the patrol funct ion. Less is

known regarding the mult i tude o f circumstances that ex is t w i th in a

time span known popularly as the "assault in c id e n t . " Rudimentary

measures re su l t ing from FBI Uniform Crime Reports are o f marginal

value in a planning context.

Detai led analysis concerning geographic areas o f confronta­

t io n , assaul t ive subgroups, time and l i g h t condit ions, and agency

deployment structures are conspicuously absent. Addit ional data

regarding the personal charac te r is t ics o f assaulted o f f i c e rs and

t h e i r assailants are needed on a national basis. Once assembled,

data from the four basic areas o f confrontat ional need should be

subjected to sophis t icated s t a t i s t i c a l analysis . Yet, a major ques

t ion ex is ts with respect to r e l i a b i l i t y o f se l f - reported assault ive

incidents taken from enforcement agents. A number o f organiza­

t iona l var iables could a f fe c t accuracy as well as incidence o f

report ing. Par t ic ipan t observation introduces a Hawthorne (Mayo,

1933; Roethl isberger & Dickson, 1939) var iable whi le c l i e n t surveys

in the vein o f NORC (President 's Commission, 1968) and the National

52

Crime Panel (1975) are suspect by the very nature o f po lice con­

f ron ta t iona l subject bias.

Awareness o f the need fo r more precise Phase Two research

should not be taken as an ind ica t ion o f c lass ic model advocacy.

The proact ive methodology remains superior from a planning viewpoint.

Rather, the search fo r more e x p l i c i t second phase measures i n d i ­

cates a cognit ion regarding the need fo r improved Phase Three c r i ­

te r i a de l ineat ion. The u l t imate ob ject ive is to f a c i l i t a t e more

e f fe c t iv e weaponry analysis in Phase Five.

The p a ra m i l i t a r i s t i c uniform patrol funct ion has been

employed through exp l ica t ion o f the proact ive weapon planning model.

As indicated in i n i t i a l chapters, the pos i t ion was one o f expedi­

ence rather than advocacy. T rad i t iona l uniform patro l is simply the

most typ ica l law enforcement posture. However, the weaponry func­

t ions o f at least s ix addit ional enforcement typologies lend them­

selves to proact ive analysis :

1. C iv i l i a n Uniform P a t ro l—The Lakewood, Colorado, model

o f t r a d i t io n a l patro l u t i l i z i n g a blazer s ty le uniform.

2. Agent Invest igat ion--The detect ive or "p la in c lothes"

d iv is ion which performs in ve s t iga t ive funct ions o f an

agency.

3. Undercover I n v e s t i g a t i o n - - I n f i 1t ra t io n a c t i v i t i e s ,

t y p i c a l l y invo lv ing drug enforcement and organized

crime con tro l .

4. C iv i l Disturbance Control--The humane regu la t ion o f

large numbers o f c i t izens in an anarchical context.

53

5. Executive Pro tec t ion—The proact ive and react ive s e l f -

defense o f domestic and foreign d ig n i ta r ie s .

6. Ant i -Sn iper Operations--The is o la t io n and control o f

barricaded suspects in a cr iminal ju s t i c e (versus

m i l i t a r y ) context.

A numhpr o f academics w i l l in a l l p ro b a b i l i t y c l in y Lu. the

c lass ic weaponry planning methodology in much the same manner tha t

p rac t i t io n e rs w i l l evidence continued al legiance to the react ive

funct ion. Maturation o f research regarding second phase confronta­

t iona l needs may be gradual. Appl ica t ion o f the schema to addi­

t iona l confrontat ion typologies w i l l necessitate agency education

and in t rospect ion .

Through de l ineat ion o f two t ra d i t io n a l weaponry planning

methodologies (c lass ic and react ive weaponry p lann ing) , th is study

has sought to conceptualize current academic and technical trends i n ­

weaponry po l icy analysis. An a l te rn a t ive typology termed proact ive

weaponry planning was then postulated in which c r i t e r i a d e f in i t i o n

predated weaponry analysis. Weaponry c r i t e r i a were based upon con­

f ron ta t iona l needs which were in turn contingent upon a delineated

agency ro le model. While antecedent var iables impacting upon agency

ro le model formulation (Phase One) were discussed, the mechanistic

process o f analyzing ind iv idua l products in terms o f the proact ive

weaponry planning model (Phases Four and Five) was l e f t to ind iv idua l

agencies.

