Do you (or Wayne) think giving continuous commands when it's time to act divides the attention too much when there might be more important things to concentrate on?
Printable View
So much so that I recall one trainer saying that anything after three ignored commands was begging the suspect to quit. That's probably why my blood pressure rises when I see officers giving endless unheeded commands. If the suspect wants to call your bluff, he should find out what happens next.
I'm going to defer for the most part to the uniforms who have or had to deal with this on a day in, day out basis.
For example, on SRT we were constantly calling out to one another whether a zone was hot or not, (or similar, these techniques changed over the years), and if a subject was encountered they were given orders and if they weren't complied with immediately they went down by force and were flexicuffed. There wasn't time lost to repeated commands. It was more or less wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
On the street, we were sometimes backed up by uniforms but mostly it was just us, and any other state, local and federal working with us, all in plain clothes. In those cases I occasionally found myself one on one with either a target who had fled, or otherwise was encountered in the absence of backup...
...I know for a fact that in one or more instances I called for the subject to show me his hands more than once, and in at least one case that comes to mind I was already putting early pressure on the trigger when he went to his pockets for some unknown and unexplained reason. Finally, he realized it was not going to end well for him and he came out empty handed and that was the end of it.
So, I don't think it's necessarily a problem to repeat a command in a more aggressive fashion as long as one doesn't get caught up in a loop of doing so and not prepare for or initiate the next sequence of action required. I always tried to be thinking ahead and preparing for what might be necessary in the event things took a turn for the worse.
As I say, this is an area that the P.D. and sheriff's deputies would run into more routinely than we would on a daily basis so I think they're in a better position to answer from sheer number and volume of encounters.
Awesome post.
We’re doing active shooter training for our agency and the local SO next week and I guarantee we will have guys that go into vaporlock and keep repeating ineffective commands instead of taking Tuco Ramirez’ advice:
Attachment 28684
The real reason for loud repeated verbal commands, isn't compliance from the suspect, it's so that nearby witness can hear the police giving repeated verbal commands.
The same people that now complain about the police yelling at people, are the same types that used to complain that the police were beating suspects into custody without giving them verbal commands. It's not secret that it doesn't work, but when you tailor training to appease the fringe elements of society, you get predictable results.
Another good reason is that in an actual physical fight people have a tendency to hold their breath, you can't yell and hold your breath.
Guys,
I did a breakdown of the situation via video released by the LAPD. The point is not to criticize or deride the LEOs, as I am a former one myself. I wanted people--both LE and non-LE-- to learn the mistakes, analyze their OWN shooting capabilities, good tactics (and there are some in this video) bad tactics, and what their line will be when confronted by a bad guy with a blade. This is not an armchair quarterback deal. I simply wanted to give others some information about what some options are in the event they are in a similar situation.
I do not envy the boys in blue in this incident. And I understand their hesitation in today's climate. I also understand firearms handling rule#4, and this situation really drives that home. It also drives home speed vs. accuracy. This incident may prompt a new drill in class. Hope some here can get some value from the vid. Have a good weekend guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLGzjqXvhAY
I think there is an argument for repeated commands that falls well short of being caught in a loop. As referenced, we want to establish that we have issued the commands for witnesses and recording devices. More importantly, however, suspects may have some degree of auditory exclusion or simply not hear or understand us due to environmental conditions, poor hearing, or language barriers. (Of course, the way to make anyone understand English is to keep repeating what was said louder.:rolleyes:)
I don't think there is an absolute number of commands that should be mandated (which would be pretty foolish) and I think if the suspect has not obeyed the first several commands, he or she is unlikely to obey the next ten or twenty. I also think there are times to take action without warning or after a single command.
On one occasion, on of my shift mates was dealing with a disruptive and annoying handcuffed prisoner who was, however, not resistive or assaultive. When he told the prisoner to "Quiet down! I'm not going to tell you again!", I immediately commented "Yes, you are." The officer considere that for a moment and then remarked "Yeah, you're right, Sarge. I guess I am."