One of the most important skills that officers can posses is the ability to communicate. This goes beyond language ability and moves into what to say and how. Unfortunately too often this essential skill is forgotten and left out of training programs. Additionally many officers don’t want to take the time to learn it because it’s not as “cool” as combatives programs. However, any agency that wants ...
I want to briefly go over the principles of contact-cover. I hope that everyone was taught this once upon a time.
While working the front line I see a lot of officers (sworn and non-sworn) interacting with subjects and suspects. Most of the time the officer is in some sort of interview stance (but not always). Sadly when more then one officer is present they stand next to each other or one wal
...
In my first post I recommended finding new training and conducting some training outside of work. Now I would like to briefly talk about some different methods of training that people may not have thought of.
To start with you must realise that not everyone will share your enthusiasm for training. I found this out for myself when I noticed other officers and supervisors attending training so th
...
Greetings, after reading several of chutchinson's posts with regards to training, I'm going to attempt and contribute... ...
Now that we have covered some of the basics on pre-attack indicators and we have discussed attacking before you opponent gets the first strike lets talk about writing the report.
Report writing is just as important to your survival as the physical skills. If your report writing skills are non-existent then you may run into a spot of legal trouble. Officers need to be taught how to articulate their actions. Not just articulation but how to write it in a report to increase their chances of winning the case at court.
Reports need a clear beginning, middle and end. Always try to write your report in chronological order. It makes it easier for the reader to understand what is happening and when.
Ideally you want your report to sound similar to the way you talk about the incident to your co-workers. Too often I read a report like this. “SMITH was aggressive to staff. As a result I directed him to the ground. I then applied mechanical restraints and awaited the arrival of the local police service. While waiting for the police SMITH attacked me and was taken down again. In the course of the takedown SMITH broke his arm”
What does this tell me? Nothing!
So now as this officer’s supervisor, I need to sit down with them and get them tell me every little detail. How was Smith aggressive? Was he yelling and screaming? Was he hitting people? Was he getting into a fighting stance and making threats? After that was there any communication between the officer and Smith before you took him down? What takedown did the officer use? Was there a fight? Were any verbal commands given?
Obviously the number of open ended questions goes on and on. Clearly we need a lot more information in this report.
Another thing that sticks out in this is that the officer is trying to sound far too professional. “directed him to the ground” and “applied mechanical restraints” and not words we use on a day to day basis. We order people to the ground or perform takedown X. We use handcuffs not mechanical restraints.
So what are some of the things that should go into any report for an incident that involved force?
Well how about a size disparity? This can be very important during complaints of excessive force.
What about some of the environmental conditions? How dark is it? What type of ground are you on? Where was the incident? Are there any nearby weapons?
What type of pre-attack indicators did the suspect demonstrate? 1000 yard stare? Clenching hands and teeth? Scanning? Fighting stance? Did the suspect ignore your commands or questions? Did the suspect verbalise harm?
Also note any other relevant information. How many suspects? Was backup available? Was the suspect armed? Known blood borne pathogens? Were you physically exhausted from the fight?
Also make sure your report is using facts not your conclusions. John Bostain and his team at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) created this great use of force reporting guide showing the difference between facts and conclusions.
Finally don’t censor your report. Too often officers think that they can’t swear in the report because their boss might read it. If someone shouts an expletive at you then type that into the report. Put it in verbatim.
My apologies on how long it took to get this article up. I am hoping to have one up every Saturday from now on.
Stay Safe,
Chris
Before I start this article I have a short bit of homework for you all. Read this article by Lt. Jim Glennon. http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1660205-Pre-attack-indicators-Conscious-recognition-of-telegraphed-cues/
Did you read it? Good. If not then go back and read it.
After you have read it, print it off and put it on a notice board at work. After that make sure
...
In this article I want to talk about something that was a hot topic at the 2010 ILEETA conference. I am hoping that this article will create open debate and we can have a good discussion about it, as everyone will have their own opinion and hopefully no one will get too upset. When I first heard about this topic I thought it was crazy. I am sure many of you will feel the same. However, after I talked with some smart trainers and heard their views I have changed my belief.
That topic is the use of “Use of Force Continuum’s/models” and if they should be scrapped.
Increasingly agencies are getting rid of their use of force models. Why? Well quite simply they try to define something that is, to quote the U.S. Supreme Court, “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.”
Essentially they do not accurately portray the incident and they try to set limits on the officer. A use of force model will set a greater limit on what the officer can and can’t do then any court in the western world.
