Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Hello everybody,

My name is Matt, and I was a deputy with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office in Kansas back in 2006. I resigned out of field training because the job was not for me, but I still have a good understanding of how law enforcement operates.

The reason I'm posting is because I am currently taking a public speaking class and would like to do a persuasive speech on the subject of the UC Davis pepper spray incident. I'm not allowed to post links until I've made 15 posts, but if you google "UC Davis pepper spray" it'll come up.

Basically, campus police at UC Davis broke up a daisy chain by spraying them first and then going hands on.

I remember the use of force continuum from my days at the academy. My department taught that there were 6 levels of subject resistance and 5 levels of control. The levels of control were 1. Officer presence 2. Verbal commands 3. Empty hands (hard and soft) 4. Intermediate weapons 5. Lethal force. My department also taught the continuum as a guideline and not official department policy.

My problem is that I don't remember where OC came into play on the continuum. My memory is telling me that it was between verbal commands and empty hand soft control, but I'm not 100% sure on that. What does your department say about where OC falls on the continuum? Is it also just a guideline with your department?

My argument for my speech is going to be that the officers sprayed them so that they didn't have to fight them. If they didn't spray them, their alternative would have been to use pressure point control techniques which would made it look like they were physically beating the people (I was taught to strike a person on their forearm to get them to let go of something.) I'm going to argue that it isn't easy to move somebody that's passively resisting, and that the pepper spray reduced the chance of back injuries to the officers, and also reduced the chance of injury to the subjects because the officers didn't have to use as much force to force them apart. I'm also going to argue that according to the force continuum, the use of OC wasn't excessive.

Your input is appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Every department has a different set of policies about the use of force.

Some places have OC, Batons, and TASER all on the same level.

Some places authorize using a TASER before using soft empty hand control.

In my department, we have OC between soft and hard empty hand control.

Matt, First off, Welcome to RP from the Florida Panhandle!

Secondly, I remember a thread a few months back where questions similar to yours seemed to be asked. Check out this thread and see if it helps you with your answers:

General Questions About Judgement and Use of Force (http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/99833-general-questions-about-judgement-use-force.html)

There was some discussion there about why the officers at UC Davis used OC spray on the passive resistors.

Keep in mind that there are those that believe that not obeying lawul order is okay as long as it is non-violent. It's nonsense but that's what some believe.

The best pepper spray that I've seen applied that was in the press was by Q tip swab on "non-violent" protesters. I guess spraying looks aggressive but applying by Q tip was okay. Same effect but just looked better. I'm not a LEO though. but you can imagine swabbing a siitters face and nostrils with OC chemicals looks a lot more controlled than a spray. And I but stuffing an OC laden swab up the nose is pretty nasty. This was capitol police dealing with a sit on. They gave up their sti on and the application was so personal, no one else was affected. I thought it was awesome. Resisting the application makes the demonstrator look violent so those people where simply hauled off. I can't speak to whether that would have worked in this case but it was still awesome.

Just my 0.02 but applying with swab looks compassionate and medical. Spraying looks aggressive. Video of a protester crying over being swabbed looks better than a mass mob retreating over being sprayed. I also don't think the officer wasn't reasonable. I'm waiting for that microwave weapon that creates a feeling of intense pain with no tissue damage. The ACLU hates any type of force that doesn't leave a mark that can be photographed.

Where I work we don't really have a continuum in the sense of a sequence of escalating force levels... sure, we're not going to pull out a gun a shoot a pickpocket who is running away, but they're just teaching types of force more as a 'tool bag' now.

I would say we treat OC roughly on par with 'hands on'. Even though we have a lot of restrictive policies (pursuits, etc) I'll say we don't have much problem with use of force, as long as its articulated properly and not unreasonable.

It might help to make sure the audience sees a longer clip that event, as you'll see argued on the other thread... the protester behavior was not as benign as it can appear from the clips that only show the spraying.

Thanks for your replies folks. I had seen that other thread where the kid was asking his questions. I'm going to use part of that video for my speech.

Another thing I wanted to ask was if anybody knew where I could find a picture showing the force continuum. I was able to find one, but it was taken with a camera and was crooked. The others I found didn't have the same descriptions for the levels of resistance and force or they had OC up there with baton strikes.

Levels of resistance where I was taught were 1. Psychological intimidation. 2. Passive resistance. 3. Escape resistance 4. Active resistance 5. Active aggression. 6. Aggravated active aggression.

If anybody can expound on the "objective reasonableness" standard, that would also be helpful. As I remember it, an officer can use an amount of force that a reasonable person wouldn't find excessive.

Amazing how much I remember even though the academy was 6 years ago. I guess they pounded more into my brain than I thought.

ET-109. I see you're on the Eastern Shore. I spent a couple months working at Wallops Flight Facility near Chincoteauge Island, VA. Man that place was too country for a city boy like me. The mosquitoes on Chincoteague were huge too. You wouldn't be in that area would you?

