Pointing a Firearm vs. Low Ready positions as "Reportable use of Force" in LE Policy

[AMC]

I present the following to the collective, especially those of you involved in training and Use of Force policy issues. I'd like to know if anyone else out there has a similar policy, or similar language in their policy.

In response the numerous cases in the Federal Courts over the years clarifying that Pointing a Firearm at a suspect is a police Use of Force, our Police Commission decided several years ago to make Pointing a Firearm a "Reportable Use of Force" in our policy, which means a Supervisory Investigation and written report, specific documentation in the actual police report, inclusion in our Use of Force stats, and a point in our EIS (Early Intervention System). Regardless of how anyone felt about it, this was the policy, everyone understood it, and it actually helped us break the practice of Pointing too many guns at people we shouldn't be Pointing guns at, and properly utilize Low Ready and Alternative Ready positions.

Recently, at the behest of our Department of Police Accountability, the Commission revised the language in policy, which now states that "Low Ready" IS Pointing a Firearm at someone, and is therefore Reportable. There is also a new requirement that officers report every time they draw or exhibit their Firearm on duty, and their supervisor must fill out an evaluation form for each instance.

Of note that these policy changes were made without ever consulting the Academy or Range. I have already written a 6 page document laying out what I see as the obvious and inevitable problems arising from this policy. I know what the problems with it are, and I dont need advice such as "Get the hell out of there!". First, I'm gone in 14 months or less, and that doesn't help the kids I'm leaving behind. I would be interested to know if any other agencies have policies that specifically make the Low Ready position a Reportable Use of Force, and what effects that has had on operations and training.

The document I've prepared encourages the policymakers to revisit the language they've inserted, in response to the information I've presented. I have virtually no hope they will listen, because frankly the people involved are not good faith actors with good intentions. But I'll be able to sleep at night knowing I didn't just throw up my hands.

[jlw]

Our previous policy was that the display of a firearm as a means of control was a use of force, and we required completion of the use of force form and review process.

After a recent shooting, the GBI requested the reports of every use of force incident in which the deputies were involved.

Our policy now is that the display of a firearm will be documented in the incident report but only the actual discharge of a firearm will result in the form being completed.

I see both sides of it and don’t disagree with the new policy as there was concern with the total number of use of force incidents being intentionally misrepresented.

[AMC]

Our previous policy was that the display of a firearm as a means of control was a use of force, and we required completion of the use of force form and review process.

After a recent shooting, the GBI requested the reports of every use of force incident in which the deputies were involved.

Our policy now is that the display of a firearm will be documented in the incident report but only the actual discharge of a firearm will result in the form being completed.

I see both sides of it and don’t disagree with the new policy as there was concern with the total number of use of force incidents being intentionally misrepresented.

Initially, when the policy changed to count "Pointing a Firearm" as a reportable use of force, our UoF stats skyrocketed. Then, as we gradually convinced cops in training that Low Ready was a tactical advantage....the stats plummeted. This was, frankly, the reason that the Department of Police Accountability pushed to change the language. We had successfully changed the culture and practice, but it gave them less ammunition. They need Police Use of Force to remain at what they can deem "excessive" levels so they can perpetually argue for "systemic change".

[TC215]

Basically every agency in my state was forced to change policy last year to include "pointing a firearm" as a reportable use of force. Luckily, our policy specifically states that holding a firearm in a ready position does not constitute a UoF. Let me know if you want a copy of our policy.

[BehindBlueI's]

We only recently went to capturing "pointing a firearm" as a UoF special ("specials" are what we call internal reports for UoF, on duty injuries, etc.) and it does specifically require pointing a firearm at a human. There is no requirement to report simply for drawing, low ready, etc. It also does not require a supervisor to respond to the scene like every other UoF does. We can sign off on it by just watching body camera footage and reading the officer's narrative.

[Erick Gelhaus]

I would be interested to know if any other agencies have policies that specifically make the Low Ready position a Reportable Use of Force, and what effects that has had on operations and training.


My org does not treat Low Ready as a reportable UoF, nor do any others - aside from yours - that I am aware of.

Aveni's work on ambiguous shootings included data on agencys with very restrictive drawing policies and the adverse impact that had on good decision making.

[AMC]

My org does not treat Low Ready as a reportable UoF, nor do any others - aside from yours - that I am aware of.

Aveni's work on ambiguous shootings included data on agencys with very restrictive drawing policies and the adverse impact that had on good decision making.

Got a link to Aveni's work, or a source?

[Erick Gelhaus]

Got a link to Aveni's work, or a source?

I’ll get it to you this afternoon, evening.