Now imagine you are working at your site, alone at night when you meet Bob. Bob is a bad guy, you have dealt with him many times and he is often violent. He is 6 foot 3 and about 270lbs. For whatever reason you have to arrest Bob (maybe he is trespassing…maybe you witnessed him commit a theft). In your most commanding voice you inform Bob that he is under arrest and he needs to turn and face away from you. Bob is 6 feet away from you. He drops his right leg back, his head moves forward, his shoulders move back and his teeth and fists clench. He points at you, shouts an expletive and tells you he is not going to jail.
According to most use of force models what kind of resistance is the offender at? At my agency we use the PPCT Use of Force Model (It’s actually in our policy…I’ll get into that later) On the PPCT use of force model he is at “verbal non-compliance” stage. The only reason he is at this stage is because he said “no.” If he had just assumed his stance and glared he would be at “psychological intimidation.” Using the “1 plus 1” rule, one of our officers could use soft empty hand techniques to start with. That officer would most likely get injured…but at least he followed policy…he took an ass whooping, but he didn’t lose his job.
I know for a fact that this is happening. Officers are too afraid to take appropriate action because they don’t want their boss to claim they were excessive and fire them. It’s happening far too much and this is why the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centre (FLETC train most U.S. Federal agencies) have discarded their use of force models. Instead they teach their officers what the law allows them to do.
So what does Canadian Law say? Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code states:
“Everyone who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law…is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose”
That’s it! I take back every bad thing I have ever said about law makers! You’re legally allowed to use “as much force as is necessary.” Brilliant! No “minimum amount of force” no “least intrusive amount of force.” Instead you can use “as much force as is necessary.” Remember we are not talking about excessive force, but as much as is necessary.
Now let’s go back to our scenario. What are you legally allowed to do? Well since I am smart and I know that by dropping his right leg back, moving his head forward, clenching his teeth, clenching his fists and telling me he won’t go to jail that he is probably going to fight me if I try to take control of his arms; I am not going to wait for him to attack me. I can justify drawing a baton, OC, TASER or maybe, under certain circumstances, even a firearm because that is what a reasonable officer would do. Personally I am only issued with a baton so I am going to draw that. If Bob is lucky I may give him an additional command. However I am under no legal requirement to give him a verbal command and if I feel that by giving him a command it gives him a chance to attack then I will attack first. I will begin striking Bob with my baton. Where? Maybe the common peroneal, but I am a big fan of the shins. People don’t like getting hit in the shins. Or maybe I will put both hands on either end of the baton and drive it into his pelvic girdle.
It doesn’t really matter. I win the fight and Bob goes to jail. That’s all that matters. I didn’t get my ass whooped and I didn’t break the law doing it. I didn’t use excessive force. I used as much as was necessary. Excessive force would be if I had swung the baton to his head or kept attacking once he was no longer demonstrating resistance. Excessive force is despicable and officers that use it should be dealt with immediately. There is no room our profession for people that use excessive force. I want to make that clear.
If anyone feels my actions would have been unjustified please don’t hesitate to ask why I would do what I do. I am more then happy to discuss it further but for now lets go back to use of force models.
Take a look at your force models and ask yourself if they really fit into a fight. People can move up and down the scale in fractions of a second. In the example I give above the subject started at a low level of force by any models definition. He didn’t attack me. I took action as I perceived he was about to attack me or that he would fight if I attempted to arrest. I took first action to affect the arrest. According to any use of force model I have seen I was several steps above subject’s level of resistance. If you want we could go into Section 27 and 37 of the Criminal Code. Basically they allow you to use force to prevent an offence and to prevent an assault.
Use of Force models try to limit the officer’s actions by saying “if subject does this, you do this”. Nothing in our job is as cut and dry as that. Nothing should be taken as lightly as that. Please don’t expect your officers and your co-workers to fit into that and not get their ass whooped a couple of times.
A big concern I have with use of force models is that they get made into policy. Don’t ask me why because that’s just a bad idea from the start. Now the officer not only is worried about getting hurt but they are also worried that if they do something they could lose their job. So what ends up happening? Officers either under react to a situation and get hurt or they do nothing and others get hurt. Both are unacceptable. To be honest I don’t know why agencies make use of force models into policy. They were designed as a training aid and to aid in court. Now they are being used to decide if an officer should face disciplinary action, face termination or possibly even criminal and/or civil charges. If they are in your policy then get rid of them. Take it out and write a new policy. I once wrote a sample policy that was basically cut and paste of Section 25 of the Criminal Code. Remember KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid.