P.S.- Does anybody have any suggestions on what I might add to my argument for why it was reasonable for them to spray those kids? I've got that the alternative was to physically coerce them which may have included striking them. That passive resisters are heavy and could cause injury to the police. I'm going to add that the police had no obligation to avoid using force, and that the amount of force used was consistent with the force continuum. Keep in mind I'm talking to people who have never had any police training.

Thanks again, guys.

Re: Objectively Reasonable / Objective Reasonableness

For further reading, research SCOTUS case law Graham v Connor

Excerpted from CA POST workbook:

<<<<<
In 1989, the United States Supreme Court applied an objective standard to a
nondeadly force situation and further established how reasonable force must be
judged objectively (Graham V. Connor). The Court’s analysis began by
considering the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to remain free from any
unreasonable seizure against the government’s interest in maintaining order
through effective law enforcement.

The Court noted that determining the objective reasonableness for the use of
force must be fact specific and established the following four components for
determining reasonableness.

The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be...
1 judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer.
2 examined through the eyes of an officer on the scene at the time the
force was applied.
3 based on the facts and circumstances confronting the officer without
regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation.
4 based on the knowledge that the officer acted properly under the
established law at the time.

The officer’s perspective

Peace officers will constantly be faced with decisions as to when to use force
and to what degree it should be applied.

The totality of the circumstances must be evaluated from the perspective of the
officer at the scene, rather than from an outsider’s benefit of hindsight.

Reasonable force must be based on the facts and circumstances known to the
peace officer at the time the force was used.

The Court noted that:
“the amount of force necessary for the situation is determined by the objective
reasonableness as judged by a reasonable officer given the officer’s training
and experience.”

The officer’s intent

The primary objective for the application of force is to ensure control of a
suspect. The Court determined that the officer’s subjective feelings toward a
suspect should not be considered when establishing whether or not to use force
or the amount of force to use for a specific situation.

Additional gauges for reasonableness

The Court noted that the following facts should also be considered but not
limited to when gauging reasonableness.
The severity of the crime
The nature and extent of the threat posed by the suspect
The degree to which the suspect resists arrest or detention
Any attempts by the suspect to evade arrest by flight >>>>>


Btw, if you're not fluent in this area, you might want to consider choosing another topic or argument for your public speaking class...

Re: Objectively Reasonable / Objective Reasonableness

For further reading, research SCOTUS case law Graham v Connor

Excerpted from CA POST workbook:

<<<<<
In 1989, the United States Supreme Court applied an objective standard to a
nondeadly force situation and further established how reasonable force must be
judged objectively (Graham V. Connor). The Court’s analysis began by
considering the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to remain free from any
unreasonable seizure against the government’s interest in maintaining order
through effective law enforcement.

The Court noted that determining the objective reasonableness for the use of
force must be fact specific and established the following four components for
determining reasonableness.

The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be...
1 judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer.
2 examined through the eyes of an officer on the scene at the time the
force was applied.
3 based on the facts and circumstances confronting the officer without
regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation.
4 based on the knowledge that the officer acted properly under the
established law at the time.

The officer’s perspective

Peace officers will constantly be faced with decisions as to when to use force
and to what degree it should be applied.

The totality of the circumstances must be evaluated from the perspective of the
officer at the scene, rather than from an outsider’s benefit of hindsight.

Reasonable force must be based on the facts and circumstances known to the
peace officer at the time the force was used.

The Court noted that:
“the amount of force necessary for the situation is determined by the objective
reasonableness as judged by a reasonable officer given the officer’s training
and experience.”



Ahh, but you are missing the most important piece: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals believes that reasonable officers should be clairvoyant. In fact, the SCOTUS just had to spank them for requiring "reasonableness" to not include second guessing their superiors, the DA and the judge regarding search warrants. Hopefully the SCOTUS decision will temper the 9th a bit on "reasonable officer" standards.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-704.pdf

Where I work we don't really have a continuum in the sense of a sequence of escalating force levels... sure, we're not going to pull out a gun a shoot a pickpocket who is running away, but they're just teaching types of force more as a 'tool bag' now.

really? You must not ha risk management department :). There's at least three levels that I've seen that seem to be universal regardless of dept around here. Ones that don't need a report, ones that need a separate use of force report, and one where they confiscate you firearm and ammunition until they give you new ones. :). I have no idea where the line is drawn for each department though :). No one likes the reports so it almost guarantees minimum use of force. lol. I'm not a LEO though.

really? You must not ha risk management department :). There's at least three levels that I've seen that seem to be universal regardless of dept around here. Ones that don't need a report, ones that need a separate use of force report, and one where they confiscate you firearm and ammunition until they give you new ones. :). I have no idea where the line is drawn for each department though :). No one likes the reports so it almost guarantees minimum use of force. lol. I'm not a LEO though.