[Erick Gelhaus]

From pg 24 of Aveni's work:
As was previously noted (“Inter-Agency Shooting Variations”), the distinct inter-agency differences relevant to shooting unarmed suspects seem directly attributable to training. There were no substantive differences in agency policies pertinent to the use of deadly force. The one agency that required its personnel to complete a “Use of Force Report” whenever unholstering their handguns had a 44% rate of frequency in engagement of unarmed suspects. Its participants did typically unholster their handguns more slowly than participants from other agencies, but that didn’t seem to influence their overall judgment in the research scenarios. The agency with the lowest frequency of unarmed suspects shot (24%), judging from all informal participant debriefs, had the most rigorous scenario-based training regimen. Virtually every participant interviewed from that agency stated that he/she had had one or more force-on-force training sessions in the last 12 months. In itself, this might not seem evidence adequate to suggest that training was the most influential factor, but it is the only factor that clearly stood out from all others. We were impressed by the overall professionalism exhibited by participants afforded to us by all agencies. Scenario-based training was evident to some degree in all participating agencies. However, in all but one agency, it seemed much more intermittent rather than routine.

[AMC]

Thanks, Erick. That will make a powerful addendum to my soon to be willfully and negligently ignored report. :D

[SoCalDep]

Since we’re years into this... how ‘bout we define “force”.

[S Jenks]

IACP: The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance from an unwilling individual.

[SoCalDep]

IACP: The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance from an unwilling individual.

Right... so two steps forward is effort. Speech is effort. What “really” is force? It’s a non-defining definition.

If an agency wants to make pointing a gun force they might as well say low ready is force, ordering compliance is force, arriving on scene is force. Wearing a uniform is force.

When we have a word with no definition and we get to create the definition to fit our immediate political whims, there is no rational argument against it.

[paherne]

I want to say Erick also mentioned to me in the past that the Force Science study on car stops and officer ambushed showed that officers with weapons holstered when ambushed performed much less well? Am I mis0remembering this?

[paherne]

Also, the Ninth Circuit in Bryan v. McPherson and other cases is pretty clear that officers are highly encouraged to issue warnings before any use of force, if possible. Drawing a weapon is a pretty good warning that you might be about to get shot if you do not comply. Also, will officers have to issue a verbal warning before drawing their firearms to comply with warning before using force, if drawing a firearm is a use of force? "Stop, or I shall blow my whistle, again!"

[BehindBlueI's]

If an agency wants to make pointing a gun force they might as well say low ready is force, ordering compliance is force, arriving on scene is force. Wearing a uniform is force.



That's pretty much what the old "Use of Force Continuum" was. It's considered an outdated way of looking at things since it did not conform to case law, but it started with officer presence, stepped up through verbal commands and eventually arrived at lethal force. I'm sure you've seen one, even if you weren't trained on it at some point. I've got no beef with verbal commands from a uniformed officer being labeled as a type of force, as not all force is physical and wielding your authority to compel an act is a sort of force.

That said, if something is force or not isn't the same question as how granular the data being collected needs to be and is the reporting requirements so onerous that people take more risks to avoid the required tasks afterward?

When I stared we didn't even have a supervisor out on a use of force unless there was serious injury. Punch a drunk, roll him into cuffs? It went in the report but no data was collected for statistics gathering, etc. The department couldn't answer the question of how many interactions with officers eventually lead to force. That's probably under reporting. A full blown supervisory investigation for drawing a firearm is, IMO, over reporting. Reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn, of course.

[AMC]

While I agree with SoCalDep that 'Force is vague in both policies and case law (and gets even more so with the latest SCOTUS case). Our specific issue is the "Drawing and Exhibiting a Firearm" evaluation supervisors will now have to fill out every time somebody skins the smoke wagon, and that Low Ready is now Reportable Force under our policy that triggers a full supervisory investigation, EIS points, etc. Both of these policies are going to lead to inevitable, easily foreseeable bad outcomes. Either cops losing gunfights or bad shootings resulting from panicked draws and shooting behind the curve in reaction to a sudden threat.

The management corrolary to the economics principle is: if you want more of a behavior you incentivise it, if you want less of a behavior you attach paperwork to it. These policies are clearly intended to discourage officers from considering their firearm as a viable Force option.. Aside from the clear ignorance of training and practice involved in this process, we have folks who do NOT like us (in fact despise us) making our policies. I am going to attempt to inject reason into the process.....but I'm not holding my breath. But it's not going to go to hell because I didn't bother to try.

[BehindBlueI's]

The management corrolary to the economics principle is: if you want more of a behavior you incentivise it, if you want less of a behavior you attach paperwork to it. These policies are clearly intended to discourage officers from considering their firearm as a viable Force option..

Which will be reinforced by lazy first line supervisors who don't want to respond to do the field investigation on the use of force.

[SoCalDep]

As has been pointed out, objectivity and rational thought isn’t really the issue we’re dealing with here. I agree that many agencies, and therefore anyone who’s looking at training law enforcement as a whole, have to deal with this “new normal” as one instructor put it on a different subject years ago.

To me, we in law enforcement really make (and get to keep) our money for the shots we don’t take. That’s cool bumper-sticker logic to simplify the fact that putting bullets in bad guys really is sort of a “last resort”, and that’s probably as it should be, at least in today’s political environment.

So what encourages the restraint so many desire?

I’ll give my worthless opinion... It’s not de-escalation training. It’s not training to deal with mentally ill. Those are mandates from ignorant and/or stupid people who have never had to face a tactical situation involving the potential for serious bodily injury or death. In fact, it’s the mandate for that very training that takes away valuable resources for the skillsets that would actually further their goals.

When it comes down to using force (actual force - not bullshit non-defined whatever we mean today crap), we need cops who can make good decisions based on two primary factors. Those are the following:

What is happening?
What can I do to deal with it?

If a cop can’t figure out what is happening, bad things will likely happen. Improper decisions will be made on how to deal with the situation, regardless of their “knowledge” (de-escalation or whatever training) on what is right to do. This can occur, and has occurred because the cop recognizes the seriousness of the situation but can’t work their equipment and needs/needed to dedicate excessive amounts of mental capacity to working the equipment rather than the problem.

Cops who aren’t confident in their ability, and aware of their limitations, do things that end up in bad results. Cops often have a tendency, facilitated by bullshit department qualifications that say they’re “good” to overestimate their skillset. They get in over their head and both make bad decisions and then can’t perform to what they thought they could.

I can name a bunch of examples of the above... many of the examples reflect the controversial shootings of recent past. None of the training recommended by the politically “woke” will help. In fact... It WILL hurt. Policies like discouraging drawing the firearm make it more likely the less practiced will perform outside “panic” range. People will die.

It’s dramatic...and it’s true.

That said, as those who train cops to work the gun, how do we deal with this reality we can’t change? To me, it comes down to working with what we’ve got. My first thought is the draw. If your draw sucks and you work for one of these agencies you have three futures - luck, your funeral, or a bad decision that leads to you wishing for option #2... not so good. Be good at drawing your gun.

Be good and teach good at hitting from your draw. Make it known about human reaction times, decision-making, Hick’s Law, the McGurk effect, OODA, and effects of stress on decision making and performance. Ensure your people understand their capabilities and especially their limitations when it comes to running the gun.

Also... Give up on the cool-guy tactical crap. The situation doesn’t care that you trained for another situation. Get good at, and train others to get good at things that will allow less focus on the gun (equipment) and more focus on the problem. That is basics... fundamentals... draw...shoot...reload... clear malfunctions... without thinking about it. That, regardless what the ignorant politicians want, will help... and less people will die.

We can’t change the world, and we can only do so much. What we can do is know when we go home at night and look in the mirror is that we did our best to help our people to survive (physically and professionally) in the reality that is our new normal.



While I agree with SoCalDep that 'Force is vague in both policies and case law (and gets even more so with the latest SCOTUS case). Our specific issue is the "Drawing and Exhibiting a Firearm" evaluation supervisors will now have to fill out every time somebody skins the smoke wagon, and that Low Ready is now Reportable Force under our policy that triggers a full supervisory investigation, EIS points, etc. Both of these policies are going to lead to inevitable, easily foreseeable bad outcomes. Either cops losing gunfights or bad shootings resulting from panicked draws and shooting behind the curve in reaction to a sudden threat.

The management corrolary to the economics principle is: if you want more of a behavior you incentivise it, if you want less of a behavior you attach paperwork to it. These policies are clearly intended to discourage officers from considering their firearm as a viable Force option.. Aside from the clear ignorance of training and practice involved in this process, we have folks who do NOT like us (in fact despise us) making our policies. I am going to attempt to inject reason into the process.....but I'm not holding my breath. But it's not going to go to hell because I didn't bother to try.

[CraigS]

There was something on the news last night regarding police policies. I don't even remember what it was but I gave my wife a summary of this thread because it fit. She was appalled. Anyway, I'd like to say a hearty THANKYOU to all of you involved in any way in law enforcement. We really appreciate what you do.