Another concern I have with Use of Force models is that if an officer follows them whole-heartedly (as many do since they get made into policy) then they have to wait to be attacked before they can respond. Officers are always on the defensive. Hell, we even call our programs “defensive tactics.” To me if you are on the defensive then you are losing and I don’t train officers to lose. I train them to win, so should you. We shouldn’t need to wait to be attacked before we can do anything. We need to teach our officers what to look for (pre-attack indicators article is next week, I promise) and we need to tell them to take “offensive” action. I am not talking about excessive but offensive. They need to take the action first. Anyone that knows about action vs. reaction knows that reaction cannot beat action. So why are we training our officers to be reactive? Why teach them to limit their use of force to “if subject does this, you do this,” when the Criminal Code clearly gives them more options then that? Nowhere in the Criminal Code does it say that as an enforcement officer or a security officer that I have to wait to be attacked before I can fight back. Section 37 gives you the right to use force to prevent an assault. So make sure you know the pre-attack indicators (again that’s next week) so that you can explain why you thought an assault was imminent.
I could go on and on but this is better talked about by the experts. You can listen to the FLETC podcasts on this issue here: http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...inuum.mp3/view
Take a look at your training program. Are you inadvertently limiting the amount of force your officers use, and in turn putting them at greater risk? Are you giving them the impression that they have to be on the defensive rather then an offensive unit?
A trainer once told me. “There are three rules of police work:
1. Officers are shot at, beaten, stabbed, and sometimes killed while doing their duty.
2. Officers respond to a call for service when dispatched, having little idea of who or what is involved.
3. Nobody can change Rule Number One”.
Let’s give our officers the best chance of preventing point number one from happening. Don’t expect them to go on the defensive, and don’t expect them to fit their actions into a nice looking use of force model.
Now let’s get an informed discussion going about this. I am sure I have given you lots to think about. I know it gave me a lot to think about when I first heard about it.
Stay safe,
Chris
In this column I want to talk about driving. Most enforcement and security agencies incorporate vehicles into their day to day work and unless you are a sworn enforcement officer it is highly unlikely that your agency has ever provided you with classes on how to safely drive their vehicles. This is because you are expected to operate the vehicle according to provincial traffic laws. I know for a fact that this doesn’t always happen. I’ve done it, you’ve probably done it and we all know people that drive agency vehicle’s just a little too fast, don’t wear their seatbelt or commit some other kind of traffic violation.
Now take a look at this. I did a quick check on the Canadian Officer Down Memorial Page. According to that site Canada has had 817 sworn officers fall in the line of duty. Take a guess at how many died in traffic accidents.
203. 203 sworn officers have fallen in the line of duty in Canada while driving a car or riding a motorbike. That accounts for 25% of all sworn officers that have died in Canada. That’s huge and that’s only the stats on sworn officers. Sadly nobody keeps stats on security officers that fall in the line of duty. One reason for this high number is that we spend almost all of our day driving the car. We go from point A to point B. Spend a little time at Point B before moving on to point C and D. We are on the road more then most other professions. I can’t even begin to imagine the number of vehicle collisions that enforcement and security officers have been involved in. All I know is that number would be far too high.
So what can we do about it?
If you are not a sworn enforcement officer then there is no reason to speed to a call. Nothing can be more important then your own safety. So what if you get there a few minutes later. You’re not going to be fired for responding and arriving in accordance with the law. I know your adrenaline will be through the roof and all you want to do is get to the scene and get the bad guy or girl. Believe me I know. But when that is happening you might also be experiencing tunnel vision. This then means that you are less likely to see other vehicles on the road, stop signs and traffic lights. You may also experience auditory exclusion, so now you can’t hear other traffic or sirens. All of this leads to a much higher chance of being involved in a collision. It’s not just your own life you put at risk when you speed to a call. You put every other road user at risk. Is it worth it? To combat the effects of the adrenaline dump just practice taking nice deep breaths. Breathe in through your nose, hold for 4 seconds, breathe out through your mouth, hold for 4 seconds and repeat. After a few of those your heart rate will begin to lower and you will be thinking clearly again. Make sure you continue this breathing exercise while driving to the destination and once on scene.
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCebfIyTvgg
I have never been involved in a high speed pursuit so I cannot speak from experience but I imagine they are fairly high stress/ high adrenaline events. An EVOC instructor showed this video to me and told me that the adrenaline played a huge factor in the vehicle crash. Remember deep breathing.
