Proper Law Enforcement Attitude

Be Nice*

*Until it’s time to not be nice

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.
• 2010 May 3

If you’re a younger officer, you may not recognize the title of this article. Besides being the official motto of my training company, it’s also a very significant quote—an immortal catch phrase for his fans—from the 1989 Patrick Swayze movie Road House . Swayze portrayed ″Dalton,″ a ″cooler,″ a highly trained and skilled bouncer, who was recruited by a frustrated bar owner to squelch problems at his out-of-control bar. Swayze’s character came in with the intent and ability to stop the unacceptable conduct of both the bar staff and patrons and change the unruly atmosphere. During a training session for his bar staff and bouncers, he gave what was inadvertently and arguably the best advice for police officers that ever came out of Hollywood.

Rule 1: ″Never underestimate your opponent; expect the unexpected.″
It’s a sad reality, and I wish it weren’t true. But in our line of work, everyone you encounter is apotential threat to your safety. Note: I said ″potential.″ Not everyone will be a threat, but anyone could be. One of the early FBI studies on officers killed identified that many of the victim officers prided themselves on their ability to ″read people.″ This led to them dropping their guard with people they ″read″ as harmless, which may have contributed to their demise. In some cases they underestimated their opponents and paid the ultimate price for it. By accepting the fact that everyone is a potential threat, you will never underestimate any contact.

You must also operate without using the outdated concept of ″if/then″ thinking— if this occurs, then I can respond like this. You must embrace the concept of ″when/then″ thinking— when this occurs, then I will respond like this. Remember: The day and time you actually face a deadly threat or even a garden-variety assault will be decided by someone else. ″If″ denotes a somewhat lax possibility of attack and leads to a lower level of mental preparedness. ″When″ raises the expectation to a future inevitability and mandates a much higher level of preparedness. You must mentally and physically prepare yourself for combat at anytime, anywhere and against any opponent. You must also decide now, not during an assault, that when attacked you’re ready and willing to fight the millisecond you’re thrust into an altercation. By consistently expecting the unexpected, you will not find yourself caught off-guard.

Rule 2: ″It’s a job; it’s nothing personal.″
I would hate to try and count the number of former police officers who have lost their jobs, and/or went to jail, because they didn’t understand and practice this gem of advice. One of my personal mottos is: ″Never speak ill of stupid people. Because of them, I have a good job.″

Face it. The majority of criminal perpetrators who you’ll deal with aren’t going to be brain surgeons or graduates of ivy-league colleges. Many will be pure bad. You’re the major roadblock to their goal of living at other people’s expense, so you’re not going to be held in high esteem or sincerely respected by them. Some of them are going to try to push your buttons, get you to react emotionally and do something improper. You’re going to be called every name in the dictionary, and a few that Mr. Webster will never be familiar with. Get over it. As one unidentified poster on a cop forum stated: ″Bro, you’re in the wrong line of work if you’re going to let name-calling by sub-humans bother you …″

Why do we see officers on occasion sacrifice their jobs and freedom just because they feel they’ve been disrespected and react emotionally? Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less about what an uncivilized criminal thinks or says to me.

Why’s that so easy for me? Regardless of what they say or think, they lost. They’re wearing the bracelets. They’re going to jail, and I’m going home. Because of their stupidity, I have a nice home, a big-screen TV with surround sound and a sports car.

Adopt my motto about stupid people on this, and it makes it a lot easier to not take the criminal’s venomous blabbering personally.

Rule 3: ″Be nice—until it’s time to not be nice.″
An applicable axiom of unconfirmed origin that parallels this: ″Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.″

Being ″nice″ doesn’t mean you let your guard down or are touchy-feely or let people walk all over you. It means act like the professional you are. Treat people with courtesy and respect—until they choose to notbe treated nicely. When they make the choice to not be treated nicely, you simply respond as appropriate. From verbal direction, right up to deadly force, it’s always the contact’s choice on how the situationdevelops.

Important: Once your subject is subdued and under control, you go back to being nice again. Why? Go back to rule No. 2: Because it’s just a job; it’s nothing personal.

Conclusion
Adopt these gems of advice from Patrick Swayze. It will do nothing but improve your professional performance, enhance your safety and lower your chances of unnecessary hassles.

• More articles by Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

• 

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

  Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr. is recognized internationally as one of the pioneers of modern, realistic police defensive tactics training. He’s taught seminars and instructor certification schools nationally and has trained police instructors at the international training conferences of IALEFI and ILEETA. Humes is the author, director, editor and producer of the top-selling police video training tape Dynamic Striking Techniques, used by police departments, training academies and individual officers worldwide. Visit his Web site at www.charleshumes.com.

Stop the Insanity

Stop the Insanity

It's time to take a realistic look at the use of force—& its consequences

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.
• 2010 Feb 5

Take a step back into the 1990s. It’s your night off. Working the vampire shift, you really didn’t get a lot of sleep, and you spent more than a handful of nights with your feet propped up on the coffee table, your favorite beverage in one hand and the TV remote in the other. Invariably, your channel surfing came across the shorthaired blond in the fitness infomercial yelling, “Stop the insanity!”

Now, I have no idea whether her diet training and ideology were valid, but I sure admired her enthusiasm. So I’m going to see if I can borrow her zeal and apply it to the law enforcement use of force.Simultaneously, I'd like to encourage you to assist in crushing a common insanity that continues to permeate society.

The insanity I’m referring to belongs to the general public, the politicians and, in some cases, police administrators, in their unrealistic expectations of antiseptic, injury-free confrontations with violent offenders. Although control without injury remains a noble and worthwhile goal, it’s probably never going to be reached in my lifetime. Until it’s achieved, not only do we need to stop adding fuel to the fire, the police product industry needs to do the same.

Enter the Panacea
Remember when Oleoresin Capsicum spray first hit the market? It was heralded by some (usually, the people that were selling it) as the absolute solution to all our defensive tactics needs, and it would never harm anyone. But shortly after its introduction, there were some very bitter failures of OC to stop attackers, and some officers who over-depended on it were injured or killed. Lo and behold, there were also a few suspects who died after being sprayed with this wonder product. Were they actually killed by it? I don’t know. But the mainstream media sure made it sound that way.

Pretty much simultaneous with the “newer” chemical/OC products, the wonder control gadgets began to appear. Some were hooked shaped. Others were batons with exotic configurations that were alleged to immediately take control, but cause no injury to the violent suspect. The problem: Most of these gadgets don’t work for the average line officer. Now they might work for the demon-dog-ninja-warrior-black-belt who invented them. But the fact remains, and is continually ignored, that most patrol officers don’t have multiple black belts in martial arts. Departments really can’t afford the necessary training time it would take to train to proficiency with the ninja-cop-fu gadgets. The bottom line: Most officers can’t effectively utilize them, even if they would work.

The electrical-based control tools were the next generation of products that would stop all evil in its tracks—and never harm anyone. But again, there have been failures to incapacitate, and a few suspects have died after exposure. Are these deaths attributable to the control tools? (I’m not a coroner, don’t play one on TV.) But it’s my belief that these deaths are caused by combination of factors which usually include illegal drugs, pre-existing health conditions and over-exertion in fighting with law enforcement. It’s also my belief the current electric control tools are the safest option for all involved.

Enter Reality
But my point is this. It’s really not helping law enforcement for anyone to say that any weapon or self-defense technique won’t result in injury when utilized in a violent conflict. When that’s done, it contributes to the unrealistic expectation of injury-free confrontations. When two objects violently collide, common sense dictates that there’s probably going to be some level of physical damage. Even if we did have theStar Trek “Phaser on stun,” wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that some people would be injured, and others might even die, when they fell to the ground while unconscious?

In a physical confrontation, there’s always a possibility of injury. We (as in, everyone ) must acknowledge this, and police administrators must educate the politicians and the courts about the fact that resisting arrest and/or assaulting an officer is an extremely injury-prone activity. Does anyone watch boxing, mixed martial arts or even football and expect to never see blood, bruises or other injuries? As such, everyone should expect that when a person chooses to violently resist arrest or assault an officer, more likely than not, that unlawful choice will result in their own physical injury to one degree or another.

Simultaneously, police chiefs and politicians should tell the general populace: “If you want to ‘fight’ with law enforcement officers, do it in the courtroom, where no one will have to risk physical injury. If you choose to fight with officers on the street, you’re going to lose and probably receive some speed bumps in the process.” As an unidentified Web forum poster so eloquently stated, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

If a violent confrontation ends with no injuries, which should always be the goal when possible, great. But it might not. Let the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasonable force standard be your guide.

