Despite these programs, some warriors still have difficulty with their readjustment or reintegration into the lives, families, schools, businesses, and communities they left behind. Often, these readjustment issues painfully play out in private. At other times, however, they involve municipal, county, and state police authorities when private affairs disintegrate and become matters of public concern and safety. No community—small town, suburb, or metropolitan area—is exempt from these issues.

Since 1995, the FBI’s Hostage and Barricaded Database System (HOBAS) has been compiling statistics on crisis incidents submitted by law enforcement agencies across the United States. As of July 29, 2009, it contains a total of 5,477 incidents that represent a sample of the situations including suicidal individuals, domestic altercations, homicides followed by suicides, bank robberies, and barricaded individuals, faced by law enforcement. In 6 percent of these incidents, the individual involved was a veteran or active-duty member of the military. To aid the law enforcement community, the authors examine the characteristics of these events and offer some specific insights and suggestions about dealing with recent combat veterans whose distress may lead to crisis situations and police interventions.

The rate of suicide on the home front is double that of war zones. PTSD, depression, problem drinking, relationship issues, disabling injuries, and financial and legal problems are factors that raise the risk of suicide, often by a factor of two. While rates of suicide are not an “epidemic,” the numbers are of ever-growing concern.¹⁵

Transition Issues

The first step for officers tasked with potentially responding to incidents involving veterans is to become familiar with the traits and trends experienced in past cases. In thinking about what to expect and anticipating potential responses, officers can optimize their mental preparation. No specific behaviors are predictable, but exposure to and familiarity with similar incidents can provide insight and a frame of reference.

Skill sets that military members learn so they can survive combat and accomplish their missions may not translate well into the civilian world. These encompass more than shooting straight or learning how to throw a hand grenade. Constant vigilance, expected immediate responses to orders without question, erratic driving to avoid roadside bombs or ambushes, operational security (e.g., providing information only on an as-needed basis), and carrying weapons 24/7 represent just a few of the critical skills needed in combat. The nature of the war environment also plays a significant role.¹⁶

• Hypervigilant states with no “day off”
• Selfish mentality centered on survival
• Sense of unlimited power and ability to make demands
• Tendency to vilify enemy supporters and even certain populations
• Offensive and defensive driving
• Sleep deprivation and chronic fatigue

When service members return from a war zone, they may have difficulty surrendering their weapons, which have provided them security and identity during their deployment (just as they do for law enforcement officers). They may continue to drive erratically because of debris on the road, or they may overreact to statements or gestures that they may interpret as hostile or threatening.

Domestic issues may develop if they believe family members are not quick enough to follow instructions. They have spent months or years controlling or suppressing emotions— especially those of a more tender, caring nature even toward family—to help them deal with separation. This continuation of emotional distance has been characterized as “freezing the heart”¹⁷ and as “stringing up the (perimeter) wire.”¹⁸

Not surprisingly, these characteristics, which may develop or harden during deployment, can create difficulties upon returning home. Homecoming is not a single event with flags, hugs, and momentary cheers. Rather, it is an ongoing and often lengthy process.¹⁹ Apathy, uneasiness, and the desire to avoid questions and repetition of war stories can lead veterans to shun social activities (even those of enthusiastic participation predeployment) with the family. Nightmares and other aspects of hypervigilance can result in a preference for sleeping alone and apart from loved ones. Anger, irritability, and accustomed authority can fuel domestic relationship problems as a residual need for survival-related control can cause friction with spouses and children.

Because of modern transportation, a Marine could be in a gun battle on Thursday and back home in the United States on Saturday or Sunday. In other cases, access or attitudes (fear of the stigma of being seen as weak or crazy) may inhibit forthrightness and needed intervention.²⁰ Letting go of habits essential for survival is a slow and difficult process for some combat veterans, and the law enforcement officers dealing with them must be aware of this.