I t must be underscored tha t the i n i t i a l three PWP model phases

o f fe r a precise, a r t i c u la te , reviewable methodology from which to

construct reasonable po l icy decisions. The f in a l dyadic segments are

54

essen t ia l ly cyc l ica l phenomena with t h e i r own feedback loop. I t

is w i th in the prel im inary t r i a d o f the weaponry planning format

that s ig n i f i c a n t and far- reaching po l icy decisions may be made. Of

fundamental importance in th is stratagem is de l ineat ion o f an agency

ro le model, a conceptualization which is conducive to improved

planning throughout a l l segments o f a specif ied agency.

I f acceptance o f proactive weaponry planning is less than

universa l , the same may hopeful ly be said fo r re je c t ion . As Egon

B i t tn e r (1970) so a r t i c u la t e l y observed, “ in our society . . . force

is not wholly avoidable. This being the case, not only i t s avoid­

ance, but i t s employment must be methodically normalized." Consis­

ten t with an open systems perspective, dependent upon a defined

agency ro le model . . . proact ive weaponry planning is a v iab le

methodology fo r such normalization.

FOOTNOTES

See, f o r example, The President's Commission on Law Enforce­ment and Admin is trat ion o f Just ice , The challenge o f crime in a free society (1967), and the American Bar Associa t ion 's Comparative analy­sis of standards and goals o f the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Just ice Standards and Goals with standards fo r cr iminal ju s t ic e of the American Bar Association (1973).

2General, information o f th is type became ava i lab le as a re su l t

of the LEAA Police Equipment Survey (Bergsman, Bunten, & Klaus, 1973). The survey methodology was too general to serve as a basis fo r po l icy decisions.

3See, fo r example, Evaluation o f selected aerosol i r r i t a n t

p ro jec to r formulat ions (undated), Steele (undated), and Crockett (1969).

^See, fo r example, Swearengen (1966), Applegate (1969),Jorday (1970), Truby (1972), Sagalyn (1972), Robinson (1973), and Shearer (1973).

5The scope and publ icat ions o f the Law Enforcement Standards

Laboratory since i t s incept ion have been l im i te d . In 1975, the organization completed the most extensive analysis o f handgun ammu­n i t io n since Hatcher's work in 1935.

H. P. White Laboratory was in charge o f the handgun endurance tests fo r the 1968 Gun Control Act.

^The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers In s t i t u te establishes pressure levels and tolerances fo r a l l American car­t r idges and arms. I t was through th e i r e f fo r t s tha t the +P high- pressure car tr idge designation was adopted.

oChemical agent DM (co lor code green--Diphenylamine Chlorar-

sine) is commonly referred to as "Sick Gas." DM proved extremely e f fe c t ive in dispersing large crowds, but caused extreme (24 hour) nausea, loosening o f the bowels, and in some cases death. What is techn ica l ly feas ib le may prove t o t a l l y impract ical (Jones, 1970).

55

REFERENCES CITED

REFERENCES CITED

Abreus, W., Kirsch, J . , & Smith, H. (FBI National Academy). Personal in terv iew, May 1975.

A i r c r a f t Armament Incorporated (Fer re t ) . Personal communication, May 1975.

Alpha P last ics Incorporated (Rogers Security Hols ter) . Personal communication, July 1975.

Amber, J. T. (Ed.). Gun digest (28th ed.) . N o r th f ie ld , 111.:Digest Books, Inc . , 1973. ^ y / n ^ Q g O O l l - S 7 J j

Anderson, L. R. (Monadnock L i fe t ime Products). Personal communi­cat ion, June 7, 1975.

Applegate, R. The long r i o t baton. Law and Order, March 1964.

Applegate, R. Riot con tro l - -m a te r ia l and techniques. Harrisburg, Pa.: The Stackpole Co., 1969.