Stop the Insanity
When anyone expresses the idea that violent conflicts with law enforcement should not result in injury, politely educate them about your real-world experience. The fact that a physical confrontation is likely to cause injuries, and sometimes death, is not a choice; it’s not an option; it’s just the way it is. It’s time we make a stand and stop the insanity that continues to taint society’s expectations by educating the public to the reality of violent conflict.

If law enforcement officers and agencies won’t stand up and publicly acknowledge this ugly truth, how can we expect the public at large to ever comprehend it?

• More articles by Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

• 

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

  Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr. is recognized internationally as one of the pioneers of modern, realistic police defensive tactics training. He’s taught seminars and instructor certification schools nationally and has trained police instructors at the international training conferences of IALEFI and ILEETA. Humes is the author, director, editor and producer of the top-selling police video training tape Dynamic Striking Techniques, used by police departments, training academies and individual officers worldwide. Visit his Web site at www.charleshumes.com.

Critical Combative Concepts

Critical Combative Concepts

How to survive use-of-force situations

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.
• 2010 Feb 26

The title, and the core information in this article, are excerpts taken from the presentation I'll be making at the 2010 International Association of Law Enforcement Educator and Trainers Association's Conference. Better known as ILEETA, the conference will be held April 19-24, just outside of Chicago. If you're a law enforcement instructor -- college, departmental or independent -- and don't attend ILEETA, you are making, as Arnold would say, a "BIG MISTAKE." The ILEETA conference is the ultimate learning and networking experience available to law enforcement trainers. Last year's conference was attended by roughly 800 trainers (from all 50 states and seven countries). This is your chance to train with the best law enforcement instructors in the world, instructors such as Jeff Chudwin, Dave Spaulding, Alexis Artwohl and too many others to list.

I know. Many departments don't consider training the top priority it should be and won't pay for you to go. Don't let that stop you. As an independent trainer, I'm attending ILEETA using a week's vacation time and paying my own way. So yes, without any hesitation, I'm here to tell you that ILEETA is a great investment of time and money. For more information, visit www.ileeta.org .

Techniques vs. Concepts in Use-of-Force Training

According to Mr. Webster's dictionary, a technique is the procedure, skill or art used in a specific or particular task. In many traditional martial arts, there's a different, specific technique to respond to every possible attack. So if someone grabs your hair, you do technique A. Technique B must be learned to respond to a lapel grab, C counters a wrist grab, and it goes on ad nauseam . Now don't get me wrong, for true martial artists who have and wish to devote the time necessary to train like this (which included me in my younger years), it's great. But technique-based training, IMHO, is the crux of the failure of much of the traditional, martial arts based, police use-of-force training. We don't have sufficient training time to take officers who aren't already proficient in the martial arts and train them to functional levels of proficiency those techniques. The bottom line comes straight from my presentation slide: If your students can't become reasonably proficient and retain the tactics you're teaching in your allotted training time, the time you're spending is wasted.

Webster defines a concept as a broad abstract idea or guiding general principle. IMHO, the mantra in training should now be concepts instead of techniques . If a technique can't be used as a concept, as in multiple situations and in varied environments, it's probably too detailed and "martial artsy" for the masses, and likely a waste of time to attempt teaching to most officers.

The foundation of conceptual self-defense training should be gross motor skill concepts, such as knee and elbow strikes. These can be used when fighting while standing, kneeling, prone or even supine. By building your system on this foundation, the non-martial-artist line officers will still have some solid use-of-force options after the martial-arts-based techniques fade from their memories.

Liability and The Reality of Force

For too long, we have stood back and allowed society, politicians and some police administrators to expect use-of-force situations to be antiseptic, injury-free events. Perhaps one of the greatest lessons we can learn and teach to stop the insanity of this ludicrous expectation came from John Giduck, author of The Terror at Beslan . In an article he wrote for SWAT Magazine , "The Reality of Hand-to-Hand Combat, part 1," he eloquently and truthfully stated, "Few seem to recognize that, by definition, if a hand-to-hand combat system will not get you sued, it's only because it wouldn't work in the first place." Reality check, folks. Fighting with the police is a dangerous contact sport. Why is it "just part of the game" when a football or rugby player is injured, crippled or killed on the field, but if a violent criminal gets a black eye from an officer, the officer must have done something wrong?