Now let’s talk about seatbelts. I know many officers that don’t wear seatbelts “just in case I need to get out of the vehicle quickly.” My answer is this. How long does it take to get out of a seatbelt? Half a second? Maybe a second? If you are concerned about it then practice taking your seatbelt off (while you are parked of course). Find out how to take it off without snagging any equipment on your belt. In a study by StatsCanada they estimated that between 1990 and 2000 approximately 11,690 people were saved in Canada because they wore a seatbelt. So I ask you. Is that extra second worth risking your own life?
Another thing to consider that is often overlooked is the condition of the vehicle that you are driving. Remember as the driver you are the one that has legal responsibility to ensure everything works. I recommend that you begin each shift by checking over your assigned patrol vehicle. Your check of the vehicle should be a little more in depth then just making sure the lights work. Check the vehicles fluids and tire pressure. Are the tires balding or worn through in places? These checks can take about 5 minutes in total but they will save you a whole heck of a lot of grief. Also make sure to record your findings. If you start the shift and the windscreen has a big crack in it write it down. That way you don't get blamed.
Finally let’s talk about distractions. I think everyone can admit that they have been distracted while driving. We have the radio too loud, talking on the phone and are eating or drinking while on the go and why not. The vehicle is your office and we might not get much chance to take a break elsewhere. Unfortunately in my time working at the hospitals and also as a body collector for the medical examiner I saw first hand that distractions do kill. So turn down the radio (or better yet listen to some educational audio cd’s) and pull over to use the phone. Even if you have hands free phone in the car or Bluetooth you are still operating the vehicle while you are distracted. Take a few minutes, pull over and then deal with phone. If you want to know how dangerous it can be drinking a coffee or soft drink while driving just imagine if your air bag deployed while you had that beverage to your face. Not a pretty image is it.
So slow down and buckle up, because you have to get to the scene safely before you can do anything useful.
Chris
Increasingly trainers are using videos of officer involved incidents during new officer training. I personally use several different videos during my training. However I am also seeing an increase in trainers misusing videos in class. I this article I plan to discuss my viewpoints on how to get the most out of videos.
First of all make sure you know the whole story. If you do not know the full story behind a video then don’t use it. Recently I heard that a major security company in Alberta was using the centennial bridge shooting as part of their training. Unfortunately the information they gave to their students was incorrect. The new officers were told that the officer responded to a suicidal man on the bridge. What actually happened was the officer was stopping the man because he was a suspect in a violent assault that had just occurred 15 minutes prior. Does this change anything? Absolutely! It changes the whole dynamic of the interaction. It changes the justification of the officers actions at the start and its a great way to get your officers thinking about what they would do in a similar situation.
In the video when the suspect attacks the officer the fight moves off camera. At this point a man jumps over the hood of a police car to help the officer. The man is an off duty detective from a neighbouring city. What you can’t see on the video is that the suspect is choking the officer and biting his eyebrow off. Yes you read that correctly. The suspect bites the officers eyebrow off (I have a picture of the officer. The picture is quite graphic and shows the extent of the damage that was done). If your officers are never told what is happening off camera does this change things? Absolutley! It is the whole justification for the off duty detective shooting the offender twice to stop the attack. You now have a great talking point on the use of deadly force. You also have a great scenario to role play or at least discuss. Basically if you don’t know the facts of the case then don’t use the video. It destroys your credibility as a trainer. Also if you know the facts make sure you are telling your officers. It’s no good only giving them half of the information
Secondly the security company that was showing this video was telling their new officers what the officer involved did wrong. This is something I cannot stand. When we are watching these videos we have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. We are under no stress and we can put our full attention into the video. The officer has many other concerns and does not know the end result. The officers is involved in an incident that is, to quote the U.S Supreme Court “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.” Instead of picking flaws with the officers actions make an effort to find learning opportunities. Talk about environmental awareness and pre-attack indicators. The suspect in the bridge shooting displayed many pre-attack indicators however most officers are not trained on how to pick them up. Now you can show the officers the video again and just focus on the suspect’s body language. Teach your officers what to look for. (I will do an article one day about pre-attack indicators) and don’t judge the officers. They are all brave men and women and deserve our respect. Learn what you can from the video but do not judge those involved.
Thirdly avoid videos that have been edited or cut down. Try to get the whole video. For those of you that have not seen the centennial bridge shooting here is a link to the full video: http://blutube.policeone.com/Media/4...idge-shooting/
I love using videos in training. Videos allow officers to see real life events and learn from them. They can hold people’s attention better than most other types of learning. However be careful when using them. Don’t show a video and move on. Show a video and take it apart piece by piece. Watch the suspect’s actions. Watch the communication between the officer and suspect. Use the video to start discussions about these sorts of things. Remind your officers that the video does not tell the whole story and that we should be careful to leap to conclusions. The officers are doing a hard job and some give their life in the video. Be respectful when talking about the officer. We are fortunate to have the video and be able to use it for training. Even if you are not a trainer, watch the videos and start doing when/then thinking. Mentally rehearse the scenario and put yourself in the officer’s shoes. While watching some videos I get an adrenaline dump. I imagine myself swapping places with the officer and try to imagine what the officer is going through. If we can get that type of reaction just watching the video imagine what the officer is going through.
Stay Safe,
Chris H
WARNING: This Post involves me promoting something that I am selling. I apologize for that. But several Forum contributors asked me to let them know when this became available, and - being old - I've forgotten who asked.
Emond Montgomery Publications now have available the Security Guard Exam Preparation Guide that I wrote for them. It is specifically designed as a test prep manual - it lists all of the learning outcomes found in the Ontario guard training curriculum (as well as those found in the CGSB standard and the provincial guard training standards used in BC, SK, and MB) and briefly covers the kind of basic info you need to know to face a multiple choice question based on each of those outcomes.
It also includes nearly 90 sample questions that are written right into the sections of the book, and another 90 sample questions that are organized into a full-length 90-question "medicine ball" practice test at the back of the book. I call it a medicine ball practice test because it has 90 questions (v. 60 on the Ontario test), it employs questions with 5 possible answer choices (v. 4 options on the questions on the Ontario test), and we recommend that readers challenge themselves to write it in 90 minutes, which means allotting yourself 60 seconds per question (v. 75 seconds per question on the Ontario test). The idea is that if you can meet the challenge of doing well on our practice test, you should be able to take a lot of confidence with you when you go in to write the less daunting provincial test at a Drive Test Centre.
The book also contains an Appendix which provides practical tips on how to "tactically" approach a multiple choice test in ways that enhance the odds of doing well even if you end up having to "guess" some answers. There is no penalty for wrong answers, so test writers should always answer every question regardless, but guessing never has to be as random as a simple one-in-four chance of getting it right.
You can order the book directly from EMP online by going to their website.
Emond Montgomery Publications - Canada's Leading Academic Publisher - Security Guard Exam Preparation Guide
The price is $56.50, which is a lot of money. But it's still $3.50 less than having to pay Drive Test to write the test a second time if you fail it the first.
I apologize again to both site administrators and site users if this kind of commercial promotion offends. It's not my intention to hurt the integrity of the Forum. And hey, my book may turn out to be crap! I'll leave it up to others to comment on whether or not they find it useful.
Much of this column comes from what I have learnt while training with Brian Willis. For those of you that don’t know Brian he is a former Calgary Police Officer that retired after a 25 year career. For his last 9 years he was the head use of force trainer for the agency.
I am sure that most of you will agree that one of the biggest complaints you hear from co-workers and other members of your
...
I am creating this blog after admin put out a request for trainers/instructors to create a training column.
First of all I guess I should introduce myself.
My name is Chris H. and I have worked in Security/Law Enforcement since the summer of 2006.
I am currently a Team Lead with Alberta Health Services and I am awaiting appointment as a Sworn Community Peace Officer Level 1.
For a short time in early 2008 I was a Peace Officer Level 2 for a small town just south of Calgary. I have been an instructor since 2007 and a member of ILEETA since 2008. I was very lucky that when I was first hired by the Health Region they brought on Brian Willis as a consultant and instructor for the first few intake classes. From that moment I began delving into the world of training I haven't looked back since. Along with being a Team Lead for Alberta Health I am also the unofficial lead officer safety instructor for the Calgary zone.
None of the concepts, ideas or theories that I express in these columns are original. In fact nothing amazingly new has been developed in the world of training in thousands of years. Everything is just an evolution of an earlier idea. The things I talk about will be my opinions which I have created based upon my personal experiences and my training.
With Admin's blessing I hope to cover all aspects of training not just physical skills. We have a diverse group on this website and I would like to make columns that at least have something to do with with everyone's chosen profession be it corrections, site security, mobile, sworn Law enforcement or Armed guard.
All comments, concerns, complaints and ideas are welcomed. I may not have the answer for everything but I will endeavor to do my best to provide you with something. Open debate is also welcomed. Not everyone has the same view or ideas...if we did the world would be very boring.
I hope to put something out at least every two weeks but I will try for every week. I already have lots of ideas for different columns but if anyone would like to see something specific then just fire me a PM.
Finally I would like to thank Admin for the chance to hopefully create something that gains alot of interest and brings some more folks to the site.
Stay safe,
Chris Hutchinson
Recent Forum Posts
Recent Articles
