Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Ballistic Helmets for Patrol

  1. #11
    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.
    Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".

  2. #12
    What about bump helmets for night vision use if available to patrol, wouldn't they achieve the riot aspect protection as well?

  3. #13
    Site Supporter Odin Bravo One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the back of beyond
    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.

  4. #14
    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.
    Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".

  5. #15
    Site Supporter MD7305's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NE Tennessee
    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.

  6. #16
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    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.

  7. #17
    Site Supporter Odin Bravo One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the back of beyond
    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....

  8. #18
    Member John Hearne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Mississippi
    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.
    • It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
    • If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
    • "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG

  9. #19
    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.

  10. #20
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    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.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •