General Questions About Judgement and Use of Force

[elbuenob]

Introduction: My name is Brandon, I'm new to the forum and I'm posting from Washington, DC.

Hello - I'm interested in any perspective on some recent national events wherein Police have responded to citizens with the use of pepper spray. Casual observers such as myself see non-violent American citizens having harmful chemicals used liberally and often indiscriminately against them but there is always another side to every story.

I'm looking for interpretations and opinions from seasoned, professional members of law enforcement on any of the following:

(1) Are police and other law enforcement professionals officially sanctioned to use force, such as pepper spray, and what conditions must be met for a free citizen to earn or qualify to receive it? Perhaps another way to state this would be: Is there is a code of conduct or standard rule of judgement that law enforcement professionals use to measure when it is appropriate to use force?

(2) What about security or special police, what kind of rule of judgement or code of conduct are they aware of or following if any?

(3) When a law enforcement professional is ordered to use force upon free citizenry what is the responsibility of the single professional when it comes to their own best judgement? Does individual decision making enter into the carrying out of the order? Is the law enforcement professional at risk for making judgements or at any time under potential duress?

(4) Lastly, and perhaps the most unintentionally inflammatory question: Does some facet of the job, be it actual training or shared ethos, instruct law enforcement professionals on how to approach emotional decision making? By that I mean: for many people it would be very hard to pepper spray a group of seated people but it seems quite easy for others - I'm interested in what mental preparation has come prior to such an order being acted upon and what might be going through the mind of the law enforcement professional at the time such an order is being carried out.

My hope is to engage in an open conversation about this and I'm not pointing fingers. Nor am I interested in flaming our fine public servants. I would hope you can tell from the way I've chosen my words that I'm trying to stay away from value judgements in the hopes of understanding your culture and points of view. Thank you and I hope this will be instructional!

Regards,

Brandon

[marinepilot]

Brandon, I believe your post to be well thought out and written, and I will attempt to give my answers as best I can. Realize I'm just one guy and I'm in Florida, so the rules & laws where you are or where you're seeing these things happen will definitely be different.

1) Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's) are DEFINITELY sanctioned in the use of force. It's part of our job and probably the biggest part of our consistent training. As for the conditions to use different levels of force, that will be determined by the legislature of the area (most likely the state) that the action is taking place in. For instance, in Florida I am allowed to use a scale of force to ensure compliance or maintain safety. For pepper spray, I am allowed to deploy that when a person is being actively resistant to me or threatening mine or anothers safety, for instance, attempting to do violence to me or another person. The laws of my state, along with the policies of my agency, determine which force I can use and when, but my judgement also goes a long way in any decision as well.

2) Security guards are also held to the rule of law as well as their companies policies. For instance, one company may employ armed guards, and they would have to have received the training and license required by the laws of Florida before being allowed to carry, then they would also have to follow those laws, as well as any policies their company has, before using force. I've never worked security, but I believe they are more restricted in what kinds of force and when they can use it.

3) If I am "ordered" to use force, then I must ensure that the order does not contradict the laws and policies I must obey in using it. If the order is not within those boundaries, it's my duty to not follow that order. I'm sure if I believed the order to be not acceptable, the person who gave it may try to stress me out to follow it, but it comes down to me doing what's right. Now if the order is good, then I have no problems using the force necessary to obtain compliance and / or protect safety.

4) As far as I know, and I've been in LE for almost 5 years, there's no training on the emotional aspect of making decisions. The emotions are personal and you'll have to deal with those on your own. If they are going to affect someone from doing what needs to be done, then I would say that person is a detriment to their agency, but from what I've seen, most LEO's do what needs to be done and then they deal with it later in their own way. I can only speak for myself, but I've made decisions that were hard emotionally, but I knew they had to be made and the action had to be taken in order to enforce compliance, maintain order, and protect safety of myself and those around me. That helps me to realize that I was doing the best I could at the time. In the case of the video of the officer spraying the so-called "peaceful" students at UC Davis, I would have had no problem with that because 1) I've been sprayed with pepper spray and, while it is highly irritating, it is in no way a "harmful chemical" as you've called it, and 2) they were in direct violation of the rules / laws of the university in blocking that roadway and had been ordered and warned multiple times before to move or they would suffer consequences such as being pepper sprayed. Don't forget that the media is only going to show the most inflammatory section of the entire video to raise the ire of as many as possible, as that is what sells airtime. They won't show the long period of time prior where there was a standoff and those people were warned and ordered to move, yet made choices to disobey lawful orders.

[L-1]

Hi Brandon,

I am from California and will attempt to respond to your inquiry based on our laws and procedures.

