This letter went out on Friday to SureFire customers as well as the press. It is a direct rebuttal to an article published by the Force Science Institute in their Force Science News declaring that grip-activated pistol-light switches are unsafe. Due to the length of the letter we ask you to
Dear SureFire Customers and Supporters:
Recently an article appeared in an email newsletter distributed by the Force Science News of the Force Science Institute, quoting its own Dr. Lewinski. The article and Dr. Lewinski make several troubling assertions that must be rebutted in the (long-term) interest of officer safety. The gist of the article and Lewinski is that grip-activated pistol-light switches are unsafe. I paraphrase (to clarify), quote, and respond to some of the more disturbing assertions below.
1) You cannot train officers to keep their finger off the trigger under stress. According to the article, “…despite training to the contrary, officers in high-stress situations tend to move the finger onto the trigger…â€
Response: If true, this has nothing to do with grip-switches, but it would support a ban on the use of firearms in general. But obviously, it is not true; officers can be trained to keep their fingers off the trigger in high-stress situations. If the fact were otherwise there would be thousands of unintended discharges each day.
2) The device is unsafe. The article states, “At least twice in recent months the device has been associated with shootings in which officers reportedly said they thought they were turning on the flashlight…â€
Response: In 1986 SureFire introduced the first light designed specifically for mounting on handguns. This light (equipped with remote switching) was quickly adopted by SWAT teams, including LAPD’s D-Platoon. In 2004 SureFire introduced the current X-Series WeaponLights, intended primarily for attachment to handguns. There are well over 100,000 SureFire X-Series lights and tens of thousands of optional grip-activated “DG†and “SL†switches in use today, and our competitors have sold hundreds of thousands of other pistol-mountable lights themselves. During this 24-year period the only reported safety-related incidents involving such lights are the two incidents mentioned above. These figures alone prove that SureFire WeaponLights, and weapon-mounted lights in general, are safe.
3) According to the article, Lewinski asserts that, “…an officer pressing his middle finger against the flashlight switch pad will produce a sympathetic reaction in the index finger.
If that finger happens to be inside the trigger guard and on the pistol’s trigger, the reaction may be forceful enough to cause an unintentional discharge.â€
Response: Sympathetic Response is a real phenomenon, but it’s not the boogeyman and it can be addressed with training. Think about it: our trigger finger doesn’t magically pull the trigger when we use our thumb to manipulate the safety or the magazine release. Nor does the trigger finger unconsciously jump into action when we use our opposite hand to activate our radio, handheld flashlight, or pepper spray. The answer to Sympathetic Response is training and adherence to Rule #2 of The Four Basic Rules of Firearms Safety: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire.
And please note, if an officer experiences Sympathetic Response while his or her finger is on the trigger when it shouldn’t be there, it would not matter which light switch the officer is using, or whether the officer has a weapon-mounted light at all. The point is, the officer’s finger is on the trigger when it shouldn’t be there.
4) The article quotes Lewinski as saying, “When you think you’re doing one thing but are actually doing another, the result often is directly opposite of what you intended.â€
Response: I believe he is referring to the phenomenon of reverting (under stress) from an intended action (activating the grip switch) to another action (pulling the trigger).
Let’s borrow Lewinski’s own analogy of drivers stepping on the gas pedal when they meant to step on the brake pedal. Can this happen? Of course, it’s called a mistake. Does every driver do it? No, in fact, most do not. Do trained drivers—such as highway patrolmen, or professional racecar drivers—make this mistake? No, not in any number that is statistically significant. Again, the issue here is training. You cannot make officers safer by taking away their equipment—you must provide them with adequate training.
Dr. Lewinski lists research as one of the services he provides. Yet—with the newsletter in question—he has published what most would assume to be a professional opinion—based on just two isolated incidents (out of 24 years of safe use) that he read about in news reports, incidents that are still under investigation and that he is not privy to at this time. While he may have conducted legitimate research regarding human dynamics during deadly force encounters, he does not appear to have done any research particular to SureFire products or the use of weapon-mounted lights. For that reason alone I find the article to be unprofessional and certainly not qualified to stand as an expert opinion.
