Officer Safety Corner

• 2008 NIJ Ballistic Standard NIJ 0101.06
• “Triangle of Death”
• Protective Eyewear
• Substantial Burn Risk with Synthetic Fibers
• Officer Visibility: A Danger That Cannot Be Ignored

2008 NIJ Ballistic Standard NIJ 0101.06

The 2008 ballistic classes were changed and enhanced to be more representative of the types of weapons law enforcement officers are carrying and encountering on patrol. In addition to the re-definition of ballistic performance, there were numerous other significant changes in the revised standard:

• Elimination of Level I: It was determined that the level of protection provided by the previously defined Level I classification did not offer sufficient protection for modern day law enforcement officers.
• Armor wet conditioning requirements changed: The conditioning prior to ballistic testing has changed from water spray to water submersion. The purpose is to verify the moisture resistance of panel covers and seams due to the fact that armor performance may be degraded if the ballistic material is exposed to moisture.
• Specified projectiles: The manufacturer and model of all test projectiles are now specified to eliminate a potential source of test variability and to help assure inter-laboratory consistency.
• New sample quantities: The number of vest samples was increased significantly due to an increase in ballistic testing. This was done to improve statistical confidence in the results. The new standard tests a total of 12 vests instead of 4 and increased the number of shots from 48 to 144.
• Testing of two armor sizes: Samples of the largest and smallest sizes that a manufacture will produce will be tested to address law enforcement concerns with the ballistic protection of very large and very small armors. Past tests have shown that the size of the armor panel can have an impact its ballistic performance as well as backface signature.
• Increased Edge Performance: In previous standards, performance was tested 3 inches from the edge of the armor. In the revised standard, shot location has been moved to 2 inches to analyze ballistic performance closer to the edges of the vest.
• Shot Pattern: In earlier standards, there was a predefined location in the center of the vest panel for shot placement of three of the six rounds. Current standards allow the three shot group to be placed anywhere in the fair hit area ensuring compliance over an increased area of the armor with multiple hits.
• Conditioning Protocol: A number of samples will be required to undergo an environmental conditioning protocol prior to ballistic testing for the purpose of identifying armor models with inherent design or material weakness. The protocol involves tumbling the armor samples slowly for 10 days while in an environment of 149°F and 80% relative humidity. The protocol does not predict the service life of the armor nor simulate an exact period of time in the field but is intended to provide some indication of armor’s ability to maintain ballistic performance after being exposed to conditions of heat, moisture, and mechanical wear.
• Ongoing Conformity Assessment: During the compliance period, a series of random inspections of armor will be conducted to ensure that continued production meets NIJ standards. During these inspections, random samples of armor will be taken from the production line without advanced notice and will be tested for ballistic performance.
• Compliance Status: The new standard time bounds a product’s compliance status at a period of 5 years. After that time, manufactures must apply again for certification.

Full copies of NIJ Standard 0101.06 may be obtained from the NIJ
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
https://www.justnet.org/justnet.html

Back to Top

“Triangle of Death”

It has been speculated that the street gangs in California are training their members to shoot law enforcement officers at night by aiming for the highly visible patch of white t-shirt exposed above the top of officers’ vests and uniform shirts. Commander Michael Richards of the Mundelein Illinois Police Department decided to test the theory with an experiment.

Commander Richards took six officers from his department deemed as “average” shooters and ran them through a quick 18 round low light course. A 6 ft tall mannequin target wearing a blue uniformed shirt with a white sheet of paper behind it to replicate a white t-shirt was positioned approximately 10 feet from the firing line. The officers were to step to the left or right and draw and fire three rounds as fast as possible. The “t-shirt” was changed for each officer to track the hits.

More than 80% of the rounds shot by all of the officers hit in or immediately around the exposed t-shirt despite the fact the officers used in the experiment are trained to shoot center mass. It is believed that the officers overrode their training and focused their shots on what was most visible. All of the officers in the study confirmed after the end of the exercise that the patch of white had drawn their aim.

