Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

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

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.

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

    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.

  2. #2
    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.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    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".

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    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.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  6. #6
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by AMC View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus View Post
    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?

  8. #8
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by AMC View Post
    Got a link to Aveni's work, or a source?
    I’ll get it to you this afternoon, evening.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    Thanks, Erick. That will make a powerful addendum to my soon to be willfully and negligently ignored report.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •