Recently I was reviewing some literature on the terminology used in law enforcement and its implications in court and in the public opinion. Being a Team Leader for the Cover Team of my agency I found particular interest in the terminology we use for the officers on our team who are trained in the use of precision rifles. So here’s the discussion topic – do we call our precision rifle officers “snipers” or “marksmen”.
At first it sounds like a simple play on words, no big deal, right? But a closer look at common dictionary definitions may reveal a strong argument for criminal defense lawyers and civil liability lawyers alike, should the particulars of a precision rifle shot be the focus of a court case.
Here’s what I found for “sniper“:
Dictionary.com defines “sniper” as:
- A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
- One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “sniper” as:
1 : to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy’s forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
On the other hand here are some definitions of “marksmen“:
Webster’s online dictionary defines “marksman” as:
1. Someone skilled in shooting.
Dictionary.com defines “marksman as:
1. a person who is skilled in shooting at a mark; a person who shoots well.
As you can see, there seems to be a clear distinction between a “sniper” and a “marksman”. The “sniper” seems to be someone involved in military operations, and is trained to shoot people from concealed locations. A “marksman” on the other hand is someone skilled in shooting. The first, may take on a more sinister image in the public eye or in the view of a court. The second merely refers to someone skilled in shooting. Obviously, we all know that police precision rifle shooters are going to use cover and concealment to carry out their duties to the fullest and safest means possible. And, we all know that police precision rifle shooters primarily provide intelligence for the overall operation, and thankfully are not called upon to use deadly force on a regular basis. But, when those shooters have to end a threat through precise rifle marksmanship, what is it going to look like in the papers, public opinion, and in the courts? Especially if this completely justified use of deadly force has to be taken out on say a juvenile, an elderly person, or a person with mental illness?
This is where I see a slick attorney coming in and trying to demonize the police action and using our own terminology against us. Can you imagine using the definitions above in court? Can’t you just hear the attorney basically telling the jury that the “sniper” is a trained killer (by definition) and that the police had no intentions of resolving the situation by peaceful means but instead purposefully meant to end the situation by killing the subject – otherwise they would not have deployed “snipers”. And the attorney could conjure up many images of sneak attacks by snipers from military history and movies alike.
On the other hand, by using the term “marksman”, we find a definition that could actually help the police in these situations. These are now not trained killers, but simply specially trained police officers. The images associated with this definition are more along the lines of someone target practicing, or even an Olympic shooter. This may seem like a topic not worth discussing, but in today’s litigious environment we see more and more lawsuits based on conjecture rather than fact. And there are plenty of lawyers out there willing to make a shot in the dark (no pun intended) in trying to take money out of the “deep pockets” of some police department and their government entity.
I’m not saying that I’ve totally weighed in on the side of calling police precision rifle shooters “marksman”, but I think the idea and thoughts behind it merit discussion in the community. What do you think?
Related posts:
Anyone can be a marksman. Anyone can be a precision shot sitting on a range shooting at paper. As a former sniper team leader, being a good marksman is only one of MANY skills required to be a sniper. No matter how good of a marksman an Officer may be, if he or she does not have the necessary skills of getting into position, concealment, observing, reporting, communicating, decision making under stress, remaining calm under stress, precision shooting UNDER STRESS, etc, etc, he or she can not be used as a Sniper. Only a Sniper should be used when lives are in danger. Snipers are skilled at all aspects of the incident, not just being a good shot.
When in court, Police Snipers explain that the purpose of snipers in law enforcement is to save lives. We can even explain the differences between Military snipers and Law Enforcement Snipers. We should never short change ourselves and soften what we do to appeal to the perceptions of the misinformed or misguided. This is one instance where political correctness is not accurate and by changing the title and definition of what we do, we lower our standards of what we expect from our profession.
Sniper you make some excellent points! And I am in total agreement about shooting being only ONE of the MANY skills necessary for police precision rifle shooters to possess to successfully carry out the mission. I have another posting about “real” training instead of “drill” training too. My hope from the discussion was not at all intended to take away from the skills required, but to see if we’re shooting ourselves in the foot with our own terminology. My original post must make you think I’m on the professional standards board or something, but I can assure you that I’m FAR from politically correct. I bet we’d share the same opinions on many issues relating to law enforcement and particularly tactical teams so let me clarify.
