Absolutely agree with the above, BBI...and "weasel wording" isn't just a tool for defense attorneys. Language is a tool to be wielded by the good guys too.
Context and nuance matter. Take every yard you can, give every yard grudgingly.
Absolutely agree with the above, BBI...and "weasel wording" isn't just a tool for defense attorneys. Language is a tool to be wielded by the good guys too.
Context and nuance matter. Take every yard you can, give every yard grudgingly.
There's nothing civil about this war.
In my experience, the factors that get officers in trouble most often (criminally, civilly and administratively) is blurring the lines between resistive and assault behavior. That almost always skews the element of proportionality, so we spent a lot of time on the disparity that must be considered.
I also believe that using real-life cases (there's plenty to choose from) is the best learning tool in lieu of discussing things in the hypothetical. Obviously, any force that is driven by emotion instead of constraint has the potential to get wonky. I think that variable is best addressed by hiring good people from the get-go and quickly culling those that can't/won't color inside the lines.
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
@ECS686
If you have the time, I'd like to have your input on the topic.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I was shooting with a counterpart agency the other day, and you could have knocked me over with a feather when, before we shot, we had to listen to the agency's Use of Force policy read, verbatim. That wasn't the weird part, what caught my attention was their policy MANDATES verbal warning before use of deadly force. No wiggle room, no, "if practical" or "if it doesn't endanger the agent or those around him" - straight up mandatory to give a verbal warning before shooting. Seriously, who writes this shit?
While they were reading you should have responded: "Stop or I'll shoot!"Originally Posted by psalms144.1
There's nothing civil about this war.
Okay first, it wasn't "my" pyramid. Nobody consulted me when it was adopted either.
I was just one of many that had to work under it.
Did you somehow take my post to mean I preferred it over what you posted? If so, that is incorrect.
Last edited by Redhat; 09-23-2019 at 05:01 PM.
I didn't intend to imply you created it no more then I would be implying your ownership by stating 'your department'. I have no idea what you prefer or don't and wasn't intending it to be confrontational. Simply asking questions based on the perceived issues with the pyramid and equivalent continuums. That was the standard teaching tool when I came on as well, although it was a ladder type shape, not a pyramid.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Got it thanks. I'm always interested to learn something about the latest info.
I "think" a benefit of the wheel, donut, etc. comes from trying to educate others - especially outside the org, profession - about the concept of whether or not an event was reasonable. The stairwell didn't do that well, and it implied, to those not cops, that one had to start with presence and work through each step before being able to resort to lethal force. The donut takes away that argument from plaintiffs counsel &/or criminal defense attorneys. I've seen it work pretty well in citizen academies too. Plakas v. Drinski should be discussed to explain what the wheel shows.
Outside of the 9th CCA, agency policies mirror Tenn v Garner and Graham v Connor for starters, especially on issues of objective reasonableness, commands/warnings, and fleeing violent bad guys. Unfortunately, in the 9th, they have repeatedly ruled that they want warnings to be given and that includes likely outcomes of failures to comply. Not just "DROP THE GUN!, but rather "DROP THE GUN OR YOU WILL BE SHOT!"
Other cases I used were:
Terry v Ohio, Scott v Harris, Mullenix v Luna, Sheehan v CCSF, White v Pauly, Plumhoff v Rickard, Hayes v County of San Diego, among others.
"We" would double team this with new employees. The last few hours of the firearms block was policy, case law, and aftermath concerns, including interview issues. The first few hours of arrest/control, etc was policy and case law explanations as well as report writing considerations.
Only thing I can chime in is while Use of Force is use of force it can be a little different dealing with inmates inside the fence compared to an armed trip. We just try and keep them from harming each other, themselves or staff.
My agency does have a pretty thorough after action review that has regional offices involved from a aimple inmate in on inmate fight up to a staff injury or inmate homicide. (2 lateral are referred to US Attorneys for prosecution)
While we use more less lethal than most we have al ost zero issues with that. The only issues we have had were staff got in hot water was from taking a perceived "late hit" outside the ole OODA loop when it appears to be over. And it's usually on film so they can catch an OIA case. As far as if the inmates armed all bets are off and that's about ad much as I'll say.
Last edited by ECS686; 09-23-2019 at 11:03 PM.
Reply With Quote