Research from the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato has shown that people in stressful situations scan a scene quickly and grasp at little pieces of information. The process is automatic and almost instinctive. People will gravitate to a particular item that has caught their attention such as a body part, piece of clothing, or movement. In a shooting situation, people will shoot at what they can see; this is exacerbated in low light situations. Depending on the amount of time one has to process the situation, it is believed that shooters will shoot at whatever is most noticeable. With more time, a shooter will be able to draw conclusions from what he sees and use that information as a guide. For example, the contrast between an officer’s undershirt and uniform shirt will initially draw the focus of the shooter. With more time, he will be able to identify what he is looking at and use it as references to shoot below it. This concept is not limited to white undershirts, but also includes patches, badges, flashlights, and even skin tone.

Based on his experiment, Commander Richards now urges all of his officers to wear dark undershirts under their uniforms. This seems like a relatively easy uniform change that could have a significant impact on officer safety and in the most unfortunate of circumstances, save a life.

Back to Top

Protective Eyewear

There are multiple hazards Law Enforcement officers face

• Handle firearms and explosives
• Exposure to body fluids/blood borne pathogens
• Automobile accidents and potential for fragmentation
• Other similar threats to eye safety as common occupational hazards.

Dust, low velocity fragments, and high velocity impacts pose significant threats to law enforcement officers on patrol or in training. Almost all ballistic eye injuries can be prevented using polycarbonate shields currently available in select commercial spectacles and goggles.

The majority of police officers wear civilian style fashion/sports sunglasses that can increase injury from secondary fragmentation of lenses that shatter under impact, posing more danger than defense. Wearing eyewear designed for sports or “performance” can result in eye injuries that could have been avoided with tactical eyewear designed for combat.

Recognizing the importance of eye safety, the US Military created a list of approved eyewear that meets standards for ballistic and ultraviolet protection, the Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) Statistics show that the APEL program has helped reduce eye injuries by 40%, a clear indication that eye protection on the battlefield reduces eye injuries.

	30% of the respondents to an ongoing survey to asses the impact and usage of Military Combat Eye Protection responded yes when asked if they had a personal experience where their eye protection saved their eyes from injuries.
Photos courtesy of ESS Inc.

July 3, 2006, Sgt Ross was shot in the face with a 7.62 sniper round in Mosul, Iraq; his Military Spec glasses saved his life

https://peosoldier.army.mil/pmequipment/eyewear.asp

Back to Top

Substantial Burn Risk with Synthetic Fibers:

In recent years, there has been a shift among law enforcement officers to utilize synthetic fiber undershirts for its moisture wicking ability. However, what many do not know is the inherent dangers with wearing such clothing in high heat situations. Studies have shown that there is a substantial burn risk associated with wearing clothing made of synthetic materials such as polyester and nylon. Due to this, in 2006 the US Marine Corps banned the use of synthetic athletic clothing for Marines conducting operations outside of forward operating bases and camps for this exact reason.

When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing synthetic materials like polyester, nylon or acrylic will melt and fuse to the skin, creating horrific disfiguring burns as well as increase the risk of infection. In one example cited on a Department of Defense web site, a Marine was riding in an armored vehicle when it was struck by an improvised explosive device. The explosion caused the soldier’s polyester shirt to melt to his skin even though he was wearing his protective vest. Doctors had to cut the melted undergarment from his torso and noted that his injuries would not have been as severe had he not been wearing a polyester shirt.

The dangers are nothing new to the industry. For years, firefighters and service members at a high risk of flame exposure have been kept from wearing polyester materials because of the burn threat, but now with the increased dangers of IED explosions and additional hazards, others are heeding the warning as well. In fact, the US Fire Administrations Standard, NFPA 1975, requires that all garments worn by firefighters be made of thermally stable materials, those that will not contribute to burn injury from deterioration, melting, shrinking or adherence to the skin. Some examples of the indentified non-compliant materials include polyester, high percent polyester blends and wool.

One prominent manufacturer of synthetic fiber undershirts attaches the following warning to all of its products, “Do not wear it when exposed to extreme radiant heat or open flames; Products are not flame-retardant and may melt in extreme heat that exceeds 350° F.” That may seem like extreme heat but the average heat of a burning candle is approximately 1000° C, six times higher than the product warning. A smoldering cigarette burns 2-3 times hotter than the limit of the materials. In fact, the heat produced by an electrical current shock could be enough to put someone at risk. One Marine’s high performance undershirt started smoking when an electrical current shocked him.