Invisible Wounds

In their book Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq, Holmestedt and Duckworth describe the ordeal of a female Marine Corps captain, aviator, and weapons system operator who flew in an FA-18 Hornet.²¹ She punched in the coordinates to attack barracks where enemy troops were sleeping. She could see missiles launch and Iraqis running for their lives, white figures against the green background. She remained committed to the mission, but, like so many generations before her, she would have to learn how to cope with the emotional scars of combat. The captain’s distress showed in her dreams. The intellectual and emotional synchrony of the war zone began to dissolve. She experienced questions about her beliefs in human life and her actions in the war. Further, she had additional stress. Being female, she was sure her male counterparts would view these emotions and questions as a sign of weakness and “being female.” At a family wedding 2 months after returning home, she felt perplexed by the attention and congratulations and requests to recount her battlefield experiences, the very actions she was viewing with ambiguity. However, it was her uncle, a Vietnam veteran, who “saw a look in her eyes that he recognized” and went over to her and gently said, “I know, I know.”

Walter Reed Army Medical Center psychologist Dr. Louis French echoes this, “No one comes away from war unscathed.” One veteran put it this way, “No one crosses a river without getting wet, and no one goes to war without being changed.”²²

Anger may be a particularly frequent and underappreciated remnant of the war experience. Many veterans have spent a long time experiencing anger—at the enemy, at separation from home, at the frustrations of assignment, and toward the administration. In her book Stoic Warriors, Nancy Sherman wrote, “Anger is as much a part of war as weapons and armor.”²³ She quotes Seneca, among the ancient stoic philosophers, as saying anger “whets the mind for the deeds of war.” And, despite more evidence of the role of anger in war, she notes Cicero’s concern about what occurs when that anger is brought home. She cautions that all too often, warriors “bring home a rage that has lost its targets.”

Many veterans of combat can experience a much shorter fuse with their anger. They are like Fourth of July firecrackers that will burst in an instant by the instigation of one little match. Others allow their anger to simmer, hidden somewhere deep in their soul, until finally a devastating eruption occurs.

Veterans may take attitudes and perceptions from the battlefield that may not form part of the formal definition of PTSD but can profoundly influence interactions with others, especially police. These may include cynicism and distrust of government and societal institutions, a tendency to react to stressful situations with survival tactics, a hypersensitivity to justice and injustice, and difficulty with authority figures.²⁴

Nonetheless, if an incident rises to the level of police involvement and if the responding officers understand the veteran’s perspective, they have a good chance of defusing it. Indeed, the best friend and best hope the combat veteran may have in a situation escalating out of control is the informed police officer or negotiator.

Dangerous Assumptions

In general, making assumptions when involved in a crisis negotiation can carry intrinsic risks. First, an incorrect assumption can result in losing rapport and credibility with the person in crisis. Attempts to demonstrate understanding could be undermined. Bad assumptions can communicate a judgment or opinion. This could cause a negative, defensive reaction and reduce any influence gained over the person. One police and military trainer calls this a conceptual baseline.²⁵ Officers need to remain aware of what their conceptual baselines are so as not to become unduly, unconsciously, and undesirably diverted or biased by them.

For example, it would be easy to assume that veterans who were cooks or mechanics in the service never personally experienced armed conflict. While many often believe that only the infantry or other combat arms branches engage in direct warfare, nothing could be further from the truth. Cooks may be delivering food as part of a convoy that may be attacked directly or indirectly from IEDs, rocket-propelled grenades, or small-arms fire. Additionally, because American forces do not abandon vehicles damaged during combat, recovery teams often must retrieve them. Many of these teams—composed of mechanics, not infantrymen—have been ambushed as they attempt to secure these disabled vehicles.

It also is wrong to assume that just because a veteran is a woman, she never personally engaged in combat. Even though the military currently restricts women from traditional combat roles, such as the infantry, women can serve as medics, and many have done so with honor and distinction as part of an infantry company. As such, women may be carrying a pack and standing shoulder to shoulder with her male counterparts in the infantry as part of the company’s or battalion’s combat medical operations.

The key lies in opening the lines of communication with soldiers in crisis and expressing a willingness to listen to their stories. Employing active-listening skills can help officers and negotiators effectively demonstrate an understanding of the experiences and emotional states of these veterans.

