Lt. Fred Leyland
…nothing but targets. Nine are real fighters, we are lucky to have them, they the battle make. Ah but the one, one is a true warrior and he will bring the others back" ~ Heraclitus

Which type of person are you from the description Heraclitus has provided? Are you one of the 10 who shouldn’t be there or one of the 80 nothing but a target? Or perhaps you one of the 9 who are one of the real fighters who loves the challenge of a good fight and does all he can to influence a match on the street in an effort to prove yourself? If none of these perhaps you are the 1 “true warrior” out of 100, who brings the others back? What makes the difference in the “true warrior” and how is it he brings the others back?
My thoughts are the “true warrior”not only knows how to handle himself physically but he also understands the mental and moral aspects of the conflicts he finds himself in. He knows when to fight and when not too. The true warrior spends time refining all his skills through training and then continually educates himself on what it is he does not know or understand. He seeks to understand conflict and violence in its holistic form as he knows this gives him a great benefit for when the time comes to match wits and if necessary brawn with an adversary. The true warrior is prepared to persuade with all his means and yet ready to fight when the time for talk has ended. The true warriors decision is based on strategy and tactics verses emotion and therein lies the difference between him and the rest!

Article By Ed Mohn

Often in law enforcement we have to adapt to a person or a situation. When doing so, we experience many thoughts and questions that creates friction slowing down our decision making. What tactics should I use? Should I talk or move in and take physical control? Will my moving in escalate the situation or should I continue to spend time talking, building rapport in an effort to deescalate? What will my fellow officers think about my choice? Will my choices put me in jeopardy or will they reduce jeopardy and enhance the outcome I seek? What's the adversary thinking? What is his motive and intent? Is my adversary armed or unarmed? Will the adversary cooperate or fight? I have been trained to do this but I think I should do THAT, but
will THAT be a violation of training protocols or policy and procedure? Hell, should I use my insight and innovate or follow my training and procedures? These are only a few of the questions we may find ourselves seeking the answers too as we accord with our adversary and attempt to orient to the situation.

Armor On or Off
By David Griffith
The statistics on chest shots raise questions of body armor use by the fallen officers. But just because an officer was killed by a shot to the chest does not necessarily mean that he or she was working without a vest. Some officers are killed undercover, in plain clothes, and even off duty. Also, some officers wearing armor are killed by chest shots that overwhelm the armor such as rifle fire.
Unfortunately, the FBI stats do not drill down deep enough into this issue. They merely list whether officers were wearing armor at the time of their murders.
Out of 536 officers feloniously killed from 2000 to 2009, 341 were wearing armor. That's a solid 63 percent, and even 36 officers who were killed out of uniform were wearing armor.

Link to Full