To The Editor:
It’s time, once again, to re-evaluate our defensive equipment policy. It appears we will be doing away, for the most part, with our duty leather and the handcuffs, mace, ammo pouches, and baton rings that go along with it, as well as the four-inch barrel duty revolver; this upon the pretense that our profile will thus be lowered to within acceptable standards for law enforcement officers performing duties in NPS areas.
While I am sure the directives being handed down to this effect are rooted in good intentions, I can’t help but think a less than realistic and prudent attitude is reflected.
First of all, I assume the “lower profile” is sought in hope that our park visitors will be less intimidated and not have to encounter a law enforcement image while on vacation, and, rather, will see the traditional ranger in his Smokey Bear attire only. What is it we’re afraid they’ll be intimidated from doing? Might not the opposite attitude be taken … that the average law-abiding citizen might take comfort in seeing that his or her still friendly park rangers have all the expected professional defensive equipment immediately at their disposal to cope with any crime problem that might really ruin a vacation? Why should citizens be required to rely upon more poorly equipped enforcement officers than normal just because they are away from home? Likewise, with crime rates increasing radically in our parks, perhaps it’s time we recognized the value of trying to intimidate potential violators.
Beyond the mere image matter, some realistic, potentially disastrous consequences could easily result from curtailment of immediate access to the full line of defensive equipment and the accompanying reduced profile.
Starting with the service revolver itself, it should first be noted that the .38 special cartridge is only a marginally effective round at its very best. This marginal status is attained only with the use of long barrels (preferably six inches), expansion or semi-wadcutter type bullets and best yet, hot hand loads. The ammunition we currently carry, used in a four-inch barrel, probably yields 50percent or less stopping reliability. Used in a two-inch barrel, velocities and resultant bullet expansion become pathetic, with defense effectiveness reduced even further. With the reduction in reliable bullet expansion, risk of the projectile passing through its intended target is increased and hazards to bystanders are magnified. All of the above statements can easily be supported by opinions expressed in writings by this Nation’s top firearms authorities (Keith, Cooper, Jordan, Williams, Mason, Skelton, etc., etc.), not to mention documentation by numerous police departments.
Even beyond a ballistics and effectiveness standpoint, there are more drawbacks to use of a reduced barrel length.
1) Sight radius is reduced by half, with resultant effective accuracy reduced. Safety suffers.
2) With reduced barrel length comes reduced weapon weight and increased experienced recoil. Effective accuracy tends to be reduced. With increased experienced recoil effect, recovery time from one shot to the next increases.
3) No two-inch barrel .38 special revolver that I am aware of features an ejector rod long enough to facilitate full extraction of the spent shells. Therefore, it frequently is necessary to remove them by hand, one at a time, before re-loading can occur.
Safety objections can also be put forward against the elimination of the duty belt and equipment that goes with it. The bulk of this argument rides upon the belief that an officer just never can tell when the defensive equipment will be needed, whether working in a problem area like Lake Mead NRA or a traditionally sleepy outpost like Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. You can’t predict when you will take a prisoner and will need handcuffs. You can’t know in advance, every time, when you will encounter a fight and need a baton or mace. The park visitors have a right to expect their rangers to be prepared at all times, and not just when they’re responding to an incident with prior knowledge of the situation to be encountered. What if a fight breaks out in the lounge while rangers are eating lunch in the adjacent cafe? Are they supposed to tell persons involved to “wait” while they run to their patrol car to get their equipment? There usually is no backup. Is it better to remain on the scene with only the two-inch weapons and their very friendly image and further risk unnecessary injury to themselves and the public because, let us say, the weapons had to be drawn where the baton or mace might have sufficed to subdue an assailant with a broken bottle or glass in hand? Incidents like this happen all the time in our parks, to lesser and greater extents. The possibilities for variations on this theme are nerve wracking.
Another argument that can be presented might be viewed as defensive for NPS administration, itself. Should not this organization’s management protect itself and the taxpayers from lawsuits possibly arising out of an injury or death sustained by a ranger in the course of duty, where it can be shown in a court of law that injury could have been avoided had more ready access to defensive equipment been permitted?
It seems to me that it’s time the Park Service went all out to professionalize its enforcement program. The other alternative, of course, is to leave enforcement in our parks, to a larger degree, up to the local authorities. I’m certain we would all prefer to see our own people, under our own control, patrolling our vacation areas. Let’s let them do so with the very best equipment available at all times.
Paul D. Berkowitz
Park Technician
Grand Teton NP, Wyo.