COVER STORY: BLUE-ON-BLUE : The Not So Friendly, Friendly Fire

Blue-On-Blue: The Not So Friendly, Friendly Fire
By : Joseph R. Uliano, Ed.D.

An acceptable loss is in most cases an undefined number of deaths inflicted by enemy combatants, as a military formation advances to meet a specific objective while tolerating the loss, with the anticipation of a successful mission. 

However, beneath the overtness of an acceptable loss is the reality that lives will also be lost at the hands of their own. Accidental loss, inadvertent loss, or the most commonly referred “Friendly Fire,” are coined phrases utilized to make these unthinkable acts sound more acceptable. In an eerie coincidence that can be related to law enforcement friendly fire, the military boots on the ground refer to friendly fire as “Blue-On-Blue.” Historically, blue represents friendly forces on the battlefield, whereas red is used to identify enemy forces. A phrase that has a greater significance to law enforcement, because when holding the “Blue Line,” often under the most extreme conditions, the notion of “Blue-On-Blue” is unfathomable. Unlike a military campaign, an acceptable loss does not exist in law enforcement and if were to exist in the minds of some, friendly fire would not be included. 

Every leader under fire is aware of the reality associated with friendly fire, but they do their best to suppress it, as to not breach the morale of their troops as they advance into harm’s way. 

When applying the words “accidental” or “inadvertent,” the implication is that mistakes have been made. Mistakes that can be blamed on modern technological warfare or even human error. As unpleasant as it is, blaming friendly fire on flawed technology, such as a failed GPS when deploying an airstrike behind what was believed to be enemy lines comes up a mile or so short killing “friendly” forces, is an acceptable risk, because we know technology is never foolproof. However, blaming human error on friendly fire in most cases is an unfair statement to make when resulting from a hostile and combative situation. Don’t misconstrue the sentiments here, because accidents do happen during training exercises within the military and law enforcement communities, and unfortunately, negligence is often proven as many of these deaths are deemed preventable. The point being made here and a separating variable between military and civilian law enforcement friendly fire is the placement of blame. 

In times of war, friendly fire is not as identifiable as it is in the civilian world and when it is identified it is truly viewed as an “acceptable loss” often lacking media attention and political insight that prolongs the pain and suffering from not only the families of the fallen, but also the pain and suffering of the individual(s) that actually pulled the trigger or dropped the bomb. 

Out on the streets, the media jumps all over stories involving law enforcement and friendly fire, almost as if they are seeking to prove what they perceive as a level of incompetency, shifting blame away from the assailant and onto the responding law enforcement officers. Make no mistake about it, when an officer is killed in the line of duty resulting from a combative situation the blame should always be placed on the assailant, even when friendly fire is proven. A concept that sometimes lacks emphasis when a politician stands in front of a podium and announces the unthinkable, perhaps for a political agenda that creates the illusion that our streets are safer than they appear, because “human error” took the life of a police officer and not a member of the criminal element.

Moving forward, it would be an injustice to interject any further politics into this, as most readers understand the agenda mentioned here. What needs to be focused on is how we care for the families of the fallen, the officer(s) that pulled the trigger, and how we can work to prevent future acts of friendly fire. I believe every member of service gets brought to their knees for a few moments when the announcement comes that a brother or sister was killed by friendly fire. For a moment time seems to freeze, as we first feel sorrow the fallen officer and their family, and what often follows is the sorrow for the involved officer(s), as we place ourselves in their boots knowing that it could have been anyone of us pulling that trigger or even on the receiving end for that matter.

Today, law enforcement is plagued by post-traumatic stress disorder, leaving many of our brothers and sisters struggling with the sights, sounds, and smells of an unthinkable act, an act that the human mind was not meant to observe or be part of. I previously mentioned placing yourself in the boots of an officer who acted in good faith responding to volatile incident. One that is responding with one goal in mind; rescuing a brother or sister who is in the fight of their life, as the words “Send Me, I Will Go” are played over and over until they arrive at the footsteps of hell, a fire fight if you will. Then in the blink of an eye, seconds, a trigger is pulled in good faith and the intended target is missed. Quickly, the unfathomable becomes a reality and our responding heroes realize that they unfortunately took the life of one of their own. 

 In law enforcement the term co-worker is replaced with “brother or sister,” and it’s not a job, it’s a family. Taking the life of an officer, a family member, when you believed you were there to give life back, is irreparable and I don’t know how anyone could ever live with that. This requires an explanation from someone with a higher pay grade than my own, so I won’t even begin to try and explain it, perhaps only God knows this answer, but what I do know is that we are our brothers keepers and when the unfathomable occurs we must embrace not only the family of the fallen but also the involved officer(s) who were acting in good faith as they will need us too; forever. 