I assume Lewinski is acting out of a real concern for officer safety—and not to generate future engagements as an expert witness. But I fear the article may actually have the opposite effect by frightening some administrations into depriving their officers of crucial safety tools. Regardless, Lewinski’s opinion is just that.
The greater issue is whether officers are provided adequate training to ensure they can safely use the tools they have. To address that issue I have attached a separate document, unconcerned with Dr. Lewinski’s opinions, entitled, Officer Training for Low-Light Conditions: A Matter of Life and Death.
It should be noted that Force Science News is a communications vehicle for the Force Science Research Center, of which Lewinski is the executive director. Quoting yourself in your own publication and referencing your own studies is questionable at best. And finally, the article ends with this statement: “Lawsuits have been filed in both shootings.†For clarification, SureFire has not been named in those lawsuits.
Respectfully,
Derek McDonald
Vice President of Marketing, SureFire
Relevant experience includes but is not limited to:
U.S. Navy Gunners Mate “A†and “C†schools
U.S. Navy Small Arms Instructor / Range Master
P.O.S.T. certified instructor of Officer Survival in Low-Light Conditions
SureFire Institute founding instructor cadre member
NRA Law Enforcement Tactical Handgun Instructor
Simunition Scenario & Safety Instructor
Hundreds of hours providing training to, and conducting informal interviews of, law enforcement officers with regard to lethal-force encounters, specifically as it relates to the use of low-light tactics and lighting tools
SureFire also provided us with this document:
Officer Training for Low-Light Conditions:
A Matter of Life and Death
According to recent news reports, on October 15, 2010 a narcotics officer in Texas shot and killed an unarmed suspected drug dealer as the officer moved in to arrest him; and on January 25, 2011 a police officer in New York shot and wounded an allegedly unarmed man while serving a warrant. As reported, each officer said he was trying to operate his pistol-mounted light when the weapon discharged.
We at SureFire are deeply saddened by these tragic events. Ensuring the safety, success, and survival of our warfighters and peacekeepers has always been the key element in SureFire’s corporate mission.
The Texas and New York shootings reportedly involved pistol-mounted lights manufactured by SureFire. Although both shootings remain under investigation, we are confident these investigations will conclude that SureFire lights are safe and effective. According to news reports, a police spokesman for the Texas department said the department does not believe there is a problem with the flashlight in question or the way it is activated.
We take this opportunity to review the crucial benefits that weapon-mounted lights provide to police officers and the citizens they protect, and to emphasize the need for proper officer training in both the use of these lifesaving tools and in low-light tactics in general.
__________________________
In 1986 SureFire introduced the first light designed specifically for mounting on handguns. This light was quickly adopted by SWAT teams, including LAPD’s D-Platoon. In 2004 SureFire introduced the current X-Series WeaponLights, intended primarily for attachment to handguns. There are well over 100,000 SureFire X-Series lights and tens of thousands of optional grip-activated “DG†and “SL†switches in use today, and our competitors have sold hundreds of thousands of other pistol-mountable lights themselves. During this 24-year period the only reported safety-related incidents involving such lights are the two incidents mentioned above. These figures alone prove that SureFire WeaponLights, and weapon-mounted lights in general, are safe.
We strongly believe that any department that does not permit its officers to use a weapon-mounted light increases the risk of wrongful shootings due to suspect or weapon misidentification, and the risk to its officers of serious injury or death due to the lack of illumination control in critical situations.