Applegate, R. The f e r r e t barricade round. Law and Order. Auaust

Applegate, R. (Weaponry Consultant). Personal communication,July 23, 1975.

Armoloy (Firearm F in ish) . Personal communication, February 1975.

Balch, R. W. The police persona l i ty : Fact or f i c t i o n ? The Journal o f Criminal Law, Criminology and Pol ice-Science, 1972, 63 (1), 34-51.

Barnes, R. C. Cartr idges of the world (John T. Amber, Ed.). N o r th f ie ld , 111.: Digest Books, In c . , 1972.

Bar te l , B. (Shok Batons). Personal communication, Ap r i l 7, 1972.

Bergsman, S., Bunten, E., & Klaus, P. Handguns and handgun ammuni­t io n . LEAA police equipment survey o f 1972 (Vol. V).

Berns-Martin (Front Break Hosl ters) . Personal communication,June 1971.

1970, pp. 112-115.

56

57

Bianchi, J. (Hols ters) . Personal communication, March 1975.

B i t tn e r , E. The funct ions o f the po l ice in modern societ,y--Areview of background fac to rs , current pract ices, and possible ro le models. Washinqton, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t inqOff ice , 1970.

Bo l l ing , R. Personal communication, Ap r i l 1, 1975.

Bristow, A. P. Police o f f i c e r shootings—A ta c t ic a l evaluation.The Journal o f Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1963', 54(1 ), 93-95.

Bristow, A. P. The search fo r an e f fe c t iv e po l ice handgun. .. Spring­f i e l d , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1973.

Bristow, A. P. Personal communication, Apr i l 1, 1975.

Brown, C. E. Evaluative research in pol ic ing--The Kansas City exper i ­ence. Police C h ie f , 1975, 42(6), 40; 42-45.

Bucheimer, J. M. (Securi ty Hols ters) . Personal communication, July 1975.

Buckner, H. T. The po l ice: The cu l tu re o f a social contro l agency.Unpublished doctoral d is se r ta t io n , Un ivers i ty o f C a l i fo rn ia , Berkeley, 1957.

Canon, J. Y. (Glaser Safety Slug, In c . ) . Personal communication, October 28, 1974.

Canon, J. R. (Glaser Safety Slug, In c . ) . Personal communication,July 25, 1975.

Carpenter Technology Corporation. Working data--Carpenter s ta in less steel s . Reading, Pa.: Author, 1973.

Caswell Equipment Company, Inc. (Bar-Dot S ights) . Personal commu­n ica t ion , March 1975.

The challenge o f crime in a free soc iety--A report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis tration o f J u s t ic e . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t ing O f f ice , 1967.

Chamelin, N.C., Fox, V. B., & Whisenand, P. M. In troduct ion tocr iminal ju s t ic e . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. : P ren t ice -H a l l ,Inc . , 1975.

58

Chapman, S. G., Meyer, C. K . , & Swanson, C. G. In t roduct ion and methodology to the study o f police assaults in the South Central United Sta tes. Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o fOklahoma, June 1974.

Chapman, S. C., Swanson, D. G., & Meyer, C. K. A descr ip t ive p r o f i l e o f the assault in c id e n t . Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o fOklahoma, June 1974.

C o l le t t , N. J. (General Ordnance Equipment Corporat ion). Personal communication, June 13, 1972.

C o l t 's Patent Firearms (Ar-15). Personal communication, Apr i l 1975.

Comparative analysis o f standards and goals o f the National Advisory Commission on cr iminal ju s t i c e standards and goals with standards fo r cr iminal ju s t ic e o f the American Bar Associa- t i o n . Washington, D.C.: American Bar-Associa t ion, Sectiono f Criminal Just ice , 1973.

Cooper, J. The complete book o f modern handgunning. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. : P ren t ice -H a l l , In c . , 1951.

Cooper, J. Stopping power re v is i te d . Guns & Ammo Annual, 1973, pp. 24; 26-29.

Cooper, J. Cooper on handguns. Los Angeles, C a l i f . : Petersen Publishing Co., 1974.

