Really just curious based on a family discussion last evening. How common is it for a Police officer to go their whole career without ever discharging their weapon?
Presumably, other than training? I doubt you’d be able to continue a law enforcement career if you refuse to engage in target range practice (and whatever range certifications they’re supposed to have).
At least for target practice, they will have to fire their gun on a regular basis. As for using it in actual duty: I can provide only the anecdotal data point that my mother was a police detective (so, not a patrol officer) for decades and never had to fire it. That’s in Germany, though, where much fewer people are armed with guns than in the US, which I suppose greatly reduces the need for the police to use theirs.
I was chatting with a retired cop working security for an event a few years ago, and he said he was proud of having gone through his entire career without ever firing his gun. I assume he did target practice, he was talking about his interactions with the public.
That was in Massachusetts, in the US. So it happens here, too. But that he was proud of it suggests it’s not super common.
My uncle was a career Orange County CA deputy. He pulled his gun once on duty and as he put it, the perp was smart enough to surrender instead of get shot.
I think that depends a lot on where they live and work. A Chicago police officer is much more likely to use his weapon against a criminal than an officer living Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Here in Cincinnati I knew two officers who served long careers (>30 years) and never pulled their weapon except for target practice. BTW they both are retired with bad hearing problems.
Well, of course they should be using it on the range.
But for actually shooting a perp, that used to be fairly rare, but it is getting more common.
I think this will answer the OP’s question: 27% of them have fired their weapons while on the job (not target practice). So, 73% do not. Pulling a weapon but not firing is a different question I think.
Also, I would assume it is more likely in some areas than others. These are broad numbers.
-
Men are much more likely to shoot than women.
-
Ex-military are more likely to shoot than non-military.
-
White people are more likely to shoot than non-white.
That article is six years old. Doubtless numbers have changed some but I think this is fine for a ballpark idea.
Even in New York City, most cops retire without firing their weapon on the job. From the 2008 Rand Corporation report, Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process. Emphasis added:
Table 2.3 shows the number and type of firearm discharges between 1999 and 2006. With a uniformed force of approximately 37,000 officers, statistically, it is unlikely that an officer will ever discharge his or her weapon during his or her entire career on the police force. During 2006, 156 officers were involved in a firearm-discharge incident. Moreover, fewer than half of these incidents involved an officer shooting at a human being. After eliminating two-sided gunfights, there were 47 incidents in which officers discharged their weapons without being fired on.
I’m calling bullshit on that cite. Their numbers are ridiculous.
Every other study and statistical analysis I have ever read has put the number at below 5%. My gawd. It’s hard enugh to get anyone to apply for LEO positions as it is. If there was a 27% chance of getting into gun play only those who wouldn’t pass the psych test would apply.
If you count military police and state & federal agents there are close to 1 million law enforcement officers in this country. Yet that center only surveyed the odd ball number of 7,917 from only 54 agencies. That smacks of failing to have an adaquate cross section.
Also, their numbers are relying on a survey and not actual case by case data. How bizarre. That is not how something like this is done to determine statistics such as this as the actual numbers are maintained by each agency. There is no control over what is true and what is not like there is when using actual stats.
I’ve been a LEO in a major metropolitan area for over 40 years spread over 2 careers. I have been personally acquainted with thousands of cops over the years. By their numbers I should know close to 500 officers who have discharged their weapons. I can only think of about 20.
Other than training and putting down an injured or dangerous animal very few law enforcement officers ever fire their weapons during their careers. 27%? Absurd! I don’t care what people told them during a survey. That number is just not so.
However:
There seems to be a mistaken belief that many officers go their entire career without even drawing their sidearm. This is bullshit as well.
There are plenty of times an officer would draw his/her weapon in the field and not end up firing it. During high risk traffic stops, while clearing a room/building, while searching a specific area for a potentially dangerous subject, while providing lethal cover to another officer deploying a Taser or bean bag shotgun, and so on.
No. Men are more likely to say they shot than women “% of officers SAYING…”
You two may be thinking different numbers.
As the Pew study showed- First, the fact that an officer has fired their service weapon while on duty should not be interpreted to mean that the officer shot someone. (The question asked: “Other than on a gun range or while training, have you ever discharged your service firearm while on duty, or have you not done this?”) So a warning shot or accidental discharge would count, or as is not uncommon shooting a rabid animal or a suffering animal hit by a car.
