AMI news and media mentions

News

Keep up with Armored Mobility by viewing our recent news. Please visit regularly to see our latest advancements and press coverage.


The effect of body armor on saving officers’ lives

3/18/2019

Research review: The effect of body armor on saving officers’ lives

Evaluation of LEOKA database further confirms the importance of officers wearing body armor

Source: Police One, Mar 11, 2019


By Catherine R. Counts, P1 Contributor

A recent study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene evaluated a decade of entries from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) database to determine the effect of body armor on the survival of gunshot wounds to the torso.

The study period was from 2002-2011; in that time, 1789 assaults were reported to LEOKA. Nearly three in four officers were shot by a firearm, and about half of those officers had a wound to the torso. After excluding instances with missing data, the total dataset used for analysis consisted of 566 cases.

Interestingly, officers in the southern region were five times less likely to be wearing armor when compared to those in the western region.

Interestingly, officers in the southern region were five times less likely to be wearing armor when compared to those in the western region.

Body Armor

The outcome of interest was survival while the use of body armor acted as an additional dependent variable. The authors compared both individual officer-level characteristics as well as incident characteristics.

Of the 566 cases, 4.2 percent were female, 13.1 percent were non-white (mostly African American), 82 percent were line level officers, and the average BMI was 28. Half of the cases occurred in the Southern US, 77 percent occurred during a patrol assignment, and 55 percent of officers were shot by a medium caliber handgun.

A few individual characteristics were statistically significant predictors of body armor use. Namely age was inversely correlated such that with each additional year there was a 10 percent reduction of the likelihood an officer would be wearing body armor at the time of the incident. Likely interrelated with age and type of assignment, managers and commanders were 73 percent less likely to be wearing armor at the time of the incident.

Interestingly, officers in the southern region were five times less likely to be wearing armor when compared to those in the western region.

Non-white officers were twice as likely to be killed regardless of the presence of body armor, a finding that unequivocally warrants further study. Additionally, detectives were more likely to be killed than patrol officers, a potential consequence of their undercover work, or the authors suggest, even a reflection of their more sedentary roles leading to decreased physical fitness and thus the ability to withstand such an injury.

MEMORABLE QUOTES ON USE OF BODY ARMOR BY POLICE

“Body armor has been long recognized by the law enforcement field to play a major role in reducing deaths and injuries from firearm shooting.”

“Over 30 percent of all officers killed in the line of duty between 2010 and 2012 were not wearing body armor.”

“The most significant obstacle to regular use of body armor for police officers is that armor can be bulky, heavy and uncomfortable for regular wearing.”

“Those with higher BMI were less likely to wear armor, with each unit increase in BMI decreasing the likelihood of wearing armor by about 8 percent.”

“Risk factors for not wearing body armor include age, status as a manager or commander, BMI status, region, and type of assignment.”

“Wearing armor quadruples the likelihood of a police officer surviving a shooting to the torso.”

KEY TAKEAWAYS ON USE OF BODY ARMOR BY POLICE

Here are four key takeaways for police administrators on the importance of body armor for officer safety:

1. Body armor saves lives, yet it’s not always worn

Of the incidents included, over a quarter of the officers were not wearing body armor at the time they were shot. Incidents that create the possibility of a gun being present deserve a mandatory requirement of additional protection.

Perhaps controversially, an argument could be made that officers without body armor should delay their response until they are appropriately attired in order to not put themselves or others at additional risk.

2. Consider using the 3-E model for injury prevention

The authors recommend the three Es as an example for how to conceptualize the importance of injury prevention. First, the technology behind body armor must continue to advance such that it can be engineered to be lighter and more comfortable without sacrificing protection. Second, educating officers on the importance of their safety and the officers around them must be paramount. Third, departments must do everything in their power to enforce the expectation that body armor is a requirement rather than a suggestion.

3. Improve the capacity for research about violence against officers

While this study shed light on an important topic, research in this area is relatively limited. The continuous monitoring of violence against police officers must become a stringently studied priority. This will allow the more nuanced information about each incident to better inform our understanding of what makes a difference when an officer’s life is on the line.

