Training "Use of Force"

[BehindBlueI's]

From another thread:

The above mention topic is taught to LE, DOC, and other agencies where the use-of-force incidents will occur. It is a good read for civilians too. It might not be quite apples to apples comparison when it comes to civilians, but it will give you an idea of what LE has looking over their shoulder in a use of force investigation. A very informative read.


https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum

I know for us the "continuum" has gone away and is no longer considered best practices. The continuum of force, usually presented with the "plus one" use of force guidelines, was not in line with case law or criminal law. The standard the law and courts have held us to is "reasonable force" and the continuum created misunderstandings on both the police and civilian side. The word continuum means: : a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees. The implication is one must work their way through the continuum when the reality is you may jump it an any point, including lethal force, before trying lower force levels if the situation warrants it.

The replacement was often a use of force wheel, such as this:



This is more complicated but takes into account the fact use of force is *not* a continuum and that circles can be entered anywhere. There is not a "top" and a "bottom", but there are checks for reasonableness.

The circle is a good illustration and a way to teach recruits, but not necessary to include in general orders, which should simply be in line with case and criminal law. Trying to peg down a "do X when faced with Y" level always results in so many exceptions because Z the GO becomes useless.

[blues]

That's not bad, and it's a clever rendition...but I don't think it makes things any simpler than the "continuum"...though I do agree that term can be misleading for some.

Perhaps it would just be simpler to explain appropriate force and let their brains absorb and understand the reasoning...since they'd need to articulate it at some point in any case.

[Poconnor]

I understand the reasons for going to “ the donut”. I like the appropriate tool in the toolbox approach. Too many officers and people thought the use of force continuum meant the “escalation of force” meant a stairway; ie taking each step one by one. Instead of just a graph of specific points in response to the actors actions. Maybe the original diagram should have drawn as steps instead of a straight line with the explanation “just like a set of stairs, you can skip a step if you had too.”

[cpd2110]

Are there any other ways out there to teach UOF to cops? In particular the ones we have coming into the job now. I recently did a video review where I incorporated policy and case law to answer questions on what was reasonable at various stages of the event. I struggle in this area and am always looking for ways to improve and help officers understand better what they can/can't do. We also do scenarios and have success with those in identifying officers who clearly do not understand deadly force. We do remedial training with anyone who struggles.

[JAH 3rd]

Thanks for posting!

[Redhat]

From another thread:




I know for us the "continuum" has gone away and is no longer considered best practices. The continuum of force, usually presented with the "plus one" use of force guidelines, was not in line with case law or criminal law. The standard the law and courts have held us to is "reasonable force" and the continuum created misunderstandings on both the police and civilian side. The word continuum means: : a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees. The implication is one must work their way through the continuum when the reality is you may jump it an any point, including lethal force, before trying lower force levels if the situation warrants it.

The replacement was often a use of force wheel, such as this:



This is more complicated but takes into account the fact use of force is *not* a continuum and that circles can be entered anywhere. There is not a "top" and a "bottom", but there are checks for reasonableness.

The circle is a good illustration and a way to teach recruits, but not necessary to include in general orders, which should simply be in line with case and criminal law. Trying to peg down a "do X when faced with Y" level always results in so many exceptions because Z the GO becomes useless.

In my previous life, we used the pyramid (continuum) and I never understood it to mean you had to start at the lowest level and work up.

This doesn't look all that intuitive to me, how many hrs are typically devoted to it during training?

[BehindBlueI's]

In my previous life, we used the pyramid (continuum) and I never understood it to mean you had to start at the lowest level and work up.

Do you suppose I could take your pyramid and convince a civil jury that it meant that, though?

Do you suppose that a lot of "sorta police" and folks out there working with nothing but a 40 hour pre-basic got the nuances?

The very name "continuum" was a misnomer, but one that stuck. As a result it was very easy to present it as such, either by malice or by negligence.

]This doesn't look all that intuitive to me, how many hrs are typically devoted to it during training?

I don't know. It looks like ILEA is doing at least 5 hours on "physical tactics lecture" which I assume covers this, and then emphasized again during scenario training, less lethal training, firearms, etc.

[BehindBlueI's]

Are there any other ways out there to teach UOF to cops?

I'm sure there are. I think the wheel is the best of the methods I am aware of, though, when combined with video, scenarios, and case law discussions.

[blues]

BBI, I like when you've discussed this topic in various threads and promote the use of "reasonable" force. I think that makes a great deal of sense.

I'd like to say the minimum force but that would only open every incident to second guessing and a debate consisting of "well, couldn't you have done this?"

At least reasonable allows a variety of right answers in that multiple points of view and actions can be articulated and justified under the circumstances.

Guy draws a gun on an officer standing within lunging distance...

Officer A draws his weapon and fires at the perp, stopping the attack.

Officer B kicks the perpetrator, knocks him to the ground and subdues him.

Officer C steps in and cold cocks the perpetrator.

Officer D hits the perpetrator with a striking instrument and incapacitates him.

All can be justified as reasonable under the circumstances but not every officer will be capable of successfully pulling off each method.

Obviously, depending on the size, age, fitness of the perp and the weapon they may (or may not have) at their disposal will call for further granularity.

It can't be overemphasized that an LEO must prepare him or herself in advance for the types of actions that may be called for in any given scenario...and be able to articulate the reasons why they are or aren't appropriate.

"Reasonable" seems the best way of approaching the slippery slope.

[BehindBlueI's]

BBI, I like when you've discussed this topic in various threads and promote the use of "reasonable" force. I think that makes a great deal of sense.

I'd like to say the minimum force but that would only open every incident to second guessing and a debate consisting of "well, couldn't you have done this?"

That's definitely part of the problem with the concept of "minimum force". Add in the fact it is a mind reader's game and that it has no basis in case law or criminal law. Then add in that it doesn't work very well. Trying for "minimal force" often equates to "not quite enough force" and the problem isn't solved, grows, then more force is ultimately used.

One of my roles as a sergeant is the field investigation and initial finding on if a use of force is justified or not. I kick back any report that says "minimum force". My guys know that any time they use force I'm going to demand a certain level of justification from them but I also write a novella that includes direct cut and pastes from general orders, rules and regs, etc. I've yet to be overturned on a finding, and I've yet to find an officer not in compliance for the use of force itself. Closest I've came is a rookie who didn't report a use of force to me through the proper channels and in a timely fashion. She let the ambulance transport the now-sedated suicidal suspect to the hospital and let the ambulance leave before she notified me, and then did so through the wrong channel (cell phone instead of radio). No discipline, but she needed to know that if she'd notified me properly I could have interviewed the medics to further corroborate her statements and assist in justifying her use of force.

On a side note, I recently ran across the notion of instead of stating "the officer's use of force was in compliance with..." using "the officer's reaction to the suspect's actions were in compliance with..." Apparently civil juries like that phrasing better. It paints a reactive picture, the officer had to do X because the bad guy did Y (even though that's spelled out in detail already) and not using the word "force" itself softens it. I don't know the validity of it, but we all know presentation matters a lot in the courtroom so it's completely believable to me.