Ballistic Helmets for Patrol

[jnc36rcpd]

We're researching the feasibility of issuing ballistic helmets to patrol officers for use during high risk incidents. Is anyone else doing this? If so, what are you issuing? Do you have any policy or lesson plans? Thanks and be safe.

[Coyotesfan97]

My Dept has been issuing ballistic helmets for 5+ years. I'm pretty sure they're still issuing Second Chance Commando IIIA. K9 is part of Tactical and we've been getting our helmets through SWAT .SWAT and K9 just got issued ops-core FAST helmets.

I'll look for our policy. I'm not sure about lesson plans.

[Sabre07]

We are looking into it also. Last year we started issuing plate carriers to the polyester platoons. We have no SOP on deployment for the hard armor. We are getting reps in them at the range.

[Chuck Haggard]

We were given a giagantor pile of K-pots from DRMO at my old job. Testing indicated they were roughly level II in performance. We gave them out to any of the troops that wanted them. Minimal policy, zero training outline or plan.

[Alpha Sierra]

Minimal policy, zero training outline or plan.

I was wondering if anything more than that is even needed?

It's a helmet. How much training is needed to put one on, besides telling someone to put it on straight and do the strap so it don't fly off your noggin when you move but also doesn't choke you.

Not everything needs a powerpoint to go with it.

[Chuck Haggard]

We did tell guys to not be an ass and wear them on car stops and such.

[Odin Bravo One]

Is primary/secondary fragmentation, and blast overpressure from explosives that big of an issue these days? Sure, there is some protection against blunt trauma, but those stories you hear about "lucky M-Fers" whose helmets stopped a bullet, are simply "lucky M-Fers".

Before I start adding extra weight, and equipment......I look REALLY hard at the facts, benefits, and drawbacks.

I would 1st: Define "High Risk Incidents"

Then based on that definition, find how many blunt trauma head injuries to LE have occurred in these incidents. How many explosive induced injuries, etc.

Ballistic helmets were designed to protect the skull from pri/sec frag, blast overpressure, and blunt trauma for soldiers on the battlefield where all of those are encountered as a routine aspect of the job. I guess I struggle to see the practical (meaning cost:benefit) application for a patrol officer to have it rattling around in the trunk, or stuffed into a gear bag for a "poison darts falling from the sky" probability of an officer actually needing & benefiting from such a piece of equipment.

The most effective, and best designed ballistic helmets come in at ~$1,000 a pop. Is that a prudent use of tax payer money?

Or you could go with DRMO mil helmets, which are beyond service life, and the DoD is specifically told by the manufacturers to not rely on them for protective purposes beyond that service life. Is that what we want to outfit our men and women in blue with? Now, you hand them sub-par, and beyond service life equipment......they get hurt/killed. What does that law suit cost you?

There is also everywhere in between......but I go back to my "For what, exactly?" question.

If there are answers, and practical applications to be had.......cool. I'm all for ensuring our LE folks are properly trained, and equipped to ensure they go home at the end of their shifts. But at the same time, getting shit just to get shit, or for the illusion of increased safety is a cancerous & dangerous mentality.

[psalms144.1]

I'm with Sean on this one - I HATE wearing the brain bucket, and will only do so when brow-beaten into it or I KNOW I'm about to do something where I'm likely to mash my grape against something hard. The protection a helmet offers comes at a steep cost in comfort, loss of hearing, etc. We had a large pile of these at my last team, and spent a day shooting them to see what they would stop. Bottom line - the helmet stops VERY little - as pointed out, it MIGHT stop handgun rounds, but anything launched from a long arm will perforate it handily.

There are good reasons why helmet designs are constantly moving to smaller (less protection offered) and lighter - but one of those designer buckets is going to cost A LOT, and still won't stop projectiles from rifles...

Regards,

Kevin

[jnc36rcpd]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

I'm looking at a Streicher's catalogue which lists a Potech Delta 4 full cut helmet for $399.99. The NIJ 0101.06 standards rate the helmet as offering IIIA protection. While this will certainly not protect against rifle rounds, more officers are murdered with handguns than long guns.

Mid cut and high cut helmets are approximately $50 more, but we are not using communications equipment that would require a higher cut.

I am not inclined to attempt to obtain DRMO helmets. I am uncertain if we could determine if surplus helmets are rated to protect against handgun rounds. Moreover, I suspect there would be political issues at both federal and city ends in obtaining surplus military gear at this juncture. I would rather we spend the money for helmets rated for protection from pistol fire.

I would define high risk as any situation in which the officer or supervisor considers taking fire a reasonable possibility. This includes, but is not limited to, active shooter response, searching for armed suspects, and planned arrests of armed suspects.

[Odin Bravo One]

So now....of officers shot during these defined events were shot in the head with a pistol? Of those, how many were shot in a location where the proposed helmet coverage would have saved them? I ask because as a former cop in those situations, and 20+ years wearing a helmet, and a tax payer....without tangible, factual examples of instances where such equipment saved lives, combined with a worn:saved lives ratio of percentage of times worn to times benefited.....knowing all of the downsides of wearing a helmet..... And the fiscal constraints facing domestic LE agencies...... Is that money not better applied elsewhere?

[Dagga Boy]

The biggest benefit is for riot and civil disturbances. For those getting bricks and bullets sent their way, they are very good for patrol folks. Some activities are also good to use. I spent a lot of years wearing a helmet while working our crime suppression bicycle team, and then in Air Support. Critical safety equipment in both. Very rarely did I ever need one in patrol, so again weigh the options.

If it is a matter of the agency blowing $400 for stuffed animals in the trunks to hand out or a walking path for the office people versus ballistic helmets for the troops.......ballistic helmets. If it is the difference in maybe rifle plate carriers and plates versus helmets.....plates.