Police officers are not firefighters nor are they at extreme risks of IED attacks but every day an officer reports to duty, they too could face a potential situation that puts them in danger. As shown, it does not take a lot to reach the maximum acceptable temperature of synthetic material garments. Officers need to realize they could be placed in these “high heat” situations while trying to rescue people from burning homes or vehicles or that they themselves are at risk if in an automobile accident. A person does not have to be on fire or in a fire to be at risk. There are several developments being made in the uniform industry today to include moisture wicking garments that are 100% cotton. Cotton fabrics, unlike synthetic fibers, do not put officers at increased risk of injury and may allow for additional time to escape.

Back to Top

Officer Visibility: A Danger That Cannot Be Ignored

Accidental duty deaths have outnumbered felonious duty deaths since 1998, with the exception of 2001. The majority of these deaths are attributed to motor vehicle accidents but a growing number are associated with officers being struck by passing motorists while outside of their vehicles. From 2001 to 2007, seventy five officers were killed by passing motorists. That accounts for roughly 16% of all accidental deaths. Alarmingly, these numbers don’t account for the number of injuries, near misses, or “brush backs.” Because of these staggering statistics, the issue of visibility for law enforcement officers must be addressed.

Visibility is not just a nighttime issue. During daytime hours, drivers are often preoccupied by other distractions and often fail to see what is right in front of them. Studies have shown that pedestrians often overestimate their visibility. They are often not seen by an observer when they think that they are. In addition to this, drivers often overestimate their visual and perceptual abilities. Together, these pitfalls can lead to a disastrous situation.

In the law enforcement community, there are several contributing factors to this epidemic to include uniform color, poor reflective equipment, and failure to use high-visibility apparel. The problems with enhanced visibility are often compounded by the demands of the law enforcement profession. Officers are trained to limit their exposure to threats and often times this translates into limiting their visibility, especially on traffic stops. In addition, the color of an officer’s uniform can contribute to one’s inability to distinguish him/her from the surrounding environment.

Many agencies provide their officers with high visibility equipment, such as a traffic vests, rain gear and traffic wands, and often provide direction and training on using them in situations that involve prolonged exposure to traffic. However, in traffic stop situations the practice may be discouraged due to tactical reasons. In reality, the risk of being struck by a passing motorist is by no means diminished. Federal regulatory bodies require all workers on federal-aid highways to wear high-visibility apparel that meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. However, case law has ruled that due to tactical considerations for law enforcement officers, they are exempt from the mandatory rule and it is at the discretion of the officer.

The first ANSI high-visibility standard was published in 1999. In 2006, a new standard was created, ANSI 207, that specifically addresses traffic vests worn by public safety personnel. Both standards require fluorescent and retro-reflective material to assist with visibility in daylight and low light situations and include requirements for durability and long term effectiveness. However, the law enforcement vest allows for reduced area of visibility components to accommodate officer gun belts, variations in body size and tear away features for quick and easy removal.

There are several things to consider when procuring traffic vests and high visibility equipment. First and foremost, agencies should ensure that all equipment is compliant to the most recent ANSI standards. Being ANSI-compliant enhances the safety and visibility of the officers. Agencies should consider garment color when deciding what meets their needs. The traditional orange and yellow, also known as lime yellow or lime green, are more suitable for darker backgrounds while red is more suitable for lighter backgrounds. Longevity is another consideration for law enforcement agencies. High-visibility garments can lose their effectiveness due to a deterioration of the retro-reflective and fluorescent fabrics over time. Depending on use and wear (exposure to sun, laundering methods, stains or abrasions), the life-expectancy of a high-visibility garment is six months to three years.

The importance of utilizing high-visibility retro-reflective equipment can not be ignored. Agencies should develop polices consistent with federal guidelines requiring officers to wear high-visibility equipment when their duties involve prolonged exposure to traffic. In addition, agencies should become active in the purchasing process for high-visibility equipment by becoming familiar with the current ANSI standards and selecting compliant garments that best protect their officers.

For more information about ANSI and their standards please visit: http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=1374

Back to Top