It has been speculated that the street gangs in California are training their members to shoot law enforcement officers at night by aiming for the highly visible patch of white t-shirt exposed above the top of officers’ vests and uniform shirts. Commander Michael Richards of the Mundelein Illinois Police Department decided to test the theory with an experiment.

Commander Richards took six officers from his department deemed as “average” shooters and ran them through a quick 18 round low light course. A 6 ft tall mannequin target wearing a blue uniformed shirt with a white sheet of paper behind it to replicate a white t-shirt was positioned approximately 10 feet from the firing line. The officers were to step to the left or right and draw and fire three rounds as fast as possible. The “t-shirt” was changed for each officer to track the hits.

More than 80% of the rounds shot by all of the officers hit in or immediately around the exposed t-shirt despite the fact the officers used in the experiment are trained to shoot center mass. It is believed that the officers overrode their training and focused their shots on what was most visible. All of the officers in the study confirmed after the end of the exercise that the patch of white had drawn their aim.

Research from the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato has shown that people in stressful situations scan a scene quickly and grasp at little pieces of information. The process is automatic and almost instinctive. People will gravitate to a particular item that has caught their attention such as a body part, piece of clothing, or movement. In a shooting situation, people will shoot at what they can see; this is exacerbated in low light situations. Depending on the amount of time one has to process the situation, it is believed that shooters will shoot at whatever is most noticeable. With more time, a shooter will be able to draw conclusions from what he sees and use that information as a guide. For example, the contrast between an officer’s undershirt and uniform shirt will initially draw the focus of the shooter. With more time, he will be able to identify what he is looking at and use it as references to shoot below it. This concept is not limited to white undershirts, but also includes patches, badges, flashlights, and even skin tone.

Based on his experiment, Commander Richards now urges all of his officers to wear dark undershirts under their uniforms. This seems like a relatively easy uniform change that could have a significant impact on officer safety and in the most unfortunate of circumstances, save a life.

Source: International Association of Chiefs of Police, Article, “Triangle of Death”

just curious.....has any officer been shot in this manner?

the article starts out by saying"its been speculated that....."..whose speculation??

I am all for officer safety and do agree that it would be a good move to remove that high visability 'triangle' from one's duty attire.
It just strikes me that if 'California gangs' are 'training' in this manner, why is it an Illinois commander doing the testing? Or are a lot of local depts across the country doing it also?

and why at 10 feet? isnt the usual commonly taught typical gunfight range happens around 21 feet or so?

I admit I do not have access to this police intel directly and not trying to start a pissing contest..., just was wondering about the points I have brought out.

The typical engagement range for a "gunfight" is far less than 21 feet. Normally, I'd say 3-10 feet and most often without any method of engagement other than bullets going downrange. Many officer involved shootings do happen at greater distances but the frequency and distance is so sporadic that the proximity and ratio of close-in engagements skews the numbers a bit.

What Frank posted makes absolute sense to me, knowing what I've seen on the range with how many times poor Izzy gets shot in his AK instead of his noggin.

As to why an officer in Illinois is doing the testing? He has access to the intel many do not and has put theory to practice. Anything I can get to have an edge on surviving and winning, I'll take. This guy makes good on the theory, at least with the limited testing he's done.

My guess is that historically, officer involved shootings didn't record if the officer was wearing a bright tee-shirt beneath his duty blouse or not, thus limiting the data until now.

What I do see missing is a control group, though.

Lastly, my observation of the scenario and testing is that while the patch of white cloth may have drawn their eyes, it should not have drawn their weapon. This tells me that they were probably taking much to long to establish a refined sight picture instead of firing instinctively with a front sight post or even flash slight picture.

Thanks Jody.

In my opinion, if it comes from the Force Science Research Center you can bet your life on it. All they do is study and research combat and stress related psycology and the human response to such stress.

I used to argue the same point at one of my former agencies....to no evail. They were dead set on looking like L.A.P.D. for some reason, and would not even talk about change.

The other depts. I have been associated with made it a dept. policy to wear dark blue or black under shirts....Thank God!

The agency Im about to transfer to is a sheriff's office and therefore do not wear "L.A.P.D." Blue. They wear a uniform very similar to the Marine Corp. dress blues....with a black shirt, (same problem as white under blue), but it is a lax dress code and you can opt for a white shirt...not much better. Some of the senior Deptys are pushing for the "Desert Tan" under armor or similar shirts to combat this problem.

I am all for anything that gives me even a little advantage, but unless you are wearing full body armor...which I havent seen yet, you are a bullet sponge and need to use your most powerful weapon....your brain, and keep on your "A" game and learn to shoot and scoot instead of planting in the weaver and reamaining a stationary target with LOTS of eye candy to shoot at. I support teaching "walk and shoot" at all basic academies and making part of mandatory qualifications. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks OB for putting this up....not enough officers have learned to pay attention to detail, and this has been an issue for a long time and needs more attention given to it....But, I have seen some officers take it to the extreme...like a SWAT commander that wouldnt let hit tac guys have moustaches because he thougt it would draw fire, based on the same theory...could have some merit, but a little extreme IMO...

KLETC covers this in depth. They stress it so much that it accounts for several test questions.

Im not sure if its on the State exam, but...I graduated 8 yrs ago, so there may be a lot covered in the basic program I dont know about. I try to keep up with the new trends and topics and stay current on my "PoliceOne.com" account. Like I said, we tried to convince the Brass years ago to change the uniform policy. I think that little triangle puts you behind in the O.O.D.A. cycle, but admin didnt know about that, or anything from Lt. Col. Grossman either, then, and didnt want to hear about it from a rookie patrolman.

Times, they are a changing.....

How many of you hit high during stress shots? There is your answer.