[karmapolice]

What about bump helmets for night vision use if available to patrol, wouldn't they achieve the riot aspect protection as well?

[Odin Bravo One]

I agree with a helmet for riot police. But ballistic at $400 a pop for protection from objects that are not launched by explosive? A bump helmet does a pretty decent job protecting against injury when hard objects impact the melon. At significantly less expense.

[Dagga Boy]

If we learned one thing from Ferguson, guns are heavily mixed in with "peaceful protests", and many of those are coming from handgun threats which the helmets will stop.

[MD7305]

We get issued a military kevlar style helmet, some with a folding face shield and some without. Not sure if the most recent hire ons are getting them or not. There's no policy or directive for them, mostly just put it on if you think you need it. In 10 years I've never seen one worn other than the normal 03:00AM bored cop shenanigans of pulling up to your pals at the local stop and rob, kevlar helmet on, window down, yelling "gas and tires, gas and tires" (NASCAR reference). I think ours were purchased with grant money around 2003 and were likely envisioned for riot applications more than anything. Although I never wear it, it's fitted and kept in a bag along with my gas mask that rides in the passenger floor board every day. Now if you want to get off on a tangent, that gas mask's filters expired in 2004 (a year before I was issued it) and I can't seem convince anyone I need new ones.

[jnc36rcpd]

Using the FBI LEOSA statistics, of the 474 officers murdered by gunfire between 2004 and 2013, 243 were killed by headshots. While the FBI does break down whether the officer was shot in the front, side, or rear of the head, it is impossible to determine if a helmet would have protected the officer. While the LEOKA summary provides narratives of the murders, it would be guess work to determine if an officer would have hought or had time to don a helmet before his or her murder. If one seeks tangible, factual examples of instances where equipment saved lives, I am immediately point to the case of a Philadelphia PD SWAT officer saved by his helmet several years ago.

I understand financial priorities.. At a staff meeting addressing safety concerns, I addressed the issue of improved armor. This included an upgrade to IIIA/FBI compliant armor, rifle plates and carriers, and ballistic helmets. Improved SBA seems to be on the way. I was directed to research ballistic helmets. I frankly thought plate carriers would have been the priority, but many of us already have them. Moreover, many officers with external carriers have gear mounted on them which would interfere with a plate carrier. Truth be told, I think lowering the instructor-to-student ratio on range days would have more potential to save lives than either plates or helmets, but command will not fund instructors and might fund helmets.

[Odin Bravo One]

I was not asking how many were killed with head shots. I asked how many killed during the "high risk" incidents you described as being a situation for wearing helmets....and of those, how many in a location the proposed helmet would have made a difference.

I'm guessing those numbers drop substantially when you actually focus on the exact circumstances....

[John Hearne]

One of the recommendations from the Board of Review from our most recent LOD death was hard plates and helmets for everyone. We have a very disturbing tendency to die by long gun fire.

Last year, we picked up one hard plate for the front and I think we'll pick up a rear plate this year. I don't know if we'll actually see helmets.

[TAZ]

Not a cop, just a tax payer so use gigantic load of salt.

Even at $400 a pop per officer; is that money well spent? Over the years someone stated that less than 300 officers were killed by head shots. How many of those were after the officer was down and some ahole finished it? Of the rest how many would have been saved by a helmet? How many were shot during "high risk" incidents vs other incidents?

Is spending $400 on an item unlikely to be on at a time of need a good investment? I am assuming the intent isn't to have the officers go about their daily tasks with the helmet on.

Would spending $400 per officer be better spent on more training. Whether firearms, H2H, MUK... whatever. Would that investment help more or fewer officers avoid and if needed survive a bad encounter than a helmet no one will have on when the pool hits the impeller.

[jnc36rcpd]

Sean, to my knowledge, there is no means of determining how many deaths may have been prevented by helmets. FBI LEOKA is fairly specific in capturing location of wounds (front of head, side of head, back of head), but it does not indicate if a helmet would have stopped the round. While it describes the circumstances of the murders, one can only speculate if officers would have donned helmets if issued or mandated by chain of command. I would agree completely that many, if not most, of the officers murdered by headshots would unlikely to be wearing helmets at the time of their murders or not be shot in an area protected by the helmet.

That said, it is predictable that officers will be shot in the head with handgun rounds during high risk incidents. It would seem that helmets would prevent an indeterminate number of those deaths. I'd prefer not to be one of those deaths and I'd prefer not to have to explain to surviving loved ones why a piece of safety equipment was not available when it would have saved an officer's life or prevented crippling injury. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office has a lot more officer-involved shootings than my department has ever had. LASO considers helmets important enough to issue to every deputy.

I would also remark that your arguments against helmets can be made against rifle plates and plate carriers. They're heavy, they're uncomfortable, they're expensive. Most rounds fired at police are handgun rounds which will be stopped by soft body armor. Of the rifle rounds fired at police, won't most strike the officer in the head or other parts of the body not protected by the plates? Moreover, how often will the officer be wearing plates when confronted with a rifle threat? Should we leave our rifle plates at home?

TAZ, bureaucracies being bureaucracies, some projects gain traction while others do not. I would agree that $400 per officer spent on training would be a better investment than helmets, but people with more than three stripes make purchasing decisions. As I mention above, our command staff has no worries about instructor to student ratio on the range. More instructors could provide better coaching, more realistic scenarios, and so forth. I'd prefer we spend the money there, but command staff is not receptive. They do, however, seem receptive to considering helmets. I'd rather spend the money on helmets rather than the planned artwork outside headquarters.