Cooper, J. Metal f in ishes f o r f i rearms. Guns & Ammo Annual, 1974, p. 271.

Cooper, J. (Firearms Consultant). Personal in te rv iew , January 1975.

C'resap, C. (L-Tronic Sights) . Personal communication, Apr i l 16,1975.

Crockett, T. S. Police chemical agents manual. Washington, D.C.: Professional Standards D iv is ion , In ternat iona l Association o f Chiefs o f Police, In c . , 1969.

Dade Screw Machine Products (Revolver Speed Loader). Personal communication, February 1975.

Dalton, M. Men who manage* New York: John Wiley & Sons, In c . ,1959.

Davis, E. M., & Knowles, L. An evaluation o f the Kansas City ,preventive patro l experiment. Police Chief, 1975, 42 (6 ) , ” f22; 24-27.

59

Davison, L. P., & Severson, L. A. Basic marksmanship with themodern handgun. National Law Enforcement Academy, undated.

Day, E. (Systems, Science and Software). Personal communication, September 17, 1973.

Demura, F. Nunchaku— Karate weapon o f s e l f defense. Los Angeles, C a l i f . : Ohara Publicat ions, Inc . , 1971.

Department o f the Treasury. Firearms id e n t i f i c a t io n fo r law enforce- ment o f f i c e r s . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t inqO ff ice , 1969.

DiMaio, V. J. M., M.D. Personal communication, March 27, 1973.

DiMaio, V. J. M., Jones, J. A., Caruth, W. W. I I I . , Anderson, L. L . ,& Petty, C. S. A comparison o f the wounding e f fec ts o f com­merc ia l ly ava i lab le handgun ammunition su i tab le fo r po l ice use. FBI Law Enforcement B u l l e t i n , December 1974, pp. 3-8.

DiMaio, V. J. M., Jones, J. A. , & Petty, C. S. Ammunition fo r po l ice :A comparison o f the wounding e f fec ts o f commercially avai lab le car tr idges. Police Science and Admin is t rat ion , 1973, 1 ,-*• 269-273.

Draeger, D. F . , & Smith, R. W. Asian f ig h t in g a r t s . Palo A l to , C a l i f . : Kodansha In ternat iona l L td . , 1970.

E tz ion i , A. Two approaches to organizational analys is : A c r i t i q u eand a suggestion. Admin is trat ive Science Q uar te r ly , 1960, f*

E tz ion i , A. Modern organ iza t ions. Englewood C l i f fs " , N.J.: Prentice-Hal1, Inc. , 1964.

Evaluation o f selected aerosol i r r i t a n t p ro jec to r fo rm u la t ions .Gaithersburg, Md.: Research D iv is ion , In ternat iona l Asso­c ia t ion o f Chiefs o f Police, undated.

Federal Bureau o f Inves t iga t ion . A summary analysis o f law enforce­ment o f f i c e rs k i l l e d 1964-1973. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government P r in t ing O f f ice , undated.

Federal Bureau of Inves t iga t ion . Law enforcement o f f i c e rs k i l l e d —1974. Washington, D.C.: Author, undated.

Federal Laboratories, Incorporated (Tear Gas). Personal communica­t io n , July 1975.

F i tz (Handgun Grips). Personal communication, March 6, 1975.

60

Fox, V. (Lieutenant--Delaware State Police Train ing D iv is ion ) .Personal in terv iew, Ju ly 17, 1975.

Fox, V. A so l id shooting stance. In J'. T. Amber (Ed.), Gun digest (30th ed.) . N o r th f ie ld , 111.: Digest Books, In c . , 1975.

Friedman, J. R. (Feather Touch Speed Loader). Personal communication, March 7, 1975.

Gluck, J. Zen combat. New York: Ballant ine Books, 1962.

Golembiewski, R. T. Organization development in publ ic agencies:Perspectives on theory and prac t ice . In R. T. Golembiewski,F. Gibson & G. Y. Cornog (Cds.). Public adminis tra t ion (2nd ed.) . Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1972, pp. 190-209.

Gould Engineering Incorporated (Firearms Coatings). Personal com­munication, Ap r i l 1975.