The over-concern regarding liability can actually lead to unnecessary injuries and increased liability in many altercations. When officers are taught watered-down techniques that they can't possibly perform(aka ninja-cop-fu) and then get into a real altercation, the ninja-cop-fu invariably fails to control the assailant. The fight continues and turns into an unnecessarily long, drawn-out brawl. The levels of force used continue to escalate, and usually both of the participants end up suffering more serious injuries than what should have been necessary. Had the officer been trained in concepts , following the doctrine of reasonable force, and established control with a proper level of force immediately, instead of attempting unreasonably low level ninja-cop-fu techniques under the politically correct doctrine of minimal force, he or she would have been better prepared to stop the subject's assault and resistance promptly, thus minimizing the damage to both participants.

The Test of Time

There are numerous ways to test police equipment, tactics and training. There's Dave Spaulding's 3S Test.There's the trial by fire, where we learn by experience but have to survive the lesson for it to be a positive testing experience. But in most cases, regardless of what you're looking for, nothing is as effective as the test of time.

Think about this for a minute. The new Chevy ZR-1 Corvette is America's super car. Roughly 2900 lbs., more than 630 HP, and capable of speeds in excess of 200 mph. Some would argue this vehicle is nothingbut the very best in advanced technology. Yet its incredible performance depends on a concept that is over 6,000 years old. (Hold that thought a second; we'll come back to it.)

Let's talk about police equipment. What conceptual design did the prehistoric warrior use for the earliest impact weapon? It was a (somewhat) straight stick that he picked up at one end, and he used it as a club. This straight-stick concept proved itself effective for thousands of years. Beginning somewhere around 1980, suddenly this concept became "invalid." Equipment manufacturers began making all sorts of devices to replace the impact weapon. There were hook-shape control tools and batons with exotic configurations that would ninja-cop-fu the bad guy and not even leave a scratch.

So today, only 30 years later, what's the prevailing concept for impact weapons? Although the materials from which it's constructed have changed, the straight stick is back. Hasn't it been proved effective for thousands of years? The other, overly complicated weapons failed the test of time. The test of time ruthlessly crushes the ineffective and mediocre, and spotlights the truly significant. If a concept, tool or technique survives for centuries, it's because it works and works well; it's also likely to be a concept that cannot be improved upon.

Go back to that new Corvette and the 6,000-year-old wheels that it uses. Although the materials are different, the round wheel with a center axle is exactly the same concept as it was when it was firstinvented (approximately 4,000 B.C.) Knee and elbow strikes can be traced back to at least 1238 A.D., with the beginning of Muay Thai. The bottom line: Like the wheel, some concepts will never be improved. Personally, I'll depend on a centuries old, time-tested concept over an unproven tactic any day. Yes, we should still constantly strive to improve our tools and tactics. However, we must simultaneously be cautious and absolutely prove that a tool or technique with which we're replacing a time-tested one is truly superior before implementation.

• More articles by Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

• 

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

  Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr. is recognized internationally as one of the pioneers of modern, realistic police defensive tactics training. He’s taught seminars and instructor certification schools nationally and has trained police instructors at the international training conferences of IALEFI and ILEETA. Humes is the author, director, editor and producer of the top-selling police video training tape Dynamic Striking Techniques, used by police departments, training academies and individual officers worldwide. Visit his Web site at www.charleshumes.com.

The Ground Game

The Ground Game

Is immediately taking them down really a good idea?

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.
• 2010 Mar 8

“If you’re on the ground and you’re not handcuffing, you’re losing,” said Gary T. Klugewicz, founder of Active Countermeasures.

There is a current trend in law enforcement training that deeply concerns me. I’m sure that some will disagree, but I think this subject needs to be opened for discussion and subjected to further review.

It scares me that some departments are teaching our officers to wrestle violent and/or assaultive offenders to the ground as a primary control tool, even when they could remain on their feet. Some people perceive this as being better because you wrestle the offender down and bend him in directions he wasn’t designed to bend, rather than striking him. Teaching such tactics for that reason invokes the politically correct doctrine of minimal force rather than the doctrine of reasonable force, which was the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, thus placing offender safety ahead of officer safety.

I realize that in the “octagon” of MMA fighting most of the matches go to the mat. I also acknowledge officers will end up on the ground more than they wish to. Been there, done that. I’ve got the X-rays and scar tissue to prove it. However, to purposely take someone to the ground under circumstances that you could remain on your feet is IMHO, foolish at best.

