To describe the law enforcement officer (LEO), encounter, perpetrator and victim characteristics of domestic disturbance-related LEO homicides in the USA from 1996 to 2010.
Narrative text analysis was conducted on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual report 'Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted'. Potential cases were confirmed if the narrative included the term 'domestic disturbance' or a domestic disturbance situation was described.
116 LEOs were killed while responding to domestic disturbance calls. Ninety-five per cent of these homicides were committed with a firearm. Sixty-seven per cent of LEOs were wearing body armour when killed; however, 52% received the fatal wound to the head/neck. Sixty-one per cent of suspects had a criminal history mentioned within the narratives and perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to be killed by LEOs than suspects involved in other forms of domestic violence. Victims of the domestic disturbance were killed in 21% of the IPV-related LEO homicide cases as opposed to only 5% of other domestic disturbance calls. A firearm was the most common weapon used in the murder of a domestic disturbance victim (86%).
This study describes domestic disturbance-related LEO homicides. Future research in this area should further examine the dangers unique to domestic disturbance calls. A longitudinal analysis could provide greater understanding of the injury and mortality risks faced by LEOs, in order to inform homicide prevention among law enforcement.
"While officers had significantly higher motor-vehicle risk perception scores compared to intentional violence risk perception scores, officers still deemed the most hazardous job tasks to be those involving the potential for assault. In fact, literature supports that these calls can be very dangerous for LEOs (Kercher et al., 2013). In our study, nearly 90 percent of officers reported that responding to " other " scenes of violence was " dangerous " or " very dangerous. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose
Motor-vehicle related events (MVEs) are the leading cause of on-duty death for law enforcement officers, yet little is known about how officers view this significant job hazard. This paper explores officers’ motor-vehicle risk perception and examines how prior on-duty MVEs and the death or injury of a fellow officer influences this perception.
A state-wide random sample of 136 law enforcement agencies was drawn using publically accessible databases, stratified on type and size of agency. Sixty agencies agreed to participate and a cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to 1,466 officers. Using 6-point Likert scales, composite scores for motor-vehicle and intentional violence risk perception were derived. A linear regression multivariable model was used to examine factors affecting motor-vehicle risk perception.
Motor-vehicle risk perception scores were significantly higher than intentional violence scores. A prior on-duty motor-vehicle crash, prior roadside incident, or knowledge of fellow officer’s injury or death from a MVE significantly increased motor-vehicle risk perception scores. After controlling for potential confounders though, only prior on-duty crashes and roadside incidents impacted motor-vehicle risk perception.
The study comprised primarily small, rural agencies and generalizability may be limited. Also, although the data were collected anonymously, reporting and response biases may affect these findings.
This study involved a large and diverse cohort of officers and explored motor-vehicle risk perception. A better understanding of officers’ risk perceptions will assist in the development and implementation of occupational injury prevention programs, training, and policy.
Policing An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 08/2015; 38(3). DOI:10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2015-0028 · 0.55 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: An overwhelming body of literature points to a relationship between experiencing adversity during childhood and later violence in adulthood. This study addresses a gap in existing research by testing of the impact of four prior childhood adversities on resistant behaviors toward law enforcement officers. A four-level ordinal dependent variable measuring passive resistance, verbal resistance, police action resistance, and physical resistance was created using data from the nationally representative, 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. A generalized ordinal logistic regression model tested the effects of childhood adversities on resistant behaviors toward law enforcement officers. Physical victimization during childhood and adulthood predicted resistant behaviors toward law enforcement officers above and beyond the effects of prior victimization during only childhood and only adult-hood. This study found a strong association between prior physical victimization, foster care involvement, and resistant behaviors after adjusting for demographic, situational, and criminal background variables.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective:
To understand the circumstances surrounding the occupational homicides of law enforcement officers (LEOs) in the USA.
Narrative text analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted reports.
A total of 796 officers were killed in the line of duty between 1996 and 2010. The occupational homicide rate during the time peaked in 2001 at 3.76/100 000 (excluding those killed during the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks), and was lowest in 2008 at 1.92/100 000. Most LEOs (67%) were killed by short-barrel firearms; 10% were killed with their own service weapon. The most frequent encounter with a suspect prior to a homicide was responding to a disturbance call.
These results should inform officer training and the policies, as well as procedures used when interacting with suspects, especially when firearms are involved.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.