MANDATORY BODY ARMOR
NJLawman.com
Wednesday,
August 4, 2004 12:00 a.m.
In an article covering one of the recent
shootings, it was mentioned that one agency is considering enacting a
policy where patrol officers would be required to wear body armor.
What is troublesome is that such a policy
need be implemented in 2004.
They are bulky, uncomfortable, awkward and
they leave your t-shirt soaked at the end of the shift. They make some
look fat and others hunchback.
But, for Christ’s sake, they stop
bullets!
They also significantly reduce the impact
of other weapons and hands to the chest, they frequently stop edged
weapons, and in numerous instances, they have protected officers’ vital
organs in car accidents.
Also, we may be seeing the reemergence of
unprovoked attacks on LEO’s. Each day in the papers we are reading about
gang-related shootings of officers around the country.
In 2003, 146 officers died nationwide in
the line of duty.
Back in the 70’s when anti-law
enforcement groups flourished (including the one the took the life of
Trooper Werner) the numbers were much higher. Below are the nationwide
line of duty deaths from the early 70’s:
|
1970 216 |
1972 225 |
1974 275 |
|
1971 240 |
1973 261 |
1975 234 |
Many of these officers who fell didn't have
access to the body armor we have today, and many didn't have access to
body armor period.
Mandatory vest policies should be in place
for all officers who work the road. Detectives, investigators,
administrators and those in similar positions can have an amended policy
so they are not forced to wear body armor when engaged in non-encounter
duties, but some type of rule should cover them too for when they are
engaged in crime fighting on the road.
NJLawman.com wholeheartedly endorses agency
adopted policies requiring the wearing of body armor for road officers,
corrections officers and all other LEO’s likely to encounter dangerous
persons.
NJLawman.com
Reader Comments
August 23, 2004
We buy our vests for our
Officers and make it mandatory to wear while in uniform....it is the
Officers choice when in plain clothes for administrative duty. We had
an officer shot 14 years ago and he was the only one on duty with a
vest, ever since then we have made it our policy to make it mandatory.
He is alive today and although he can't be a Police Officer he works as
an administrative tech.
-DW
-Tucson, Arizona
August 14, 2004
I'm sorry but I don't agree
with you. I believe it should be the choice of the officer to wear the
vest or not. Of course I believe it should be the choice of the driver if
he wants to wear a seatbelt or not also. I believe too much time is wasted
in so called seatbelt safety checks. I know the what the law says, but I
think that should be left to the road officer to enforce when he makes a
stop. I know I got off the subject, but it's all the same. You should make
the decision.
-Anonymous
August 10, 2004
I agree!! The NJ State Body
Armor Replacement fund is giving out more than 3.4 Million Dollars for new
vests. It should be required that if you use state money you MUST wesr the
vest!!
I commend NJLawman for
encouraging mandatory wearing of bullet resistant vest.
-Det. James P. Gomez,
WLBPD
August 5, 2004
With these gangs not caring
about officers by going after them and their families. I am wearing my
vest every time I wear my uniform no matter how hot it gets outside. I
rather be a fried chicken then a dead duck!
-Anonymous
August 5, 2004
Our admin loves to run out
of the office when there's a hot call. They'll grab rifles and
shotguns, but not one will take the time to throw on a vest.
-Anonymous
August 5, 2004
Yes, I agree we all should
wear the vest that one day might save our live from the people that are
trying to take ours just for the fun of it.
-Anonymous