Gouldner, A. W. Cosmopolitan and loca ls : Toward an analysis o fla te n t social roles — I . Admin is trat ive Science Quarter ly , 1957, 21(2), 281-306.

Green, R. L. (Charter Arms). Personal communication, August 14, 1973.

Grennell , D., & Wil l iams, M. Law enforcement handgun d ige s t . N o r th f ie ld , 111.: Digest Books, In c . , 1972.

G r i f f i s , W. T. (President—Second Six, In c . ) . Personal communication, March 6, 1975.

Gross, B. M. Organizations and t h e i r meaning. New York: The FreePress, 1968.

Gwinn, M. (Bushmaster). Personal communication, June 20, 1975.

H. K. S. Tool Products Company (Reloading Devices). Personal com­munication, June 3, 1975.

H. P. White Laboratory, Research-Development Engineering, Box 331,Bel A i r , Md. 21014.

Hale, C. D., & Wilson, W. R. Personal charac te r is t ics o f assaulted and non-assaulted o f f i c e r s . Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o fOklahoma, June 1974.

Hale, R. H. Organizat ions--s tructure and process. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P ren t ice -H a l l , In c . , 1972.

61

Hamilton, E. K. Police p rod u c t iv i ty : The view from c i t y h a l l .In J. L. Wolfe & J. F. Heaphy, Readings on police produc­t i v i t y . Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 1975,pp. 11-34.

Harrison, M., & Pepitone, A. Contrast e f fe c t in the use o f punish­ment. Journal o f Personal ity and Social Psychology, 1972, 23(37), 398-404.

Hatcher, J. S. P is to ls and revo lvers and t h e i r use. P la n te rs v i l ie , S.C.: Smal1 Arms Techhical Publishing Co., 1927.

Hatcher, J. S. Textbook o f f irearms in ve s t iga t ion , id e n t i f i c a t io n and evidence. P lan te rsv i1le , S.C.: Small Arms TechnicalPublishing Co., 1935a.

Hatcher, J. S. Textbook o f p is to ls and revo lve rs . P la n te rs v i l le ,S.C.: Small Arms Technical Publishing Co., 1935b.

Hatsumi, M., & Chambers, Q. St ick f i g h t i n g —Techniques o f s e l fdefense. Palo A l to , C a l i f . : Kodansha In te rn a t io n a l , L td . ,1971.

He l le r , D. L . , Chapman, S. G., Kieselhorst , D. C., & Meyer, C. K.An analysis o f police assailants in Albuquerque. Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma, June 1974.

Henry, N. Public admin is tra t ion and public a f f a i r s . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P ren t ice -Ha l l , I n c . , 1975.

H erre t t , S. (Handgun Grip Design). Personal communication,March 3, 1975.

H irosh i , S. Nunchaku techniques. Mt. View, C a l i f . : Devine Wind,In c . , 1974.

Hoover, J. E. Crime in the United States—Uniform crime re p o r ts .Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t ing O f f ice , 1959.

Hoover, J. E. Crime in the United States—Uniform crime re p o r ts .Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t ing O f f ice , 1960.

Hoover, J. E. Crime in the United States--Uniform crime re po r ts .Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t ing O f f ice , 1961.

Hoyt Holster Company (Securi ty Hols ters). Personal communication, June 17, 1975.

Hume, D. C. (Hols ter Design). Personal communication, May 30, 1975.

62

In s t i t u te o f Jud ic ia l Admin is trat ion. Standards re la t in g to theurban police funct ion. New York: American Bar Associat ion,1972.

Interarms (Brenneke Shotgun She l ls ) . Personal communication,February 1975.

In ternat iona l Association o f Chiefs o f Police Research D iv is ion .Evaluation o f selected aerosol i r r i t a n t p ro jec to r fo rmu la t ions . Gaithersburg, Md.: Author, undated.

Jay Scott , Incorporated (Armarc Grips). Personal communication,May 1975.

J inks, R. (Smith & Wesson Handguns). Personal communication,June 15, 1975.

Jones, D. S. Law enforcement chemical agents and re la ted equipment. Santa Cruz, C a l i f . : Davis Publishing Co., Inc . , 1970.

Jordan, W. H. No second place winner. Shreveport, La.: Author,1970.

Jurras, L. E. (Super Vel Cartr idge Co). Personal communication, February 11, 1975.

Kaneshiro, H. S. Nunchaku fo r s e l f defense. Chicago, 111.: TheBankers P r in t , 1971.

Keith, E. Sixguns. New York: Bonanza Books, 1961.

Ke l le r , D. (Manager VSI--Law Enforcement D iv is ion ) . Personal i n t e r ­view, July 1975.

Ke l le r , D. Ke l-L i te manual o f defensive t a c t i c s . Covina, C a l i f . : Ke l-L i te Industr ies , Inc . , undated.

Kelley, C. B. Crime in the United States--Uniform crime re po r ts - -1973. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Pr in t ing O f f ice ,1974.

Ke l l ing , G. L . , & Pate, T. The Davis-Knowles c r i t iq u e o f the Kansas City preventive patro l experiment. Police Chief, 1975, 42 (6), 32-34; 36; 38.

Ke l l ing , G. L . , Pate, T . , Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. The Kansas City preventive patro l experiment—A summary re p o r t .Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 1974.

Ke l ly , L. (Mag-Na-Port, In c . ) . Personal in terv iew, June 1975.

63

Kieselhorst, D. C. A theo re t ica l perspective o f violence against p o l i c e . Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma, June 1974.

Koga, R. K . , & Nelson, J. G. The Koga method: Police baton tech­niques . Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f . : The Glencoe Press, 1968.

Kopsch, P. J. (KTW Ammunition). Personal communication, May 15,1975.

Kubota, T . , & McCaul,.P. F. Baton techniques and t r a i n i n g . Spring­f i e l d , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1972.

Land, Major J. (Marksmanship Coordinator—United States Marine Corps). Personal in te rv iew , May 1975.

Lindblom, C. E. The science o f "muddling through." Public Adminis­t r a t io n Review, 1959, 19(2).

Lomax, E. (Pachmayr Grips). Personal communication, June 15, 1975.

Los Angeles Police Department (Special Weapons and Tactics Unit Commander). Personal in te rv iew , February 1974.

Los Angeles Police Department (Train ing D iv is ion ) . Personal i n t e r ­view, 1974.

MBAssociates (Less Lethal Weapons). Personal communication, June 15, 1975.

McGiven, E. Fast and fancy revolver shoot ing. Chicago, 111.:F o l l e t t Publishing Co., 1975.

McMahon, R. H. (Smith & Wesson Ammunition). Personal communication, February 4, 1975.

McNamara, J. D. The Kansas City prevention patro l experiment.Police Ch ie f , 1975, 42(6), 30.

McNamara, J. H. Uncerta in t ies in police work: The relevance o fpo l ice re c ru i t s ' backgrounds and t ra in in g . In D. J. Bordau (Ed.), The po l ice : Six socio log ica l essays. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1967.

Maguire, G. (Secoa, In c . ) . Personal communication, Apr i l 22, 1975.

Matich (Speed Reloader). Personal communication, July 7, 1975.

Matsuyama, F. A. How to use the yawara s t i c k. Berkeley, C a l i f , : George. F. Cake Corp., 1969.

Mayo, E. Human problems of an in d u s t r ia l c i v i l i z a t i o n . New York: The Viking Press, 1933.

64

Meyer, C. K . , Swanson, C. G., Hale, C. D., & Regens, J. L. Ananalysis o f o f f i c e r cha rac te r is t ics and po l ice assaults among selected south centra l c i t i e s . Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i tyo f Oklahoma, June 1974.

M i l l e r , D. S. (Winchester Western—Flechette). Personal communica­t io n , November 20, 1973.

Monadnock L ife t ime Products, Incorporated. Clubs in s e l f defense and mob c o n t ro l . F i tz w i l l ia m , N.H.: Author, 1968.

Morrison, P. N., & Hale, C.' D. Perceptions o f the police organi­zations: A sociometric ana lys is . Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma, June 1974.