You're probably joking here as those are not "use of force" levels as far as I can tell. :)

We learned the use of force continuum when I went thru the academy as well, but Florida is moving away from that graphic because it makes people believe they have to proceed thru the steps in order to get to the next highest level. Now they are teaching that the use of force continuum is more like a mosh of all the options and you can go from the lowest (say "presence") to deadly force in an instant, and you don't have to go thru verbal commands, open hand, closed hand, intermediate weapons, etc. or anything else. The bad guy determines the level, and we're taught to use the amount of force necessary to eliminate the threat and get control of the situation as quickly as possible. It's a little more to grasp, but it makes sense so people don't think they have to go A, B, C, etc.

Samuel - Thanks for posting that info. I used the part about the purpose of force is to gain control for my report.

I don't know whether you can relate or not, but when the district attorney's office came to the academy to explain the legal aspect of the use of force, all the lawyer speak only confused me. On top of that, use of force training took several days and the lessons from it were repeated over the course of the academy. I don't think I need to be an expert on par with the D.A. to give the 10 second version of what reasonable objectiveness is, but I appreciate your input on that as well.

If you're interested for your own personal knowledge, I was mistaken about reasonable objectiveness being based on what a "reasonable person" would think. According to the wikipedia entry on Graham vs. Connor, it has to do with what a "reasonable police officer" would think was an appropriate use of force with the consideration that police often have to make split second decisions in mind. "Reasonable person" I think applies to probable cause but I didn't look that up.

Marinepilot - Thanks for pointing that out. I'll make it a point to explain that you don't have to go through the steps. It's interesting that you say they're doing away with that visual aid. I guess that shows that I'm getting old and I'll be the one hearing "That was the old way" instead of saying it.

As far as my speech goes, I've pretty much got it done. I appreciate the time you all took to give your input.

There is a little more to the "gain control" purpose - we use force to stop a threat and/or to gain control of a subject or situation. We don't use force to punish or maliciously injure. In CA, we are authorized to use force to Effect an arrest, Prevent escape, or Overcome resistance. I teach this stuff in our academy as well as to our inservice personnel...

Good luck with your presentation.

PS It could always be worse:

esJ1JfKr59Y

You're probably joking here as those are not "use of force" levels as far as I can tell. :)

We learned the use of force continuum when I went thru the academy as well, but Florida is moving away from that graphic because it makes people believe they have to proceed thru the steps in order to get to the next highest level. Now they are teaching that the use of force continuum is more like a mosh of all the options and you can go from the lowest (say "presence") to deadly force in an instant, and you don't have to go thru verbal commands, open hand, closed hand, intermediate weapons, etc. or anything else. The bad guy determines the level, and we're taught to use the amount of force necessary to eliminate the threat and get control of the situation as quickly as possible. It's a little more to grasp, but it makes sense so people don't think they have to go A, B, C, etc.

Yeah, I was joking. I have heard complaints of a routine arrests where the subject decides to stop complying and it turns from a regular report to a regular report plus use of force report because they had to take him to the ground. I don't know how standard that is. Certainly taking someone to the ground isn't a baton strike but it's the same form they have to fill out. Usually about an hour before the end of the week. The "continuum" seems to be for the press when they ask why the dead guy with a knife wasn't tased first or disarmed with a baton and how unfair it is that the well-equipped police officer didn't use all his ninja training to safely disarm the meth crazed knifer without injury to anyone. From the shootings reports I've read, it's clear they want at least a few things before lethal force: identification that you are police, an order to comply and an articulation of the threat the officer perceived. I don't know that all three are necessary but it seems like those questions are asked everytime.

I'll add that I think the continuum is probably more productive in a team environment where different roles can be assigned. There can be a caller, a shield or breacher, a taser and lethal element or two. It would take a lot of discipline and training to rely on someone to provide various aspects of force without transitioning yourself. Relying on the rifle element to step in when your taser or pepper spray fails takes a lot of trust and training they they wil shoot before you die.. When the SHTF, every individual is going to be responsible for their actions.

Samuel - I intend to let the people know that force isn't for punishment or the personal gratification of the police. You would think that would be common sense info, but people who haven't received any instruction on the subject have an entirely different way of thinking. I polled my class on the UC Davis subject before I decided to make it my topic. I wanted to see how many of them thought that it was wrong. About 80% of the class of 15 people raised their hands. One thing they said was, "They were just sitting there! They weren't resisting." I got a kick out of that.

I think they'll be surprised to know that sitting there as dead weight is resisting, and that simply by being there the police were using force. I at least was surprised by those things when I first heard them.

This is me signing out for another 8 years. Thanks again for your perspective on things, folks.

The "continuum" seems to be for the press when they ask why the dead guy with a knife wasn't tased first or disarmed with a baton and how unfair it is that the well-equipped police officer didn't use all his ninja training to safely disarm the meth crazed knifer without injury to anyone.

I JUST read in my hometown paper about such an incident. Cops try to arrest suspect wanted for menacing with a knife, and he charges at them with a knife. They shoot him, he dies. Public starts protesting police brutality. Community leaders demand to know why the police didn't tase him. Mayor promises investigation and GOES TO THE DIRTBAG'S FUNERAL.

Glad I don't work there.