The point of my original post was to examine our terminology, not our practice or procedure. Back in the 1960’s the LAPD created what has become the predecessor of the modern police tactical team. They called themselves “SWAT – Special Weapons and Tactics”. But 40 some years later there are many tactical teams that go by a different name. Teams use anything from “SERT – Special Emergency Response Team”, to “TRT – Tactical Response Team”, to “ESU (NYPD) – Emergency Services Unit. So why did those agencies decide to move away from “SWAT”. Maybe it was because some in the police field think their way of doing things are bigger and better than the next guy and they wanted to be different. Or maybe it was because the communities we serve didn’t like the thought of a heavily armed police force sitting in their backyard ready to pound them into submission – land of the free and all. It was the 60’s after all, and the Cold War was hot, along with the very touchy experience our country had with civil rights. So many of us changed our names … but we didn’t take the teams away, and we didn’t stop doing what we were created to do.
Our team is called the ESS – Emergency Services Squad. And that name probably describes our missions more accurately than say “SWAT”. Why is that? Because as time has gone by we’ve added to our mission not taken away. Our team is far better trained and better equipped than it ever has been. Changing our name did not change our mission or dictate how we do business. New training and equipment has sometimes done that but not the name change. But the name change may very well have kept those funds coming from the community (albeit our current economy). Our Bear Cat has the words “Emergency Response Vehicle” on its sides. Why that name? Because our city (an affluent suburb to a major Midwestern city) can swallow that name better than say “Armored Police Vehicle”. And we’ve performed emergency rescues on several occasions with our Bear Cat, including rescuing patrol officers pinned from a hail of gunfire from an EDP with military training. In that particular incident we proved the value and diverse uses of the Bear Cat by “creating an opening for dialogue” when we rammed the vehicle in the garage completely through the back of the house and into the backyard. We know that our Bear Cat is used mostly to transport our Entry Team to search warrant executions and barricaded subject calls, but we don’t have to stick that out in the face of the citizens. The sheep don’t often like to see the teeth of the sheep dogs, so we hide the teeth in a different name.
And I do believe that we have to take into consideration “the perceptions of the misinformed or misguided”. Like it or not, those are often the people who don’t find a way of getting out of jury duty – even at the Federal level! And some of those citizens might just make it to the bench too! Someone once said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. And those are often times the citizens we deal with. And the citizens, like it or not, are our bosses. They, and they alone (through the Constitution and statutes), give us the authority to do what we do. And if they want, they can limit what we do too. That’s the joy, and sometimes heartache, of living in a free society. And I don’t want us to be limited in our mission because some slick attorney, misguided judge, or just plain ignorant juror decides to view our actions (by our own terminology) as darker than they actually are. You might say that we can testify to the differences and that will be sufficient, but will it be? I don’t know, and that’s what has me thinking (haven’t decided yet remember). Some juries and judges favor us, and then sometimes we get old ladies getting paid $1 million for spilt coffee and the U.S. Supreme Court reversing ITSELF by telling us we can’t search vehicles after a lawful arrest out of that vehicle.
I look at this discussion almost like a verbal judo discussion. Nothing in what I’ve brought, thought, or hope to get across is meant to encourage us to change the way we do business or to somehow lower our standards. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. But maybe we can do business better and ward off an attack before it happens. Maybe the old adage, “walk softly, but carry a big stick” could be the sum of the thought for this topic. We can walk softly with the terms we use for the public, to avoid their undue and often misguided scrutiny of our actions, and yet we can still carry a very big stick and accomplish the mission! If that’s PC, but it saves our teams and our abilities to carry out our missions, than I guess I’m O.K. with that. My God, did I just say I’m O.K. with some kind of PC? I’ve gotta go do some Cross Fit to feel better about myself. Great discussion, I hope to hear more!
Oh and by the way – our team still uses “sniper”!