Based on the wording of your questions I assume your curiosity is based primarily on the many videos of what happened at UC Davis. While it may seem hard to understand, there is not enough information available in those videos for me to give you a meaningful response, or for people in general to arrive at a valid conclusion as to what took place. I know that seems like an odd response but consider, the videos do not show what happened for a significant time before or after pepper spray was deployed. Additionally, they only focus on a limited area and do not show the area, crowds or conditions in a 360 degree circle surrounding the event site. Lastly, they do not explain the thought process, motivation or intent of the officers or protesters. Without all of this information it is impossible for anyone to reach a valid conclusion as to whether the conduct of any party was reasonable and proper under the circumstances.

From a personal point of view, I have followed the incident very carefully and find that every day different information comes to light that seems to take the matter in a whole different direction. I thought one thing the first day and now I am going in the opposite direction. At this point I would like to reserve final judgment until all the facts are in.

In California, use of force is regulated by the law. It is even further limited by departmental policy. Officers are very mindful of the limitations on use of force because of when can happen to us if we step outside those boundaries. If we violate departmental guidelines in the use of force, we can be suspended, demoted or lose our jobs. If we violate the law in the use of force we can be prosecuted criminally under state law for Assault Under Color of Authority. If we violate the law and the people are still not satisfied and want an additional pound of flesh, we can also be prosecuted by the Feds for Civil Rights Violations. On top of all that, we cal also be sued civilly for monetary damages.

There are a number of problems with the use of force by police. First, even when it is justified, any use of force is ugly. People don't like ugly and because of that, they tend to side with the guy that loses, which is usually not the police. There is also a misconception on the part of a lot of the people that the police are not allowed to use force. (OMG Martha, did you see that? The cops hit that poor man. Police Brutality, Police Brutality!) Another problem is that some folks are romantics who believe all fights should be only accomplished through proper fisticuffs and according to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules. That just doesn't happen on the street. When they see the police rolling on the ground with someone, they think they are obviously being brutal and violating someone's rights. Sadly too, much of the public's perception of what the police can and cannot do is shaped by Hollywood and television. I cringe at what is shown on TV regarding the law and police work because most of it is legally and procedurally inaccurate, misleads the public and is written solely for entertainment and dramatic purposes.

Pepper spray in my agency is viewed the same as pain compliance. It is a level of force that is somewhere between seeking verbal compliance and having to apply physical force against an active or (in some circumstances) a passively resisting suspect.

If you want a better view on public perception and the use of force, take a look at http://www.aele.org/law/2007-04MLJ501.pdf Use of Force and the Hollywood Factor. It may put things in better perspective for you.

[ET109]

At the risk of doing homework...


(1) Yes, they are. Force is held to a 'reasonable' standard. Might a reasonable officer use that level of force? Police are not required to use the minimum amount of force required, and may use it to gain compliance or to combat resistance. Compliance gaining techniques might include armlocks, pressure points, maybe pepper spray. When trying to get compliance from more active people- those who are fighting, for example- it is likely a higher level of force would be reasonable (baton, etc).

(2) Might depend on the municipality, but tends to be self-defense. They, unlike police, are not enforcing law. I'm not going to find out what happens if you grab a bag of money from a armored car guard and run, but I've heard in some places the guards can only use their guns to defend themselves, not the money. Don't take that to the bank, though.

(3) I have never had someone 'order' me to use force on someone in a situation I was uncomfortable doing so. Whether I would do so or not would probably depend on how high-risk the situation was. Having a debate on whether or not to use force during a bank-robbery would be a no-no.

(4) Didn't see any 'emotional' training, thankfully. I don't think you can be trained for that except through experience.

[elbuenob]

These are terrific answers and I thank you LEO's, one and all, for taking the time to explain what must be a difficult and sensitive issue.

I realize after reading your answers that I am so far from the use of force that It doesn't even occur to me that there may be ways to codify or decide how it may be used or controlled. My default thinking on it is a dead end - a big "No" to subjecting anyone to force. But then again, I'm not desperate, deranged, or a risk to my fellow citizens. At least not yet - it doesn't take much these days to fall into those categories if you step out of line which seems to be when you become a candidate for having force used upon you.

As LEOs, you are often the agents of that force, many times against your wishes and I'm sure your best intentions. That has got to weigh heavily on a human being... to work within the "power industry" in the way that someone may work in a "banking industry". Maybe there's a better way of thinking about it and I'm not doing it justice. Any comments on this?

What I'm trying to say is that when one decides to use Power to create force, they can do it for good or bad, which has been defined as Law. I can see that LEOs who responsibly decide to do a job that deals with the balance of power are sanctioned to work with force, for good, as defined within the Law. So the issue isn't with the LEO, it's with the changing definition of lawful activity - and force is the action of actively defining and confirming the laws of our society.