But if you look at Measure_for_Measure cite-
With a uniformed force of approximately 37,000 officers, statistically, it is unlikely that an officer will ever discharge his or her weapon during his or her entire career on the police force. During 2006, 156 officers were involved in a firearm-discharge incident. Moreover, fewer than half of these incidents involved an officer shooting at a human being.
See- putting down an animal would count in the Pew study. Note that in the other cite- fewer than half of these incidents involved an officer shooting at a human being.
So, the Pew study only counts what an officer says, and counts any shooting ; “quarter (27%) of all officers say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job” outside of a range or training.
The Pew study does show it is rare, but the other cite shows that about 75 out of 37000 had anything to do with shooting at a human being. Super rare.
And a shooting where the other side is not shooting back- tiny %. (this does count times where the perp draws a gun, but the officers shoots first, and yes, the occasional bad shooting. )
So men are more likely to lie about shooting someone? Or women lie more?
27% does not fall into the definition of rare.
That study is extremely flawed in it’s method and just plain wrong in it’s conclusions.
There are numbers and statistics as to how many officers have fired their weapon in the line of duty. It is not the kind of thing where a survey would be used to determine such numbers when the numbers are actually available. There is no margin of error listed and no method of control to determine how many officers were telling the truth.
FYI shooting animals is actually quite rare and warning shots are a big no-no.
Here in Milwaukee the police daepartment has about 1900 officers. I can assure you that no where near 513 of them have fired their weapons in the line of duty for any reason outside of training. That 27% number is ludicrous.
Then provide a link to those stats.
If my cite is wrong then fine. I’m not married to those numbers. But it is the only citation in this thread so far.
ETA: As an aside, it is weird to say Pew Research methods are flawed. Maybe they are but this is their business…their methodologies are usually pretty solid and on display.
You want I should provide the stats for every law enforcement agency in the U.S.? Be right with you.
The bullshit of that cite isn’t on you, BTW. It’s on them. Their methodology is flawed and odd and their conclusions are misleading.
I imagine this falls in the category of “impressing women in bars who are into men in uniform”?
I recall from newspaper articles years ago that in Canada, if a policeman simply opens his holster and draws his weapon there is a ream of paperwork to be filled out Plus, the likelihood that the person they pull over has a weapon at hand and is planning to use it is FAR lower than in the USA, so pulling a weapon “just in case” is not a thing and there’s an incentive to not pull a gun unless obviously necessary. (Police holsters I’ve seen are with full coverage flaps, not like western holsters).
of course, times have changed everywhee…
The question was flawed, and left lots open to interpretation. Does the mercy shooting of an animal count., etc?
It was provided-
No, the question and methodology was flawed. The poll was clearly done by a non professional LEO, who would limit the questions better.
Generally speaking, Pew is a fine organization that does careful work. The authors of the linked piece are a Pew Senior Editor and an accredited and experienced statistician. Their conclusions are qualitatively consistent with previous work. Other articles show work by other researchers - a demographer and a research analyst.
One part of them also fails certain smell tests. Comprehensive data from NYPD suggests fewer guns being fired in the line of duty. Earlier in 2000, NYPD Commissioner Howard Safir stated, “Well over 95 percent never shoot their weapons here [during their career].”
I’m guessing that Pew knows how to word questions: that’s within the area of their staff’s expertise. I suspect the problem lies with severe and hard to handle self-selection bias. This was their research methodology: police chiefs sent emails to their staff regarding this survey. They ended up with a 13.8% response rate among officers, which they reweighted in an attempt to address bias. What they should have done is have a criminologist review the results.1 At any rate, I’m guessing officers who had fired a weapon during their career were more interested in responding to this voluntary survey of police officers.
They ended with a sample of 7,917. There’s a lot that could be learned from that, but you can’t really trust the conclusions until you’ve convincingly reweighted the sample properly.
1 I just found a link to their full report. The survey was done by the University of Illinois’ National Police Research Platform. The Principle Investigator is a criminologist. It was a team of 6 with two hailing from 2 other universities. Puzzling. I could be mistaken above. Maybe suburban cops shoot a lot of dogs, I dunno.
Not in law enforcement but I have known several people who were cops. One friend told me that drawing his side arm or taking the rifile from the trunk would require a written incident report. Most of the officers would avoid drawing a weapon just to get out of more paperwork. That said, our local police have been involved in several shooting incidents over the years, one right in the police station itself.