Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Trib reporter learns hard lessons on Chesterton Police firearms simulator

Back To Front Page

 

By KEVIN NEVERS

A second and a half to live and let live, or to take a life in order to save one.

A second and a half to breathe deep and stand down, or to change everything utterly forever.

A second and a half to make a decision which is really less a decision than a reaction, a kind of algorithmic surge of training, street smarts, instinct, and muscle memory.

Put it this way: a police officer at a rapidly deteriorating scene has roughly three beats of an adrenalized heart to determine whether probable cause exists to use lethal force, and then to use it or not.

Stipulate the fact that very few police officers will ever be forced--or feel forced--to fire their service weapon in the line of duty. And yet on any given day, routine traffic stops go south, garden-variety domestic calls escalate, and desperate or aggrieved or unstable men and women put others in harm’s way.

Police officers train constantly to prepare themselves for the unforeseen, but the rigorest session on the firing range will never be able to duplicate--and can only vaguely approximate--the flukes and frenzies of human behavior. For that reason the Town of Chesterton’s insurance underwriter, Bliss McKnight, recently made a firearms training simulator (FATS) available to the CPD, an interactive Shoot/Don’t Shoot digital technology programmed with scores of scenarios requiring officers to judge the imminence of a specific threat and respond accordingly.

All of the CPD’s officers were run through the FATS, as were Town Council Member Emerson DeLaney, R-5th, and--at Police Chief Dave Cincoski’s invitation--a Chesterton Tribune reporter, the latter of whom learned a bitter lesson about the burden of police work.

FATS

The FATS works this way: video scenarios, screened against a wall, are controlled by Assistant Police Chief Dave Lohse via laptop; the reporter, armed with a Glock semi-automatic pistol linked to the laptop, is brought into contact with a variety of agitated subjects who may or may not be armed themselves, who may or may not be inclined to force an officer’s hand; every discharge of the reporter’s Glock is recorded and scored for playback, with misses color-coded in green, non-lethal hits in yellow, and lethal ones--chillingly--in red.

The FATS is nothing at all like an arcade game. There’s nothing entertaining or exhilarating about it. From the moment the reporter slams home the Glock’s magazine and racks its slide, he feels a responsibility he doesn’t want and a rush of adrenaline he didn’t expect. He also feels self-conscious and sickly anxious, at least as fearful of taking someone else’s virtual life as he is of losing his own.

Lohse, for his part, preaches the gospel of position: at all times the reporter needs to be aware of the space, of his distance from a subject, of the proximity of civilians, of possible angles of withdrawal, of the available locations of cover. Lohse also instructs the reporter to narrate his own actions as a scenario unfolds, how he makes contact with a subject, what he tells the person, where he moves and why.

Scenario No. 1

In the first scenario, the reporter and his partner exit their squad car to make contact with a suspected drunk driver. From the passenger’s side of the squad, the reporter watches as the driver abruptly backs into his partner, knocking the officer to the ground. The driver then exits his own vehicle and--clearly unarmed, brandishing only his fists--charges the reporter. Shocked by the speed at which events have devolved, shocked too by his own genuine panic, the reporter shoots the subject dead.

Lohse patiently ticks off the reporter’s probable career-ending mistakes: he failed to increase the distance between himself and the subject, failed to assume a more tactical position behind the squad car, failed to blade his body to accept the subject’s attack, and failed to holster his weapon and deploy instead his non-lethal baton or pepper spray. The reporter, in short, simply failed, and a man who should’ve been subdued and arrested in short order is on his way to the morgue.

Scenario No. 2

In the second scenario, the reporter performs a traffic stop on another suspected drunk driver. Standing behind the open door of his squad car, the reporter is surprised as the subject immediately exits the vehicle and--staggering, obviously under the influence of alcohol or drugs--announces that he’s in possession of a handgun. He then announces that he’s going to remove it from his jacket pocket, prompting the reporter to draw his side arm and order the subject to the ground. The subject ignores the instruction or perhaps doesn’t hear it and continues to fumble for the weapon. Suddenly the subject drops into a shooter’s crouch and takes aim at the reporter, who unhesitatingly fires, killing him. Only then does the reporter discover that the addled man was unarmed, that his hands were empty, that no one was ever in peril.

Given the totality of the circumstances, Lohse explains, a subsequent investigation could conceivably find that the reporter had probable cause to use lethal force. Even so, Lohse is tactfully adamant that the reporter not only flat-footed the scenario but was insufficiently attentive to the facts on the ground. His first mistake: failing to increase the distance between himself and the subject by taking a cover position behind the squad car. His second: failing to notice--as a replay of the video only too clearly shows--that the subject was pointing his finger at the reporter, not a handgun.

Scenario No. 3

The third scenario opens in a high-school library, where an irate teenage boy armed with a knife has cornered three other students at a distance of approximately three feet. The reporter, his side arm drawn, feels no threat against himself and informs Lohse that he’s moving forward and sideways, to take the hostages out of his line of fire. Then, from a position behind a low bookcase, he attempts to engage the boy. In response the boy makes a lunging sweep of the knife in the direction of his hostages. No one is hurt and the reporter is satisfied the feint was only a demonstration. In the next instant, however, one of the hostages attempts to flee and the boy promptly stabs him in the belly. Only then does the reporter shoot the boy, reluctantly and--in Lohse’s assessment--belatedly.

For in making the threatening gesture, the boy signaled both his intent and--at such close quarters--his ability to harm his hostages: sufficient probable cause, so far as Lohse is concerned, to have used lethal force. Should the reporter have deployed his Taser instead? Not unless he’d been accompanied by a partner who could have kept the boy covered with his or her side arm, Lohse says. Tasers are extremely valuable non-lethal tools, Lohse says, but they are known to misfire or malfunction and in any case their stopping power is nowhere near certain.

A lesson learned: a police officer’s decision not to shoot can be as disastrous as the one to shoot.

Training

There’s no way around the suspicion that the FATS deliberately stacks the deck against a police officer. But then that’s the point. Sometimes there are no good choices, only hard ones and harder ones. The reporter does succeed in negotiating several other scenarios more successfully. In two cases he persuades knife-wielding subjects to drop their weapon without incident. In another he saves the life of an innocent bystander a moment before she’s stabbed in a back alley by a schizophrenic, but at a high price, by his taking the schizophrenic’s life.

The reporter leaves the CPD chagrined and shaken.

Nor was he the only civilian run through the FATS to come out the other side feeling queasy. “Participants who aren’t trained law enforcement officers were surprised by how quickly seemingly normal or harmless situations can escalate, to the point where both lethal and non-lethal uses of force may become necessary,” Cincoski noted.

For Cincoski, that’s precisely the value of FATS: the real-time interactive simulation of unpredictable threats. “FATS gives officers a unique training experience that can’t be duplicated using regular firearms training at the range,” he said. “It especially helps the department tailor future training sessions to broaden officers’ ability to use the available tools and to enhance their understanding of how to appropriately respond to use-of-force scenarios when seconds matter.”

That’s why Town Manager Bernie Doyle--who has a law enforcement background himself--specifically worked with Bliss McKnight to bring FATS to the CPD. “I knew how effective it would be not only for recurrent training for officers but for Town Council members and the media to see just how little time an officer has to make a judgment call,” he said.

 

 

Posted 9/12/2017

 
 
 
 

 

 

Search This Site:

Custom Search