Healthy Survivors

Not all veterans will be adversely affected by their war experiences. Research has shown that 85 to 90 percent of MTBI veterans completely recover and return to baseline within 1 year.²⁶ While not a reason to minimize concern, combat-related suicide rates do not exceed the prevalence of demographically matched groups.²⁷ Finally, many behavior patterns observed postdeployment are not pathological in themselves, but have been essential survival patterns practiced for a long time and, therefore, are not easy to abandon. Acknowledging this and avoiding as much as possible a label or even innuendo that such behavior patterns constitute unhealthy reactions will facilitate help for veterans struggling to process their wartime experiences.

Law enforcement officers always need to consider whether they are dealing with a significant mental illness that may or may not be war related. However, beyond that, in defusing situations with combat veterans, police officers and negotiators should remember that war changes people in ways still not fully comprehended. Today’s service members all are volunteers, and many want to maintain the military values of duty, honor, and country, along with commitments to their units and friends.

Soldiers must be strong and brave. As a result, one of their greatest fears is to be perceived as weak or cowardly. Warriors must not be put into situations where they will be forced to act in a way that proves their personal courage. They want to be treated with respect, and they have little tolerance for half-truths or disingenuous talk. By relating to them as equals and as servants of the greater good who may not always be understood or appreciated, police officers and negotiators have a better chance than almost anyone to earn a veteran’s trust and to de-escalate situations that potentially may become dangerous.

Rapport-Building Challenges

This is not to say that officers would attempt to equate their experiences with those of veterans. However, it may help officers to demonstrate empathy and recognize and reflect back some of the underlying emotions of the veterans in crisis. For example, “It sounds like you had to make a difficult decision in that situation, and now you are second-guessing yourself and feeling bad.”

In other words, a lack of similar experiences does not prohibit officers or negotiators from developing rapport. After all, their primary skill is to listen and attempt to demonstrate understanding. The conversation is not about them or their experiences, it is focused and driven by the person in crisis until this individual is able to return to more rational thinking. It is equally important not to avoid topics that the person may bring up. Avoidance of a topic prevents a true understanding of the problem and related emotions causing the crisis. The individual is given the opportunity to vent emotions, thereby lowering the tension of the situation. Active-listening techniques, such as emotion labeling, mirroring, paraphrasing, and others, demonstrate an officer’s effort to understand.²⁸ By listening and reflecting the emotions beyond the words, the officer seeks to de-escalate the situation and prevent the soldier from acting out while in a state of crisis.

Some specific closed and open-ended questions can help engage a distressed combat veteran. Coupled with the foundational approaches to negotiation (e.g., active-listening skills), these can help officers and negotiators build rapport and safely influence a potentially dangerous situation. 

• How long were you in the military? Are you still in? (They may have a strong bond or commitment to members of their unit.)
  
• What was your military occupational specialty? (Some are more prone to experience direct combat than others, but none are completely free of its danger.)
• Were you ever deployed? How long? (The chance of potential problems rises in direct proportion to the length of deployment.)
• How many times were you deployed? (The more times they are deployed, the more likely they are to suffer residual effects.)
• Where were you deployed? (Certain areas are more dangerous than others.)
• What was it like for you? (The answer may offer insights into their mind-set; it also allows the officer or negotiator to demonstrate genuine listening skills.)
• Do you miss it? (This provides insight into the distressed subject’s mind-set.)
• How long have you been back? What is it like to be back? (It takes time to readjust to the civilian world. Although it is not an absolute, the longer they have been back, the more likely they are to be reintegrating to some degree. The second open-ended question offers potential insight into their mind-set.)
• Are you in contact with fellow veterans? (This may elicit available support or reveal friends who died in the war.)

It is critical to remember that these questions simply are a guide to help officers clarify a possible topic brought up by veterans. They are not to be used to question individuals in crisis who, in fact, may not want to talk about their war-time experiences.

The critical skill set of responding officers and negotiators includes their ability to apply active-listening skills and demonstrate an attempt to understand the emotions bubbling on or under the surface of the veteran in crisis. Those emotions are labeled and reflected back to the individual in an effort to diffuse them long enough to allow a more rational light to shine through or, in the worst-case scenario, to provide the tactical team enough time to react safely.