By Thomas R. Hall, PhD
I have read and re-read Dr. Burton Clark’s article on firefighter line of duty deaths (LODD), “Firefighters are not cops nor soldiers – and we should treat LODDs as such.” I believe Dr. Clark’s intention was to promote a thoughtful and realistic analysis of firefighter LODDs and the human factors involved. This is a very good idea and one that needs intelligent and deliberate discourse. However, cops, soldiers and firefighters have common attributes, including the ever-present possibility of death in the line of duty.
At one point, Dr. Clark states that firefighters desire to be seen as U.S. Navy SEALs:
“I understand the appeal of fire companies wanting to be seen as Navy SEAL teams or police SWAT, but we are simply not that.”
As a Marine Officer with 25 years of active-duty service, this is misleading. No Marine sees themselves as a SEAL, especially considering that being a Marine is an adventure in itself. One may aspire to wear the trident, and there are avenues to earn that accolade. In other words, the intention was to say that young people, like firefighters, are also searching for meaning in their chosen jobs. This is a natural outgrowth of good leadership. Those in leadership positions make the correlation between the superb training of a SEAL and the superb training of our first responders. Both deserve the respect owed to professionals accomplishing difficult and dangerous missions.
The article continues with a comment about friendly fire incidents:
“Cops and soldiers risk their lives before a human enemy; as such, society does not find fault or place blame on the officer or their organization when an officer is killed in action, in the act of protecting others. The ultimate example of this is a soldier killed by friendly fire during combat; their death is still considered Killed in Action. So, the cultural norm becomes that the death of a soldier or police officer is heroic because it was caused by an enemy, even when it wasn’t.”
As a matter of record, this has almost certainly occurred in every conflict fought. It is true that even though the incident was a displaced coordinate during a call for fire, the deaths are still listed as killed in action. Regardless of fault, error, inexcusable stupidity or just plain bad luck, the victims were killed in action. The designation has nothing to do with a chain of events leading to an error.
The article calls for an honest appraisal of the human factors in a firefighter LODD. No one disagrees with that. Both armed offenders and fires always have the potential for loss of life, no matter the situation. Firefighters don’t get to choose their fires in the same manner as a police officer does not get to choose their incidents.
Based on the tone of the article, I am worried that firefighters are not to be recognized for their bravery and selflessness, no matter the circumstances. It’s worth discussing what the incident commander or firefighter might have been thinking in a dangerous situation. But there is much more to the issue than a strict mathematically provable chain of events leading to an unfortunate outcome. Another issue is the implication that firefighter fatalities are less noble than that of a police officer or a member of the armed forces. My concern is that the nature of those who regularly are placed in a hazardous path are somehow less honorable than others. After decades of association with real heroes, I have some thoughts.
I had the privilege of speaking to a Medal of Honor recipient and member of Charlie Company, First Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment. This unit has the moniker of the walking dead after a protracted battle in the A Shau Valley in Vietnam. He admitted to me that he never viewed himself as a hero, yet his actions under fire speak to another interpretation. He voiced a comment that I have heard many times: “I found myself in a really bad situation and we had to fight our way out.” I wonder how many incident commanders have said the same thing. This battle has been studied, war-gamed and discussed by military students since it happened. So have the human factors involved.
What becomes apparent is that an arguably average Marine unit (if there is such a thing) walked into an ambush and used what resources they had to overcome incredible odds. The difference was not the technology, the caliber of the weapons or stunning military brilliance. In the end, it was training and a culture of brotherhood. Dr. Clark writes:
“Cops and soldiers risk their lives before a human enemy; as such, society does not find fault or place blame on the officer or their organization when an officer is killed in action, in the act of protecting others.”
