Last week I wrote an article reflecting on my last few months with the police department - before I retire. I expressed some of my thoughts and also documented the struggles that I have witnessed other police officers experience during the transition back into “normal” life.
In response, retired police sergeant and regular contributor for several news publications (Dan Klein) penned a response.
I appreciate and welcome the different opinion - especially from a thoughtful individual who has literally been there and documented the evolution of a successful and fulfilling retirement.
To 20+ Years Retired
by: Dan Klein
To start, let me thank Dan Carr of (Police.Law.News) for allowing me the platform to post this response to his column on police retirement and law enforcement in general. I am truly appreciative. Dan’s original column has many valid points, but there are some points, that now that I have been retired for over twenty years, I humbly disagree with.
One issue that Dan did not mention, but that deserves being discussed, is the failure of police departments and police unions to educate and assist their officers in all the benefits they should be receiving while working and to do the same to prepare them for retirement. I have spoken to a lot of officers from departments all around the nation and the one thing in common is that their agency and union never thought it important to fully educate them on their benefits. This failure in leadership harms officers who end up not having disability insurance, or not knowing they could pay in (sometimes with matching funds) into a second retirement fund, not taking advantage of health savings accounts, cheaper life insurance etc. This really becomes apparent when an officer retires or dies (on duty or off duty; retired or still working) and the family knows nothing of what benefits they should be receiving. Usually, the command staff officers assigned to help the family have no idea what benefits they qualify for. If the police and union leadership truly care for their officers, from day one in the academy there should be instruction on all the benefits and this instruction should continue with yearly training. It’s the right thing to do.
For several years after I retired, I carried a concealed handgun, I don’t know why other than I was so used to carrying a weapon and expecting “trouble” that it just felt right. I did this until one day I realized that I was not hanging out with drug addicts and prostitutes anymore, so why carry a gun? I didn’t want to be one of those guys who is paranoid that some crazy is going to open fire on my family at the store. Does it happen? Yes, occasionally, but when I realized the odds of it never happening were in my favor and the odds of having a bad incident increased because I was still carrying a gun, I decided it was time to hang them up. I have been happier since I did. I think that is the day I retired from law enforcement.
I now realize that cops are truly only special within the cop world. Most citizens do not want to see a cop, or have coffee with a cop, unless they need a cop. Most citizens just aren’t that enamored with police officers. They want you when they need you and other than that they don’t want cops around. This is actually a good way of living.
When I was in the academy back in 1983 almost all of my instructors were military veterans who had served in Vietnam. Not one of these instructors ever referred to citizens as “sheep” and they never referred to themselves as “sheepdogs”. This is important to note because these academy officers had all seen combat, yet they completely knew and understood the difference between military and police. These instructors taught us that we were ambassadors for our city, and we should take that responsibility with great pride. To them police officers were there to enforce laws and to assist the public. That is why they stressed that our uniforms had to be immaculate as this reflected on the city we served. We were law protectors.
Carr makes a very valid point regarding those officers who cannot let police work go, but I believe part of this inability is because of the training officers have received in the last thirty years. Starting in the mid 1980’s cops began receiving “street survival” training. This training was certainly important, but it soon took over most training. It was a lot more fun to train for shoot outs and fights, than to train to help strangers navigate the city or do boring paperwork for insurance purposes. When David Grossman (On Killing) switched from military training to police training, the concept of “the warrior cop” and “sheepdogs” took off, as did the idea of a law enforcer.
Grossman’s training is excellent, if you are ever in a shootout, but most officers will never experience that type of trauma. Yet most departments focused a lot of training hours on this “warrior” mentality which began to have a detrimental impact on how officers interacted with their community. It’s just like in the military, when you train a person for war and then they come back home, many veterans have issues. The same goes for cops in the last thirty years. They have been trained for a war at home, and when they retire, they are still living on that battlefield of their community. Which is why a lot of retired cops still carry guns. It’s an unhealthy mindset, one that police departments have created. These departments are doing nothing to help the retiring officer mentally transition into retirement. They walk out of their home into a street survival mentality.
Regarding crime, cops are just one part of the crime puzzle. Cops very rarely deter crime, and aggressive or proactive policing has caused a lot of issues between the people we serve and their police. Broken windows policy was a perfect example of “sheepdogs vs sheep” mentality. Crime might be reduced by taking enforcement action on minor infractions, but at what cost to the relationship between the officer and the community? Does it serve a purpose to write citations to the single mother of three kids for an expired registration when she is working two jobs just to make ends meet? This is where police need to move away from sheepdogs and back to ambassadors. We are not law enforcers; we are law protectors.
Crime drops when cops do good investigations and charge the right person. When the district attorney successfully prosecutes. When corrections provide the offender the opportunity at education while incarcerated. When the community has a strong economic engine. There is a documentary called “The House I Live In” that had this quote, “if your communities only economic engine is dealing drugs, then you will become a drug dealer to provide for your family”. This is why crime will only drop and stay lower when we have strong local economies and good educational systems. For proof of the validity of this statement just ask yourself why Cartels are so popular in poor communities. The crime puzzle is more than just police.
Lastly, the national statistics show that police officers die on average at age 66 is misleading. In the last ten years the New Mexico Legislature and Public Employees Retirement Association studied this age of death issue and they found that in New Mexico the average age of death for police and fire was in the upper 70’s, just like the regular population. Why is that? Because New Mexico allows officers to retire after 25 years at any age. Many departments, especially back east and smaller departments, require officers to work 25 to 30 years but also be age 55 or 60 before they can draw retirement benefits. We can’t lump all officers into one statistic. We must look at the specific retirement requirements for each agency and then compare the death age for each specific retirement requirement. Agencies that allow a 20 year at any age, what is the average age of those officers death? 25 years? 25 years at age 55? 30 years at age 60?
Enjoy your retirement Dan. I can’t wait to see how you feel in about five years.
-Dan Klein
Journalist/Contributor
Retired Police Sergeant
APD 1983-2003
Thank you, Dan and same here. It's always great to meet a Brother. I should take the time at some point to write a piece on the USN LE program. The USN LE program is part of the Navy’s Center for Security Forces. I served as a municipal police captain before the navy.
Again, thank you and stay safe!
Tom
Sergeant Klein:
You make some valid points, but I disagree with you on two issues:
Carrying a Concealed Handgun -- From my perspective, it is important to be prepared as a citizen. You stated, “I don’t know why other than I was so used to carrying a weapon and expecting “trouble” that it just felt right.” I know why I carry which is because I want to be prepared to defend myself and my family if needed. We may not be “hanging out with drug addicts and prostitutes anymore” but that does not mean we live in a low-threat society.
Street Survival Training and David Grossman’s Training -- I think you may have missed the point of this training and of the mindset. You stated, “Grossman’s training is excellent, if you are ever in a shootout, but most officers will never experience that type of trauma. Yet most departments focused a lot of training hours on this “warrior” mentality which began to have a detrimental impact on how officers interacted with their community. It’s just like in the military, when you train a person for war and then they come back home, many veterans have issues.” You are right that most officers will thankfully never be in a shootout. But, no one knows who will be and will not be in advance. Training provides officers with tools and a mindset to win as opposed to making them some sort of military killing machine. Being prepared to survive a shooting and still provide great community services are not mutually exclusive skill sets.
We do not live in an "either/or" or a black-and-white world. In fact, there is a whole lot of gray.
Thank you for your many years of service to the LE profession.
Commander Tom Conley,
U.S. Navy Police (Ret.)