According to the NYPD (1996 SOP-9), as many as 77% of police shootings occur under some degree of diminished light. Yet most departments continue to dedicate a small percentage of firearms and tactics training to realistic low-light conditions. In an analysis conducted by Tom Aveni of the Police Policy Studies Council (www.theppsc.org), over a 13-year span the Baltimore County PD (which Mr. Aveni regards as one of the best trained in the country) achieved an average hit ratio of 64% in daylight shootings. In shootings that occurred in low-light conditions the average hit ratio dropped to 45%—a decline of 30%. Mr. Aveni determined that as much as 18% to 33% of law enforcement shootings are of the “mistake-in-fact†variety, i.e., when a suspect displays an item that is mistakenly believed to be a deadly weapon or engages in furtive behavior that is mistakenly perceived to be threatening. As many as 75% of the “mistake-of-fact†shootings examined by Mr. Aveni occurred at a time of day “we’d generally associate with reduced light conditions.â€
In a New York Post article about the NYPD shooting mentioned above, a person identified as a firearms expert was quoted as stating, “When you put a flashlight on a weapon system, there are numerous things that you have to manipulate, and under stress, things are more difficult…†While we agree that under stress things are more difficult, by eliminating the need to hold, point, and activate a handheld light, a weapon-mounted light actually reduces the complexity of illuminating a threat as soon as lethal force is deemed potentially necessary. It’s worth noting that the same purported firearms expert testified as an expert witness in connection with the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting. In that case, four NYPD officers shot and killed an unarmed suspect in low-light conditions. As reported, the officers were operating under the belief that Diallo, who appeared to match the description of a serial rapist and initially ran away from the officers, was brandishing a weapon, which later proved to be his wallet. It is very likely that this tragedy, and the resulting $3,000,000 settlement, could have been avoided if the officers had been equipped with weapon-mounted lights and adequate low-light training.
Every experienced law enforcement officer we know would agree that, in use-of-force situations that occur in diminished-light conditions, supplemental lighting is necessary for sound decision-making and effective action. Adequate illumination is required both before the decision to pull the trigger is made, and as the officer is firing. These officers also would agree that a proper two-handed grip is required for optimal accuracy. While flashlight/handgun-shooting techniques can be effective, they do not allow the full two-handed grip and the degree of stability afforded by a pistol-mounted light.
Consider the rapidly evolving nature of threat situations: Time does not always permit the use of a handheld light; an officer may need to draw his or her weapon immediately. In such time-critical situations, an officer equipped with a pistol-mounted light has an instant source of illumination in hand, which can be crucial to proper decision-making and, indeed, to survival. Both handheld and weapon-mounted lights are important safety tools. Handheld lights may be preferable in circumstances when the threat of a lethal-force encounter is low, but they are not optimal in lethal-force situations. Should an officer equipped only with a handheld flashlight have cause to present and/or discharge his or her weapon, they must either use a one-handed grip with a consequent decrease in accuracy, or hold the flashlight and weapon together in a less than optimal grip. Activating a pistol-mounted light is much more mechanically efficient and, consequently, is much quicker and easier to use than a handheld flashlight and has the added benefit of improved accuracy under stress.
Every piece of equipment issued to an officer requires training to be used effectively. Flashlights and weapon-mounted lights are no exception. The Four Basic Rules of Firearms Safety are taught to every academy cadet and posted within virtually all police and civilian shooting ranges. While each of these rules are equally important, two of them are particularly pertinent to the use of weapon-mounted lights:
Rule #2: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire.
Rule #3: Never point your weapon at anything you are not willing to injure or destroy.
These rules must be fully ingrained in law enforcement officers by means of proper training of sufficient quality and frequency.
Proper training is required not only to enhance officer safety and to avoid accidental shootings, but also to protect departments and municipalities against financial liability. The courts can and will hold a municipality liable for failure to adequately train its police force. See, e.g., City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989); Zuchel v. Denver, 997 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1993). And law enforcement agencies must conduct firearms training that is realistic, and that reflects the environment the officers are likely to encounter. See, e.g., Popow v. City of Margate, 476 F.Supp. 1237 (Dist. N.J. 1979). Unfortunately, many police agencies still have not developed such training. The failure to have appropriate and realistic “decisional†training with respect to the use of deadly force is a risk that agencies cannot afford to take.
We believe that weapon-mounted lights are crucial safety-enhancing tools for law enforcement officers, and that departments and municipalities must provide training adequate to the task. Too often officers are placed under extreme duress in complex, rapidly evolving, life-or-death situations without the necessary equipment and/or training. To that end, SureFire is developing and will release free of charge to any U.S. law enforcement agency a comprehensive multi-media training course curriculum entitled Low-Light Safety & Survival: Tools, Tactics, and Techniques. These materials will provide departments with a training format based on 15 years of testing and teaching low-light tactics and Officer Survival at the SureFire Institute.
In closing, we offer these reminders for the safe use of weapons used in conjunction with weapon-mounted lights or any other piece of equipment:
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire.
Never point your weapon at anything you are not willing to injure or destroy.