In the New York City Police Department, friendly fire can be traced as far back to 1905, a year that took the life of Officer Ira B. Kinne at the hands of Officer John Clare during a training exercise at the Ninth Regiment Armory. As previously mentioned, we know that these unfortunate deaths sometimes do occur during training, and as grim as they are, we later use them as learning experiences for the betterment and safety of law enforcement. In the case of Clare, the investigation suggested that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident and violated departmental rules by entering the training area with a loaded revolver, thus taking the life of Kinne, during a preventable and negligent act. That was 1905 and today we don’t hear of officers showing up to training exercises while impaired, handling firearms and negligently injuring their own. However, what can be related to the 1905 incident is that officers, more so recruits, are sometimes observed entering a training exercise with a loaded weapon when advised not to, but are quickly corrected without incident, which brings us to training and how there is a need to work to prevent friendly fire within the law enforcement profession. 

The New York City Police Department is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States, the size of a small army. Their officers courageously work in some of the most violent and toughest areas known to law enforcement, putting them at a greater risk of injury and unfortunately death, but law enforcement friendly fire is still not and should not be considered an acceptable loss as seen in the military. However, law enforcement cannot elude the substantial risk of “Blue-On-Blue” incidents, specifically because we live volatile society, and in some cases our law enforcement officers are patrolling areas that can be likened to warzones, in fact some of these areas have taken more lives of law enforcement officers than soldiers on foreign lands. 

Tragically, 2019 has claimed the lives of Detective Brian Simonsen and Officer Brian Mulken both of the NYPD just seven months apart from each other as a result of friendly fire, while they heroically fought to make their communities safer by taking on the evil that lurks among the good. In a response to Officer’s Mulken’s untimely and tragic death, the NYPD announced that they would increase the training for plain clothes officers by subjecting them to live fire exercises and training simulators. 

Increased training is a step in the right direction and should always be available to law enforcement officers, but it needs to encompass one’s frame of mind and not be exclusive to physical and practical training as seen in well-orchestrated and “safe” live fire exercises or in front of a simulator. One frame of mind that is in question during friendly fire incidents is how one reacts to the sight of a gun or the sound of gunshots during a violent encounter. I have spoken to SWAT team members and military special operators over the years and many of them agree that nobody knows how they will react under fire until they are confronted by it. They of course also agree that training is key when developing the warrior mindset, but then again, these highly trained operators, have a greater opportunity to receive the proper training than those assigned to patrol or in a plain clothes unit, specifically because training is part of their routine duties. 

In the academy, recruits are taught to be hypervigilant to the words “Gun, Gun, Gun” when on motor vehicle stops or dealing with a street encounter, but then a few years later, they are faced with reacting to the silent killer; complacency, narrowing their hypervigilance and reducing it to a reaction without thought, relying on muscle memory, point and shoot. For those of us out there instructing firearms, we teach the recruits to scan for threats and they do a fine job completing this critical task. Yet, when it’s time to requalify some of the veterans, instructors are heard yelling “scan, scan, scan” before holstering. How about coming up on target and aiming for center mass before pulling trigger? The recruits do a fine job completing this task as well by the time they are ready to qualify, but with some of the veterans, we see point and shoot, thankfully in those cases it’s a “Q” target and not a friendly. 

Taking a more preventable approach to reducing friendly fire is in fact training, I think we can all agree on that, but are we training enough to rid our minds of complacency? Are we doing enough to assist in developing the warrior mindset during shoot don’t shoot scenarios? Some believe the warrior mindset cannot be taught, citing, “Either you have it, or you don’t.” With twenty years of service, I won’t completely disagree with that notion, as I have witnessed the difference between “flight or fight,” and sometimes its surprising to see who rises to the occasion and who does not. What I won’t agree with is that we should accept “Either you have it, or you don’t,” as unprepared, perhaps even untrained officers hold the responsibility to recognize areas that need improvement, specifically the handling of firearms, as the majority of officers, as seen in New Jersey only shoot 100 rounds bi-annually in order to carry their service weapon. Where are the tactics? How can the warrior mindset be developed through firing 100 rounds at a stationary target? I think anyone qualifying under these conditions knows the answers. They are non-existent. So, I ask, who will step up to the plate and train to prevent further acts of friendly fire? I don’t necessarily mean departmental training either. I think many of you reading this know how unavailable training of this nature is to all of you. I’m talking about training on your own if it’s not provided to you or if you continuously walk away from training lacking confidence; the kind of confidence that you know will keep you in the fight, while making sound decisions. If your agency is not providing it, look for it, there are plenty of courses being offered. Now, this might cost you a few bucks out of your pocket, but how can you place a value on the life of your partner or even yourself? 

When tragedies of this nature strike everyone pays a price. The deceased is gone, and their family is forever without the in-person and up-close love and support of their dearly departed. The officer(s) who fired the fatal shot(s) must live with the trauma and aftermath of knowing that a life was taken of a fellow brother or sister by their own hands. These are happenings of consequence which impact lives forever, so we must work harder to prevent them. We must find ways through constant assessment and training to limit, if not eliminate, “friendly fire.”

In the meantime, when all is said and done and critical incident reviews have been completed, in our hearts, we should find forgiveness and healing through togetherness. Afterall, we are all in this life or death battle together. No life greater than the other. 

Let us not forget the sacrifices that Detective Brian Simonsen and Officer Brian Mulken made for their communities while out on their beat and may they teach the warrior mindset from up above, as they forever look down upon their brothers and sisters in BLUE…