4. Case vignettes help tell the story

The authors did a good job using vignettes of officers to show how the numbers worked out in a way that was easy to understand. Here’s one such example about an “average” officer:

“We can assume the victim is a male, white, average-aged (37 years) with average BMI (28 kg/m2), line officer on patrol duty in the Southern United States, who is shot with a medium caliber handgun at a distance greater than 10 feet, after year 2008. If he was not wearing armor the chance of him surviving a shooting to the torso is 0.53, and this increased to 0.83 if he was wearing armor, i.e., the marginal effect of wearing armor on probability of surviving from shooting is [30 percent].”

About the author
Catherine R. Counts is a health services researcher with Seattle Medic One in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine. She received both her PhD and MHA from Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Counts has research interests in domestic healthcare policy, quality, patient safety, organizational theory and culture, and prehospital emergency medicine. She is a member of the National Association of EMS Physicians and AcademyHealth. In her free time she trains Bruno, her USAR canine.

 


New Army Bullets: Bigger, Bolder and Harder Hitting

11/5/2018

Defense specialist Allison Barrie shares information on a new bullet that is bigger, bolder and harder hitting than current rounds. This new generation of bullet will help make U.S. soldiers even more unstoppable by allowing them to shoot farther – with accuracy – than any known military rifle on earth.

The plan is to increase rounds from 5.56 to 6.8 to deliver more stopping power against threats. This enables the Army to more effectively neutralize targets farther way. But as the Army increases their lethality, so will the opposing forces ultimately requiring more advanced body armor for our troops.

 

 


Live Fire Test on the SAPI IIIa

7/9/2017

Armored Mobility live fire test of the SAPI IIIa plate using the P90 with, 5.7 x 28mm 40gr. SS197SR rounds


Discovery Channel coverage on the Armored Mobility Ballistic Material

5/16/2016

See what makes our plates the strongest in the armor protection industry.


Armored Mobility's SAPI-3 Plate Reviewed by Tactical Life

5/15/2013

In today's terror-threatened society, First Responders need as much protection as possible from all manner of firearms, from pistols all the way up to battle rifles. Having a degree of ballistic protection capable of withstanding hand-held and shoulder-fired firearm.

 

AMI

 

Read more

 


Armored Mobility, Inc. SAPI-3 Armor Plate

5/15/2013

The SAPI-3 Plate shot six times at 7 yards.


Armored Mobility Shields used by Swat Team

1/7/2013

Using AMI shields, the Modesto Police Department was called to the Shell Gas Station at 1728 Oakdale Rd. for reports that a man was acting unstable and being extremely violent, destroying items in the store.


Armored Mobility Inc. Rapid Response Carrier and SAPI3 Plate Review

2/4/2012

My agency responded to an active shooter in the workplace last week. Shots were fired. Hundreds of workers, fearing the worst, hid in their offices. There were gunfire injuries to a civilian. Our PD response was swift and decisive. The shooter was arrested.

 

AMI

 

Read more


The Body Armor Story

7/1/2010

So the story starts: Armored Mobility called us and said "we have some really cool Level III plates..."

AMI

Read more


TAC3S Field Test

9/14/2007

The Armored Mobility TAC3S body armor field test.


"Restriction on Possession or Purchase of Body Armor. It is against Federal Law for a person convicted of a violent felony to purchase or possess body armor. In addition, various States also have laws restricting the purchase or possession of body armor by persons convicted of drug crimes, certain felonies, or other crimes of violence. By purchasing body armor from AMI you acknowledge and certify that: (1) you have no felony convictions, (2) you have not been convicted of any other crime that would restrict your ability to purchase or possess body armor under any State or Federal law, (3) you do not intend to use the body armor for any criminal purpose and (4) you are over 18 years old. AMI reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to refuse to sell body armor to any person. Additionally, the sale of body armor to residents of Connecticut is restricted to in-person sales, unless the sale is made to certain law enforcement or military personnel. AMI will only sell to government entities, law enforcement, military, first responders, and other qualified personnel with proper credentials (eg; CCW permit, PI license, Armed Security Guard license, etc...).