Tags: Surefire
Interesting point made by both sides I think. I know surefire is a trusted name, and have developed many cutting edge concepts for lighting. I worry that gear fanboys might rush to dismissing the issue out of brand loyalty and not see it is an important training issue. I think one of the glaring issues in cop tactical culture is the issue of “purchased skills”. Marketing, glossy catalogues, and half baked “training articles” in gun guru magazines seem to create a feeling if you buy this high speed device, you will win the gunfight. I see to often, fumbling during night quals, because sufficient repititions never occurred with a new light device. People skip to high Priced optics before achieving fundamentals with iron sights is another example of this underlying issue. Lewinsky has written other articles with a narrow point of but I attribute this to being the limited perspective of an academic and not someone doing the job that he studies from a distance. I feel his work has always been intended to help our profession and I think
Achieved that in this case
There’s an axiom which states that amateurs practice till they get it right, and professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.
Dr. Lewinsky’s findings indicate an extreme level of ignorance, or, being generous, a very small sample size. He states that you cannot train officers to keep their fingers off their triggers under stress. One need only look to the Army and Marines to find ample evidence that that is simply untrue. If an individual cannot be trained to such a lofty height, then that individual has absolutely no business carrying a weapon for a living, or in public.
The difference is in training. Police officers have right at about zero business performing paramilitary style raids in the first place, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish. Departments need to have a zero tolerance policy for anything “tacticool” added to a service weapon, unless it’s something they’ve issued to the officer and have ensured that the officer has adequately trained with. All the gear in the catalog doesn’t compensate for a lack of sense, skill, or training.
Soldiers and Marines use this type of equipment as a matter of routine, and seem to be able to perform higher-level functions like remaining aware of which of their fingers is for shooty and which are for blinky with a high degree of reliability. If they’re doing it, what is it about cops that Dr. Lewinsky finds so lacking?
This is another glaring example of “Adopting diminished capabilities to appease training and leadership deficiencies”. The key point here is that a weapon light is an advanced capability that when trained in its proper use, increases the users survivability, and in this case, sometimes the guilty party’s also. The LE community is rife with this. I believe a weapon light is a MUST for those in uniform. However, just like any other piece of kit, you MUST train with it. In some situations, an ND with a weapon light is just as disastrous as an ND with a firearm. How do you avoid this? Training. But that would require time. To me, it appears that these officers took the easy way out instead of accepting the responsibility for their actions; they chose to blame it on the equipment. Remember the NYPD Glock shooting? 180 rounds expended at a suspect and blamed it on the pistol. This is just another way for municipalities to disregard their failure and place it on a company; just like McDonalds makes people fat.
Train to minimum standards and you get minimum results. Sounds like a failure of those specific LEO agencies training plan or academies mixed with a little ‘not my fault,man’.
Blame equipment for your failure, rather than admit you need more training or have not assimilated the required training. Not just dangerous for you…imagine their poor partners. It actually shows a lack of maturity and self-awareness within the participants of the study group.
A poor man blames his tools.
I attended one of Dr. Lewinski’s seminars through the “Force Science Research Center”, and he has always been an advocate for Law Enforcement with his research on critical incidents and human behavior under stress.
That being said, however misguided his press release may have been I hope that somewhere in there it was intended to defend LE’s actions in the incidents.
The problem is, and as others have noted, poor decision making as a result of poor training is indefensible.
I have yet to investigate a single Officer involved AD that wasn’t the result of poor training, poor proficiency, or the placement of an officer in a unit that set them up for failure from the beginning.
To blame it on a component or a mod to a weapon is a cop-out.
I do however take issue with “Huggybear’s” statement that LE has no business performing Para-military raids.
All of the tactics come from the same place, and are taught by the same folks, it’s not rocket science or voodoo. You have to do it to become proficient.
Except it or not, Military and LE are intrinsically connected.
If by “intrinsically connected”, what you actually mean is that cops will continue to seek excuses to play dress-up in .mil costumes and to indulge their inner gear queer (and then later blame the gear for their personal inadequacies) while drawing false comparisons between themselves and certain .mil units, then sure, we’re connected. Connected in the same way that an overzealous chihuahua is connected to someone’s leg. Tell me, do you more often find soldiers and Marines dressing up to play cop, or do you find cops dressing up to play soldier?