This does not take into account instances where the organizations, peers and families do hold the officer accountable for an LODD. These engagements are not granted automatic valor. One such example: In 2024, a corporal who was present during that battle in the A Shau Valley was awarded the Navy Cross for his actions 55 years after the event. The Navy Cross is not an automatic award for participation. The fact that over half a century passed before the award was upgraded from the original speaks to a continuing reevaluation of these encounters. The difference was that on that fateful four-day battle, all were heroic at some point just to survive, others were extraordinarily brave and heroic, hence the award of a Navy Cross for valor belatedly bestowed in 2024.
Additionally, Dr. Clark’s article suggests that because soldiers and police officers frequently interact with people, the danger they face is seen as more honorable, and their LODDs are somehow perceived as heroic events.
A wise gunnery sergeant once told me that half of heroism is showing up to the fight. After several decades of witnessing LODD events, I think he is right. I understand that from Dr. Clark’s perspective, a firefighter LODD may be “preventable at some level,” whereas the soldier and police officer are thrust into situations totally beyond their control. This is simply not true. Years, months, days and hours are spent preparing for any given hostile encounter. The article implies that because fire is inanimate, it should be accorded a less significant level of threat. I’m not arguing that fire should be awarded intent. It is not some mythical beast that contains malevolent designs on humanity. And it does present itself in a scientifically consistent manner. But, without an examination of myriad factors, no reasonable firefighter can predict with 100% accuracy the direction, path and rate of growth of any given fire. Like a police encounter, the fire officer must apply training and experience, and many times hope for the best.
In the most basic of responses, the fire department must show up to the fire. We can argue tactics, who made what decision and why, and this is a good thing. But to lower the sacrifice of firefighters to a lesser degree of nobility for what they do than the state trooper who simply pulls up on an ongoing crime with a resulting LODD is concerning to me. In the words of one sage lance corporal, “I don’t worry about the bullet with my name on it; it’s the one marked to whom it may concern bothers me the most.”
Random black swan events occur, and those who respond to them are no less brave than those who strap on a gun and knowingly step into hostile territory. The military corollary to this is stepping across the line of departure as one moves into enemy territory and loads and locks his weapon. It is not the unpredictable and random events that separate these noble pursuits but rather the gallant men and women who simply show up to the fight.
Perhaps better training, better decision-making and better understanding of the human factors presented in an honest and forthright manner might prevent a LODD in the future. Interestingly, cops and soldiers would agree. I could not agree more but disagree that those who suffered the slings and arrows be accorded a lesser nobility because the LODD was the result of a decision against an inanimate peril such as fire or building collapse. Bad decisions, incomplete information, and new and innovative actions by an enemy are a fundamental fact of life. And they can be deadly.
In summary, I believe all LODD are honorable, regardless of the circumstances. The firefighter shares common valorous characteristics with the police officer involved in an LODD and the warfighter who is killed in action. We should review the event, dissect it and examine all pertinent details to include the human factors involved, perhaps even assign blame. But it is my contention that each LODD, regardless if the victim was a firefighter, must be accorded the nobility given those who sacrifice themselves for others. They were the ones that showed up to the fight. In the words of a young Army lieutenant I know, “Training and transportation are 75% of the mission, the rest is courage.” A firefighter LODD is, in my opinion, no different than any other LODD in the pursuit of a noble cause. From that I contend that every lost life of a member of our culture who runs to the sound of the guns, or steps onto the fire scene, is worthy of our deepest gratitude and respect. Perhaps the greatest tribute of all would be to study the LODD and learn from it. Doing this detracts not one bit from a legacy of courage that is the hallmark of firefighting.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Thomas R. Hall, Ph.D., retired with over 41 years of combined military and law enforcement experience. During his time with the Marines, Hall worked as an intelligence officer, photographic interpretation officer and parachute safety officer. Upon his retirement, Hall became a State Trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol. His duties included crash investigation and was assigned to the Traffic Homicide Squad. In 2006, Hall transferred to the Criminal Investigation Division –Bureau of Fire, Arson and Explosives Investigation. In 2015, Hall was named the Bureau Investigator of the Year. Hall adjuncts at the Florida State Fire College. He is an award-winning author with the Florida Christian Writers Conference.