"Dead Right" Recognizing Traits of Armed Individuals

[mythaeus]

I came across an interesting reading a while ago and re-read it today so I thought I'd share. It's published by the FBI. Here's the excerpt of why they wrote the article.

As most officers know, they are not the only person legally—or illegally—carrying a weapon. What factors can alert them to the presence of another armed individual? What observable behaviors can officers detect when someone carries a concealed firearm? Recognizing their own actions can help officers answer these questions.

The article focuses largely on potential criminals and go over behaviors or carriers during both warm weather and cold weather.

“Dead Right”
Recognizing Traits of Armed Individuals
By ANTHONY J. PINIZZOTTO, Ph.D.,
EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.S., and CHARLES E. MILLER III
2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Full article: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...s/mar06leb.pdf

Al

[streaker69]

One thing they missed, and something that I find myself and I've seen others do is to "billow" their shirt or pull their shirt back down because it feels as though it's ridden up.

I did see an officer speaking about observing that behavior previously, but for me it's a habit that I picked up when I was less concerned about being noticed and now have a difficult time not doing it.

It's interesting that they mostly addressed out of place clothing, and not so much on body language.

[ChamberedRound]

It's interesting that they mostly addressed out of place clothing, and not so much on body language.

Yup, especially since Dr. Pinizzotto is a "clinical forensic psychologist in the Behavorial Science Unit at the FBI Academy". You'd think he'd be more interested in body language, facial expression, and other human behavioral traits than he is clothing.

Written like a true "Ivory Tower" professor who has little to no actual experience on what he writes. Makes you wonder if he's ever carried a firearm before, as I don't know if such instructors at the academy are trained or qualified similar to field agents.

A typical, "everyone who's not a LEO is a suspect" piece, written to train agents to assume guilt rather than innocence, even when many of the people they encounter every day are likely carrying firearms legally and they probably don't even know it.

[mythaeus]

One thing they missed, and something that I find myself and I've seen others do is to "billow" their shirt or pull their shirt back down because it feels as though it's ridden up.

I did see an officer speaking about observing that behavior previously, but for me it's a habit that I picked up when I was less concerned about being noticed and now have a difficult time not doing it.

It's interesting that they mostly addressed out of place clothing, and not so much on body language.

They did mention some behavioral characteristics, including body movement to deal with lose weapon, though not extensively.

Yup, especially since Dr. Pinizzotto is a "clinical forensic psychologist in the Behavorial Science Unit at the FBI Academy". You'd think he'd be more interested in body language, facial expression, and other human behavioral traits than he is clothing.

Written like a true "Ivory Tower" professor who has little to no actual experience on what he writes. Makes you wonder if he's ever carried a firearm before, as I don't know if such instructors at the academy are trained or qualified similar to field agents.

A typical, "everyone who's not a LEO is a suspect" piece, written to train agents to assume guilt rather than innocence, even when many of the people they encounter every day are likely carrying firearms legally and they probably don't even know it.

I would think facial expressions and body language can be a lot more difficult to analyze and especially "read" by field LE agents.

I won't argue guilty vs. innocent merit to profiling. I would very much doubt any LE see the world as "innocent" first when it comes to daily duty. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

I am curious why you think these analyses are not "real world"? Do you think the stuff written in the article are made up or just plain wrong based on some other evident? I don't know the extent to which the author performed actual police duty, but here is his profile: http://cfpassociates.com/ . He seems to be well-established in his field.

AL

[streaker69]

They did mention some behavioral characteristics, including body movement to deal with loose weapon, though not extensively.

Operative word highlighted. I guess they're completely fucked if criminals figure out they should be carrying in a holster.

I would think facial expressions and body language can be a lot more difficult to analyze and especially "read" by field LE agents.

The FBI used to only hire the best of the best, I would say, The Best of the Best of the Best, but those guys to go the Men In Black. So it would seem they're lowering their standards of education based upon the lowering of standards of hiring.

[ChamberedRound]

I am curious why you think these analyses are not "real world"? Do you think the stuff written in the article are made up or just plain wrong based on some other evident? I don't know the extent to which the author performed actual police duty, but here is his profile: http://cfpassociates.com/ . He seems to be well-established in his field.

More a gut feeling than anything else. His resume seems fine, I never said he wasn't established or qualified, nor do I believe the paper to be without merit. But the paper in question reads like much of what I've read from professors. They cite lots of examples and situations, postulate and infer what should or shouldn't be done, but there's an almost "clinical" tone to the paper, as if he's writing about something that others close to him have experienced, but that he hasn't experienced himself. It's akin to the difference between sympathy and empathy.

I could be totally off-base, that was just my first impression in skimming through the paper.

[mythaeus]

Operative word highlighted. I guess they're completely fucked if criminals figure out they should be carrying in a holster.

The analysis used criminals from 3 different studies. None carried in a holster. A lot of what stated overall still apply to holster carry as well.

The FBI used to only hire the best of the best, I would say, The Best of the Best of the Best, but those guys to go the Men In Black. So it would seem they're lowering their standards of education based upon the lowering of standards of hiring.

It's only 1 article and in a bulletin that I don't think is read just by FBI agents.

More a gut feeling than anything else. His resume seems fine, I never said he wasn't established or qualified. But the paper in question reads like much of what I've read from professors. They cite lots of examples and situations, postulate and infer what should or shouldn't be done, but there's an almost "clinical" tone to the paper, as if he's writing about something that others close to him have experienced, but that he hasn't experienced himself. It's akin to the difference between sympathy and empathy.

I could be totally off-base, that was just my first impression in skimming through the paper.

Fair enough. I generally like the clinical tone and examples. No doubt real world examples are important, but individually they are anecdotal until someone with an analytical/academic mind sits down to interview and analyze the various information as a whole.

Al

[vicious]

This is another good article explains how you will most likely get spotted. Be cognizant of these behaviors in your own routine.

http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...cealed-weapon/

[vicious]

Operative word highlighted. I guess they're completely fucked if criminals figure out they should be carrying in a holster

There's a reason criminals don't use holsters...it's because they are criminals and the guns they carry are illegal. If the cops come to your corner you can ditch a gun and pretty easily claim it isn't yours if it is found. That's a much harder case to make if you have an empty holster on you.

[streaker69]

It's only 1 article and in a bulletin that I don't think is read just by FBI agents.

Al

I remember reading a post here I do not recall by whom that a few years ago it was a requirement to have at least a 2 year criminal law degree to become a police officer and that has since been removed by many departments as a requirement. If that is true, they are indeed lowering their standards of hiring. It would then reason they would also lower their standards of training to compensate for what would be the lower intelligent officer coming onto the force.

I'm well aware that a degree doesn't equal intelligence, but someone that can't earn a 2 year degree would probably be better off not being a LEO. Instead of having officers out there that have a firm understanding of the law and the constitution, we have officers that are following orders, and in many cases, making it up as the go along. I'm not saying this is true of all officers.