[jd950]

Police work in 2021 and beyond is going to be different than it was in early 2020 and before. Cops are going to be required to take more steps and more obvious steps to avoid and minimize force and will need to be able to clearly articulate how they did that or why they did not. For many, this kind of stuff gets a few hours in academies and the occasional in-service training and that is not going to be enough. It is also something that many cops have not embraced. The rules and the laws are here or coming for most of us and it will ultimately be up to each individual to develop the skills necessary to try and stay of trouble.

As to the original question...I am seeing agencies enact polices and local and state governments enact laws that state or suggest that "unnecessarily or prematurely drawing or exhibiting a firearm can serve to escalate a situation." I assume bad things will happen if the people making those decisions after the fact feel such a thing happened.

I am seeing policies like this:

A "show of force" report will be filed in "incidents NOT involving a use of force, but a firearm (no discharge) or physical hand control technique was used." The term "used" is not defined, but since it is distinguished from a gun being fired, and makes no mention of where it was pointed, I take that to mean unholstered.

A further proposed policy states a use of force report is needed for "incidents NOT involving a use of force or injury…where an officer un-holsters their firearm or CEW/TASER, intentionally points any firearm or CEW/TASER at a person, and no other force-related incident occurs.
"At a person" is not further defined. I assume the upshot is that unholstering is a show of force, and pointing a gun "at" someone is a use of force. I would guess low ready under this policy may require a use of force report.

An article touching on this issue from several years ago: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/A...ed-Handgun.htm

[AMC]

Police work in 2021 and beyond is going to be different than it was in early 2020 and before. Cops are going to be required to take more steps and more obvious steps to avoid and minimize force and will need to be able to clearly articulate how they did that or why they did not. For many, this kind of stuff gets a few hours in academies and the occasional in-service training and that is not going to be enough. It is also something that many cops have not embraced. The rules and the laws are here or coming for most of us and it will ultimately be up to each individual to develop the skills necessary to try and stay of trouble.

As to the original question...I am seeing agencies enact polices and local and state governments enact laws that state or suggest that "unnecessarily or prematurely drawing or exhibiting a firearm can serve to escalate a situation." I assume bad things will happen if the people making those decisions after the fact feel such a thing happened.

I am seeing policies like this:

A "show of force" report will be filed in "incidents NOT involving a use of force, but a firearm (no discharge) or physical hand control technique was used." The term "used" is not defined, but since it is distinguished from a gun being fired, and makes no mention of where it was pointed, I take that to mean unholstered.

A further proposed policy states a use of force report is needed for "incidents NOT involving a use of force or injury…where an officer un-holsters their firearm or CEW/TASER, intentionally points any firearm or CEW/TASER at a person, and no other force-related incident occurs.
"At a person" is not further defined. I assume the upshot is that unholstering is a show of force, and pointing a gun "at" someone is a use of force. I would guess low ready under this policy may require a use of force report.

An article touching on this issue from several years ago: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/A...ed-Handgun.htm

jd950, if you don't mind, can you tell me what states and agencies those policies are coming from? You can PM me for a work email if necessary.

Locally, and in my state at large, I have been unable to find any agencies mirroring the language we have. There are a few agencies that require a report any time a gun is unholstered, and a few that consider "Pointing a Firearm" to be Reportable Force requiring a supervisors investigation and report. Not a single agency I've found in California that I've communicated with has "Low-Ready" as Reportable Use of Force. There's quite a few other California LE folks on this forum, so if anyone is aware of anything to the contrary, please chime in.

[jd950]

jd950, if you don't mind, can you tell me what states and agencies those policies are coming from? You can PM me for a work email if necessary.



Sending a PM

[Jeff22]

I started as a cop in May of 1981.

My whole career, if I pointed a gun at somebody, a report was required to explain why.

[jd950]

I started as a cop in May of 1981.

My whole career, if I pointed a gun at somebody, a report was required to explain why.

The devil is in the details. "Pointing at" vs a low ready or similar position? Do you mean simply documenting the fact in a report or an actual use of force report? In some agencies, too many use of force reports can cause problems.

I don't think many people have a problem with the idea that actually "pointing" a gun "at" someone, as in "at gunpoint" warrants a report.

[Jeff22]

Doing a separate use of force or pursuit report for data capture is required by statute in my state. This is a relatively recent thing.

My agencies (I was working full time in one place and part time in another) were requiring that before the law required it, but still it’s relatively recent.

When I started I was amazed to discover that ALL police involved shootings were not reported to the FBI. They just gathered data on the incidents where officers were killed. That still surprises me. What if reporting detail on ALL police shooting incidents had been required back in 1980 or so. Just think of the vast amount of data instructors would have as a resource when developing training programs.