Morrison, P. N., & Meyer, C. K. A microanalysis o f assaults onpol ice in Aust in, Texas. Norman, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o fOklahoma, June 1974.

Moynahan, J. M., J r . The yawara s t ic k and police baton. Spring­f i e l d , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1963.

Myrphy, P. V. The Davis-Knowles observation on the Kansas City prevention patro l experiment: A summary report . Police Ch ie f , 1975, 42(6), 30.

National Crime Panel. Criminal v ic t im iza t ion surveys in the nat ion 's f i v e la rgest c i t i e s . Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPr in t ing O f f ice , Apr i l 1975.

Nelson, N. (P res iden t- -Ke l-L i te Indus tr ies ) . Personal in te rv iew , February 1974.

Nelson, N. (Pres iden t- -Ke l-L i te Indus tr ies ) . Personal in te rv iew ,July 1975.

Niederhoffer, A. Behind the sh ie ld : The pol ice in urban so c ie ty . Garden C i ty , N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., In c . , 1967.

Nigro, F. The impl ica t ions fo r public unions. Public Adminis trat ion Review, March/Apri l 1972, 32, 120-125.

Nonte, G. Shooter's b ib le —p is to l & revolver guide (Rev, ed.) .South Hackensack, N.J.: Shooter's B ib le , In c . , 1970.

Parker, W. H. Daily t ra in in g b u l le t in o f the Los Angeles pol ice department. S p r ing f ie ld , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1954.

Parsons, K. Safety s lug - - the name o f the game is shock. Law and Order,' October 1974, 22(10), 8; 10; 44.

65

Payton, G. T. Patrol procedure. Los Angeles, C a l i f . : Legal BookCorp., 1967.

Pederson, R. (Brown Wood Products, I n c . ) . Personal in te rv iew ,August 7, 1975.

Penguin Industr ies Incorporated (Tear Gas). Personal communication,May 1975.

Perkins, N. (President—Safar i land) . Personal in te rv iew , February 1975'.

P h i l l i p s , J. The nunchaku and police t r a i n i n g . Camden, N.J.:Author, 1973.

President 's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis trat ion o fJust ice. The challenge o f crime in a free so c ie ty . Washing­ton, D.C.: U.S. Government P r in t ing O f f ice , February 1967.

Pursley, R. D. The growth and impact o f pub l ic unions. In J. B.Morton, K. M. Callahan, & N. A. Beadles (Eds.), Readings in public employee/management re la t ions fo r correct iona l admin- i s t r a to r s . Athens, Ga.: Un ivers i ty o f Georgia Press, 1973,pp. 33-49.

RAND Corporation. Police t ra in in g performance study p ro jec t r e p o r t . Report submitted to the New York C i ty Police Department and the Law Enforcement Assistance Admin is t rat ion, United States Department o f Just ice . New York: New York C i ty PoliceDepartment, December 1969.

Regens, J. L . , Meyer, C. K . , Swanson, C. G., & Chapman, S. G. Ananalysis o f assaults on municipal po lice o f f i c e rs in 46 south centra l c i t i e s . Norman Okla.: Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma,June 1974.

Reiss, A. J . , J r . The police and the p u b l i c . New Haven, Conn.:Yale Un ivers i ty Press, 1971.

Richardson, J. F. Urban police in the United Sta tes. Port Washington, N.Y.: National Un ivers i ty Publ ica t ions, 1974.

Roberts, E., & Bristow, A. P. An in t roduc t ion to modern police f i r e ­arms. Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f . : The Glencoe Press, 1969.

Robinson, R. H. (Firearms Consultant). Personal communication,October 17, 1973.

Robinson, R. H. The police shotgun manual. S p r ing f ie ld , 111.:Charies C. Thomas, 1973.

66

Roethl isberger, R. J . , & Dickson, W. J. Management and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Un ivers i ty Press, 1939.

Safety Speed Hols ter , Incorporated (Leather Products). Personal communication, May 1975.

Sagalyn, A . } et a l , Nonlet.hal weapons fo r law cnforcement--Research ' needs and p r i o r i t i e s . Washington, D.C.: Secur ity PlanningCorporation, 1972.