I suggest you Google the words “posse comitatus” in order to gain some insight as to how and why the .mil and law enforcement rightly ought to be separate animals, entirely. Further, you may want to have a look at this: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ How is that series of results in any way acceptable?
You don’t skirt the issue of not being able to use the .mil for civil law enforcement by turning cops into kinda-sorta soldiers, or allowing them to turn themselves into such.
You *do* have a point regarding having to do the stuff in order to become proficient, however, and that’s the central issue here, anyway. There are a couple of notable exceptions to this statement, but in general, cops do not train to any sort of reasonable standard when we’re discussing weapons. Indeed, if Dr. Lewinsky is to be believed, they are incapable of telling their own fingers apart, so why should *anyone* be tolerant of the notion that they should be given more responsibility?
The enforcement of civil law is an honorable field of endeavor. A person ought to be proud of being a cop, and ought to take the responsibility of being entrusted to carry arms in public, ostensibly in defense of their fellow citizens, very seriously. A couple of hundred rounds a year in training is no indication of that mentality. SWAT teams (or whatever alphabet derivative) playing dress-up is no indication that they take their jobs or responsibilities seriously. Indeed, it’s an indication that they wish they had made a different career choice, and I find that sad. But hey, in the end it’s only the citizen who pays the price, so who cares, right?
“Huggybearâ€, based on your assumptions you clearly have a “hard on†for law enforcement.
This is demonstrated by your attempts to reduce the reality of what we do to “playing soldierâ€, when a civilian LE goes down in the line of duty it’s no less of a tragedy then when a soldier dies overseas.
Dead is dead whether foreign or domestic.
The body of Law Enforcement IS comprised of members of the Armed Forces, that’s a fact.
As is the fact that many civilian cops serve in the Military.
At the risk of being rhetorical, it’s what you call “Intrinsicâ€, (made up of the same parts).
Based on your opinion these people who are committed to wearing both hats are some how lesser than you because they chose a different path, being Law enforcement.
Be careful when you quote sources to reinforce your opinion, Radley Balko, the author of “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America†also supports and has authored several publications supporting the decriminalization of drugs, and DUI offenses. I suppose that makes sense as well?
You could also benefit from re-reading the history of the Posse Comitatus Act and it origins before you attach it to your battle flag to support you’re opinion.
Since we are talking in “generalities†about the typical officer’s proficiency with firearms I would be remiss to point out that a great deal of the Soldiers and Marines that I personally instructed in survival techniques had limited knowledge of tactics and handgun training.
It’s also important to note that SOCOM represents around 1.3 percent of the military’s total personnel, which is similar to the percentage of police involved in LE special operations.
Meaning very few people in either profession have committed themselves to a higher understanding of tactics and firearms training.
I will concede that the rank and file officers need to become more proficient, but the reality is that budget constraints and political correctness often hinder adequate training.
I get the whole subtle “anti-police sentiment†that we are somehow against the citizens as opposed to being for them.
Unfortunately you’re attitude is typical of the misinformed and/or juvenile mindset.
As you stated, I am proud to serve, as I am a consummate (well trained) professional in my field, but above all else I am a patriot who chooses to embrace both the War fighters and Peacekeepers in American society.
No attempt to reduce anything that civilian LE does to playing soldier was made – those comments were made regarding SWAT et al, which is where the overwhelming majority of the gadgeteers reside, and, in context, where the weaponlight problems stem from. I don’t see many of your average patrol guys rocking attached handgun lights. If that was unclear then I owe an apology.
That a person can be a reservist and an active cop in civilian life is of no consequence – they are different hats, and should be kept so. If you cannot learn to keep them separate, then the fact is just that you’re going to be bad at one or the other. In my time spent between Iraq, Afghanistan, and teaching LEOs back in the states, I’ve picked up on certain trends. One of those trends is for cops of a certain milieu – notably those who have never served in the .mil – to try to overcompensate for lack of expertise by throwing gear at their problems. That’s what brings us into this discussion at all, no? Or, does, “I thought I was turning on my flashlight” actually sound like a valid excuse for an ND to you?
