Page 55 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Fall 2016

cleared of active threats by the initial LE responders and Ballistic vest manufacturers voluntarily meet standards
they remain under the constant protection of armed LE of protection against specific ballistic threats (Table 1)
officers. These principles and recommendations are in as set by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). These
8
concert with current TECC guidelines and consensus manufacturers provide warranties that typically expire
recommendations, and have been endorsed by the medi- after 5 years, leading many LE agencies to have pro-
cal, LE, and firefighting communities. 6,7 grams to decommission or “retire” body armor from ac-
tive police duty after that time. However, ballistic vests
Although these principles are easy to understand and em- do not suddenly lose their protective capabilities after
brace, the practicalities of implementing these approaches this time. To the contrary, although a number of factors,
are still being explored and developed in jurisdictions such as heat, moisture, ultraviolet and visible light, de-
across the country. One of the common concerns raised tergents, friction, stretching, and age, may all contribute
is that of whether it is necessary to provide ballistic pro- to the eventual decrease in effectiveness of body armor,
tection (bulletproof vests and sometimes helmets) to all testing has demonstrated that age alone is a minor con-
medical personnel who would potentially be called upon tributor to degradation compared with other factors. In
to respond to one of these events. Although this may be short, vests that have met the end of their manufactur-
ideal, the cost to deploy such protective equipment in a er’s warranty period have not necessarily met the end of
timely manner is cost prohibitive in many jurisdictions. their useful service life. 8
For example, equipping Forsyth County, North Carolina,
emergency responders with ballistic protective gear has Table 1 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) ballistic protection
9
an estimated cost of $150,000–$180,000 as a recurring ratings (NIJ Standard–0101.04)
cost every 5 years. Furthermore, mandating the purchase Bullet Reference
of ballistic protective equipment can sap critical funds Armor Mass Velocity
that could provide essential medical equipment such as Type Test Bullet (grains) (ft/s)
tourniquets and high-yield training in response to active I .22 caliber LR LRN 40 1,080
shooter events. We would like to offer two potential solu- .380 ACP FMJ RN 95 1,055
tions to this important issue. IIA 9mm FMJ RN 124 1,225

.40 S&W FMJ 180 1,155
Solutions II 9mm FMJ RN 124 1,305
EMS personnel need to enter before the entire scene is .357 Magnum JSP 158 1,430
secured. It is critical to appreciate that the vast major- IIIA* .357 SIG FMJ FN 125 1,470
ity of these events involve a single shooter and are over
in a matter of minutes. As envisioned in the Hartford .44 Magnum SJHP 240 1,430
Consensus recommendations, medical responders will III 7.62 NATO FMJ 147 2,780
proceed only into areas that have already been cleared IV .30 caliber AP 166 2.880
of active threats by LE teams and will be escorted and *Law enforcement agencies in the United States commonly issue level
protected by armed LE officers. This represents a low IIIA soft body armor to patrol officers. ACP, automatic Colt pistol;
degree of risk and ballistic protective gear is not man- AP, armor piercing; FMJ, full metal jacket; FN, flat nose; JSP, jacketed
datory for medical responders in this setting. Medical soft point; LR, long rifle; LRN, lead round nose; RN, round nose;
SJHP, semi-jacketed hollow point; S&W, Smith & Wesson.
rapid-response teams should understand that, similar to
any other scene, the risk of danger or injury is mini- The NIJ is clear and unequivocal on this point. In its
mal, but not zero. Training programs would address the guide to personal body armor, which is intended to guide
9
proper response to unexpected threats (i.e., taking cover LE agencies issuing protective armor to officers who are
while the LE officers engage and address the threat). expected to face active threats, NIJ authors state:

The use of ballistic vests that have been decommis- “Age alone does not cause body armor’s ballistic re-
sioned by LE agencies before the end of their service life sistance to deteriorate. The care and maintenance of
should be offered as an intermediate solution. This is a garment—or the lack thereof—have been shown
likely to be available at minimal or no cost to respond- to have a greater impact than age on the length of
ing agencies. This approach can be easy to implement as service life of a unit of body armor. Armor that is 10
a component of increased coordination and partnership years old and has never been issued may be perfectly
between EMS, fire, and LE agencies. Interagency and acceptable for use, provided that the rated level of
interdisciplinary training on coordinated responses to protection is still appropriate for the typical threats
active shooter incidents may facilitate the development faced. Conversely, 2- or 3-year-old armor that has
and adoption of this new paradigm of response and in- been worn regularly and improperly cared for may
crease the likelihood of saving lives. not be serviceable.

Ballistic Protection at Active Shooter Events 37