St. Denise, C. The kashi-no-bo & technique. Hackensack, N.J. :Wehman Brothers, 1964.

Salto , M. Trad i t iona l a ik ido sword, s t ic k and body ar ts (Vol. 1). Tokyo: Minato Research and Publishing Co., 1973.

Sakagami,, R. Nunchaku. Tokyo: Yugen Kaisha Tokaido, undated.

Sakagami, R. Tonfa o f hamahiga. Tokyo: Yugen Kaisha Tokaido, undated.

Second Six (Revolver Reloading Devices). Personal communication, February 1975.

Selznick, P. TVA and the grass ro o ts . New York: Harper TorchbookEd it ion , 1966.

Sestok, J. (Quad Custom Ammunition). Personal in te rv iew , June 18,1975.

Shearer, J. P. Holster eva lua t ion . St. Petersburg, F la . : St.Petersburg Police Department, 1972.

Sherman, L. W., M i l ton , C. H., & Ke l ly , T. V. Team polic ing--Sevencase s tud ies . Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 1973.

Skolnick, J. H. Just ice w i thout t r i a l : Law enforcement in demo­c ra t i c soc ie ty . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967.

Smith, J. E. Small arms o f the world (9th ed.) . Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1969.

Smith, J. E. Small arms o f the world (10th ed.) . Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1973.

Smith & Wesson Chemical Company, Incorporated. Police r i o t control t ra in in g manual. Rock Creek, Ohio: Author, undated.

Smith & Wesson Leather Products (Securi ty Hols ters) . Personal com­munication, March 1975.

Sparks, M. (Holster Design). Personal communication, January 1975.

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's I n s t i t u te . 1975 cata­log o f standards. New York: Author, 1975.

Steele, D. E. Submachine guns in po lice work. Gaithersburg, Md.: Research D iv is ion , In ternat iona l Association o f Chiefs o f Police, undated.

Swanson, C. G., & Hale, C. D. A question o f height re v is i te d :Assaults on p o l i c e . Norma, Okla.: Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma,June 1974.

Swearengen, T. F. Tear gas munit ions--An analysis o f commercial r i o t gas guns, tear gas p ro je c t i l e s , grenades, small arms ammunition, and re la ted tear gas devices. S p r in g f ie ld , 111. Charles C. Thomas, 1965.

Theodore, P. (Firearms Consultant). Personal in te rv iew , July 1975.

Thompson, J. D., & McEwen, W. J. Organizational goals and environ­ment: Goal se t t ing as an in te ra c t io n process. Administra- t i v e Science Q uar te r ly , February 1958, 23(1).

Thompson, V. Modern o rgan iza t ions . New York: A l f red A. Knopf,I n c . , Author, 1975.

T r ip le K Manufacturing Company. Catalog number 7. San Diego, C a l i f . : Author, 1975.

Truby, J. D. Silencers, snipers and assassins—An overview of whispering death. Boulder, Col. : Paladin Press, 1972.

Turcus, D. The K.T.W. metal p ie rc ing b u l le t . Law and Order,August 1968.

Tyler, M. (Handgun Grips Design). Personal communication, May1975.

Verycken, E., & Hess, J. Nunchaku fo r law enforcement. Wildwood, N.J.: Cape Publishing Co., 1972.

Vogel, S. (Handgun Design). Personal in te rv iew , June 1975.

Weber, M. The theory o f social and economic organization (A.M.Henderson & T. Parsons t ra n s . ) . New York: The Free Press,1947.

Weston, P. B. The handbook o f handyunning—New Concepts in p is to l and revolver shooting. New York: Crown Publishers, In c . ,1968.

68

Weston, P. B. Combat shooting fo r police. S p r ing f ie ld , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1970.

Wilson, J. Q. Var ie t ies o f po lice behavior--The management o f law and order in e ight communities.- Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUnivers i ty Press, 1968.

Wilson, 0. W., & McLaren, R. C. Police adm in is t ra t ion . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963.

Wortley, A. M. (Penguin F l a i l ) . Personal communication, July 24,1972.