I do tend to bag on rank and file proficiency with a handgun, because unlike the soldiers and Marines you mention above, the handgun is their carry weapon. I don’t necessarily fault the individual officers for that, though, because as you mention at the end of the day, they’re subject to their departments’ budgets. None of those are in danger of keeping up with the DoD’s. SWAT cops are supposed to be a different animal, though, and I grade accordingly. This attitude is neither misinformed nor juvenile, in fact I’ve had my fill of close contact with several tactical teams from all over our country, both as student and instructor. There are certainly some very professional exceptions out there – and I said so last post – but then again for every one of those there are probably three others out there clamoring for the newest .mil uniforms (ACU doesn’t even blend with anything!), weapons, and gadgets.
You *should* be proud to serve, and that’s not limited to law enforcement, or to the military. Service to others is noble in any form, and it’s the glue that holds a society together.
Huggy Bear, first let me thank you for your service, and I would also like to offer an apology, I typically avoid debates when they are driven by opinion, and unfortunately after years of service in either discipline we tend to develop some degree of bias along the way.
That being said I wanted to share a few things;
This is a “cut and paste†from the actual “Force Science News†release;
In Plano, an undercover sergeant fired his .40-cal. pistol during a drug sting last October in a fast-food parking lot. In a written statement, he said, “I never intended to have my finger on the trigger. I was attempting to squeeze the light mechanism [on a SureFire X300] when my weapon fired and the suspect fell to the ground,” mortally wounded.
The New York shooting occurred last January during a drug raid in an apartment building. The first detective through the door of the targeted unit fired his 9mm semi-auto and struck the 76-year-old father of the suspect being hunted, wounding him in the abdomen. A police official was quoted as saying that the gun discharged as the detective “tried to adjust a [SureFire X300] flashlight attached to it.”
The New York incident involved an Officer who was in fact assigned to NYPD’s Emergency Services Unit when the incident occurred. (An interesting side note is that the involved Officer’s father was killed in the line of duty 30 years ago)
The undercover Sergeant in Plano was not a member of the SWAT Team.
I think everyone is in agreement that these incidents were probably the result of a deficiency in training, but to pontificate about a situation that none of us actually witnessed would be “Monday morning quarter backing†which I think we can agree is almost always counter productive.
I also wanted to mention this piece of legislation;
“In 1981, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act, which allows the U.S. military to provide equipment and facilities for civilian police in the war on drugs. As a result, SWAT teams could be armed with military-style, high-tech arms and other equipment to carry out their functions. Moreover, many members of SWAT teams receive their training from military units. The result is that some SWAT teams now resemble paramilitary units more than they represent a division of a civilian police force.â€
With regard to AD’s and their prevalence in the handling of firearms I site this article. (The info is from 2004, but I think it demonstrates that AD’s are a reoccurring problem in both the Military and Law Enforcement communities.)
http://www.stripes.com/news/disturbing-trend-seen-in-negligent-discharges-of-weapons-in-afghanistan-1.22443
I also wanted to point out that in Mr. Radley Balko’s “Research†article “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in Americaâ€, the author’s introduction cited a 2005 case where an individual named Anthony Diotaiuto was killed by SWAT officers during a raid on his apartment.
Diotaiuto was portrayed as a recreational marijuana user who happened to have a Concealed Carry permit and several firearms at his residence.
Balko uses the case as an attempt to support his “opinion†that SWAT raids are unnecessary.
What Balko doesn’t disclose for reasons unknown, is that none of the involved SWAT personnel were ever charged criminally, and were exonerated by their Internal Affairs as well as cleared by a Grand Jury (civilians) for their actions.
The evidence that was presented indicated that Diotaiuto ran from police into a back bedroom closet where he raised a shotgun at 2 SWAT officers who dispatched him.
The inevitable civil law suits followed, (as they always do) and through out the appellate process neither the jurisdiction nor the individual officers were found to be at fault.
My point being that there are plenty of outside forces that wish to demonize our professions with skewed and inaccurate information, “united is always better than divided†in my mind.
I agree that we (Law Enforcement) have our share of squirrels and gear whores, but my experience is that they are a patchwork of military and non –military types, as for over compensation, maybe, but some of the gear actual makes sense for the mission.
Oh, one more jab…I would call someone who is both a cop and a soldier an “Over Achiever”. But that’s just my opinion…