Why? Because the sport octagon matches aren’t the same as a police use-of-force altercation. The octagon matches are held in a very controlled environment, under very controlled conditions, have stringent safety rules for both competitors, and a referee to step in and stop the match to prevent serious injury. Once you remove the thrill of the competition and logically examine the strategic, environmental and fundamental differences, the disparity between the octagon and the street becomes wide and obvious. Thus, the practice of grounding someone unnecessarily doesn’t look like such a good idea anymore.

When you examine any of the martial art grappling-based fighting systems—Jujitsu, Sambo, Pankration—they all have the same downfall as many other martial arts that are applied to police training; none of them are easy to learn, master or retain without constant practice. If you don’t train with proficiency you’re wasting your training time.

I attended a three-day ground fighting class with some 30 other line officers, which was taught by an internationally respected martial arts champion. The instructor was an incredibly skilled tactician and fighter. But two months later, I couldn’t find any attending officer that didn’t have a strong martial arts background that could demonstrate anything the instructor taught. For most attendees, the class was little more than an entertaining showcase of the instructor’s incredible martial arts talents that cost the hosting department three day’s pay for approximately 30 officers, plus the instructor’s fees. Buying each officer a complete set of Bruce Lee DVDs would’ve been far less expensive, also kept them entertained with exceptional martial arts skills and still had the same end result in regards to improving the officers’ individual skill levels.

There will always be the exceptional officer that trains regularly on his own time, and he/she will become highly skilled in the grappling arts. (If that happens to be you, this article may not apply to you quite as much as those who lack your skills.) But very few departments, if any, will provide adequate training to make the majority of rank-and-file line officers skilled grapplers. Even amateur grapplers get more training and practice in a week than most line officers get in a year.

However, for arguments sake, let’s say I’m wrong on that point. Let’s pretend you can train your officers to be competent grapplers with just a few hours training. I’m still going to say you’re making a big mistake to train officers to unnecessarily take a subject to the ground. Why? The octagon matches take place on a flat, somewhat padded, well-lit, obstruction and debris-free surface. Where are officers forced to battle with violent offenders? In dark drug houses littered with used syringes on the floor; in decaying parking lots with protruding rebar, sharp concrete edges and glass bottles strewn about; and in just about every place imaginable other than a flat, somewhat padded, well-lighted and obstruction- and debris-free mat.

Other Arguments
Let’s say you’re a competent grappler and have taken a resistive subject to the ground and established an immediate side-control position. Side control, like many other grappling techniques, gain part of their dominating power from body positions that make conventional counter striking minimally effective when fighting by the rules. But suddenly, unlike any of the little rabbit punches that your sport competitors ever inflicted, you feel an excruciating pain in your side. That could be because none of your sport competitors ever had a push dagger or other concealed weapon in the ring. Taking a possibly armed (just about everyone) subject to the ground as a primary control tool is a major leap of faith. When grappling, it’s not unusual for a subject’s hands to have access to areas of his body that may conceal a weapon while completely out of your line of sight.

When encountering a spontaneous weapons attack when standing, you have a much better chance of disengaging and gaining distance while escalating to a higher force option. If you’ve unnecessarily taken a subject to the ground, and he suddenly produces a knife while grabbing you around the neck with the other hand, disengaging or escalating is much more difficult, if not impossible. Make no mistake about this, it’s a very bad situation either way, but I’d much rather be on my feet if at all possible.

Another issue octagon grapplers never face is third-party interference. To go to the ground before it’s absolutely necessary is an invitation to get kicked in the head/ribs/spine (insert other target of your choice here) by the suspect’s friend(s). True, this could occur anytime you are on the ground with a suspect, which only augments the argument to not spend any more time on the ground with a suspect than you must. Don’t underestimate the potential danger of a highly trained grappler or MMA fighter.

The National Geographic Channel did a remarkable series of studies highlighting the truth about MMA striking power called Fight Science. They assembled some highly talented martial artists and engineer/researchers experienced with the use of crash test dummies to learn the truth about martial arts strikes.

The MMA fighter tested produced 500 lbs. of striking power punching to a standing crash-test dummy’s head. One of the most alarming results they documented was the extreme danger presented by finding yourself in the “mounted position” (i.e., you’re lying on your back and your opponent is on his knees and straddling your chest, so he can punch down into your face).

