Since we’re years into this... how ‘bout we define “force”.
Since we’re years into this... how ‘bout we define “force”.
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.Originally Posted by S Jenks
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.
Last edited by SoCalDep; 04-03-2021 at 10:52 AM.
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?
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!"
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 It's considered an outdated way of looking at things since it did not conform to case law, but it started with officer presence, stepped up through verbal commands and eventually arrived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.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
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.
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.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
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.
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.
Reply With Quote