chutchinson

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