When punching a mounted dummy on the ground, the results were alarming. The angle of the punch downward enhances power through a natural biomechanical advantage. Add that increased power with the fact that the head has nowhere to move to help absorb the shock of the blow, and suddenly the same MMA fighter was producing 2,000 lbs. of striking force. True, the test was with a trained MMA fighter, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a mounted position to quadruple the striking force of almost everyone.

Therefore, officers should follow these rules:

1. Stay on your feet, don’t voluntarily go to the ground unless you’ve already subdued your suspect and are ready to handcuff.
2. If a subject takes you to the ground, don’t forget that there’s a big difference between someone resisting to escape and someone who’s trying to take control of you, your weapons and your safety.

With the possibility of someday being involuntarily taken to the ground by a person that has MMA training, I add this concept of unknown origin: If you find yourself in a “fair” fight, your tactical thinking sucks. If a competent grappler takes you to the ground, you’ll have but a few seconds to react and “cheat.” A lot of sport MMA techniques can be quickly countered with a finger or thumb poke to the assailant’s eyes. Knowing what I said about the Fight Science research, does a thumb to the eye or other sport MMA violation to escape a potential deadly force assault really sound excessive?

When it comes to ground training, use your precious and highly limited training time to train in ground fighting concepts, not sport grappling techniques. This is where you purposely train to break the sport MMA rules. There will always be those who are stronger and faster than you, but none have to be as vicious as you when forced into combat.

• More articles by Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

• 

• Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr.

  Sgt. Charles E. Humes Jr. is recognized internationally as one of the pioneers of modern, realistic police defensive tactics training. He’s taught seminars and instructor certification schools nationally and has trained police instructors at the international training conferences of IALEFI and ILEETA. Humes is the author, director, editor and producer of the top-selling police video training tape Dynamic Striking Techniques, used by police departments, training academies and individual officers worldwide. Visit his Web site at www.charleshumes.com.

The worth of a Police Officers word.

The job description of Police Officer includes honesty and integrity, and to my knowledge mine has not been put in question, but my word is not good enough even with other officers stating the same thing. And I believe that Security Officers should be held to the same standard of honesty and integrity. Yes, this has to do with one particular Security Officer. After this Security Officer violated multiple traffic laws, the Security Officer admitted to the violations in an email and later stated that if a UAMS Officer tried to stop this Security Officer again th Police Officers could follow them around Little Rock, this Security Officer was still able to keep a job that involved honesty and integrity. Before and after that incident there were reports that this Security Officer was not performing their job at the Metal Detector as instructed, such as last night I witnessed a black male set the Metal Detector off three times and this Security Officer sent him on never getting out the hand wand or getting out of their chair. Just because this Security Officer has a problem with me should not diminish my word when I report that this Security Officer is letting people through the Metal Detector and not checking them after they set it off. It is offensive that when this Security Officer comes back from break, when I've filled in at the Metal Detector for this Security Officer , this Security Officer gets the germ and virus killing wipes out and wipes EVERYTHING down. I don't mind keeping an area clean but this Security Officer never does this with other officers and I know enough about reading body language to tell that this Security Officer's wiping it all down on my account. I can work with virtually anyone, there are people that I work with now that I disagree with and whose actions make me want to scream but I pride myself as a Police Officer and always strive to be professional in all that I do.

There is nothing that this Security Officer does that has any personal or professional affect on how I do my job. During my previous years in Law Enforcement I learned to deal with childish behavior, but I don't think that any Officer should have to deal with childish behavior from someone that's held to that same standard of honesty and integrity. How can the word of one Security Officer be taken over the word of at least four Police Officers?

Happiness and Contentment

"I have more than enough to be happy, you probably do too. Expectations that are not met bring unhappiness, so I am careful which expectations I set and which I accept from others. I expect happiness to come from myself because that's where it is determined, in my own mind. Giving up things frees my mind to think about all that is glorious outside my window, that's the pay-off." The Comedy Bailout Blog

Its crazy how ingrained materialism is in your culture. I have gotten rid of truck loads of JUNK, my wife calls it stuff, in the last two years and we still have junk, stuff, filling the closets.

Why does a Eric Lambert have a blog?

The man takes forever to write a paragraph, what was he thinking?