In this way, LEOs may be agents of social change. And not negatively like "agents" in the Matrix. Actual representations of our societal decisions in the flesh. Perhaps it's too bold, but could one say, "Look no further than an LEO to see how far our society has come with respect to Law and Order" ?

I think it's hard to try to tell others that it isn't the LEOs who should always receive blame, it's often our own Laws and the people who create them. Or even our very selves for not making a Law that say, makes it illegal to use Pepper Spray. Because we could if we wanted. The current populist climate is one in which people don't see the rule of Law as being accessible to them - it is closed off to them for various reasons and the only way to get what they want is with their presence. It's a desperation and LEOs unfortunately have to mitigate the cultural situation.

Last question, a little more theoretical but hopefully your patience isn't up: Since you all work with power, insomuch as you keep it scarce, controlled and more or less in the proper hands - and thus define what power is - do you ever wonder if you have a responsibility to help define what power may be on behalf of those you must use force upon?

Thank you all once again, this has been thought provoking evening.

-Brandon

[Samuel]

IMO, an LEO is NOT a reflection of "how far society has come". The things that we FACE and DEAL WITH on a daily basis are more accurate reflections of "how far society has fallen" and "where society is headed".

You seem to be relatively articulate but you also seem extremely naive about Life, the World in general and the importance of LE in keeping society civilized. If you are serious about learning more, I suggest going on as many ride alongs as you can. That Might give you a Little more insight into LE. As of now, your rhetoric sounds like it's coming straight from a liberal college classroom lecture/discussion.

My jury is still out on whether you truly have an open mind about this discussion. I'd like to believe it, but I have a feeling it's not - or it just could be that you've formed some opinions based on not a whole heck of a lot of concrete/accurate information.

That being said, I would like to see you reword the last question above into something a little more clear, a little more to the point.

[mcsap]

If people are breaking the law ( even " peacefully " ) and I give them fair warning to stop / move / desist in their illegal actions....MUST I then risk injury to myself by carrying / hauling or dragging them away ??

Do you think that Police Officers have a big " S " on their chest ? Do you think that we can just easily scoop up people who are even non-violent and just easily haul them off with no risk of injury to us ? Dead weight is HEAVY.

While my job has risks , I have no obligation to repeatedly risk my own safety over people who CHOOSE to break the law ( even peacefully).

I would have no problem WARNING people doing this that.....

1. You are breaking the law by trespassing / blocking a public passage etc.
2. You are ordered to remove yourself within 5 minutes or risk being arrested.
3. Failure to remove yourself allows me to use the lowest levels of force including pepper spray.


People who choose to break the law ( even if they feel they aren't) have a legal obligation to obey my order. Their disagreement with me belongs in a courtroom , not on the street. Can you imagine if everyone we went to arrest had the legal opportunity to disagree with us their own arrest and we had to " discuss " the circumstances of the arrest before physically taking them into custody ??

We are given great authority to do Law Enforcement and we take that very seriously. I am not in any way advocating striking people or using excessive force. I am also not an advocate of injuring my back trying to lift 200 lbs of dead weight time and again for a bunch of people who claim that they are just " non-violently protesting ".

I support your right to protest on any subject you wish. I do not support your doing so when it involves breaking the law.

[Switchback]

Brandon,

I think the above posts have answered your question very well and I have very little to add. I only wish to clarify something... perhaps putting the use-of-force in a different light for you.

WE don't choose when to use force. The subjects that we must deal with are the ones who dictate the amount of force to be used. We have extensive training in the proper application of force and the various levels of its application. However, we only respond to subjects "request" for its use. They present us with a situation and we must respond accordingly.

[elbuenob]

My jury is still out on whether you truly have an open mind about this discussion. I'd like to believe it, but I have a feeling it's not - or it just could be that you've formed some opinions based on not a whole heck of a lot of concrete/accurate information.

That being said, I would like to see you reword the last question above into something a little more clear, a little more to the point.

Samuel - I think I've been nothing but respectful in this back-and-forth but I do see how my questions can seem naive. One of the reasons I sought the opinion of professional LEOs is because, as I suspected, there is a huge gap between myself and those I associate with and yourself and your LEOs. Sometimes those gaps can appear like naïvité but they are more reflective of a difference in values and life paths. I continually seek to hold a mirror up to myself by asking people "in the know" if I'm wrong in my thinking - and that's what I've done here. You all, especially you, have given me a gut-check and I appreciate it. So please, continue to fire away and hold no punches.

Side chuckle: We are all a tad liberal since we live in a liberal democracy, right?

-Brandon

[elbuenob]

Thanks to everyone who has take time to reply. I'll probably end this thread now with a rephrasing of my last question since everyone has been incredibly helpful already and I'm not here to cause mischief:

Beyond the currently accepted method of defining Law through an arbitrating body, like the government, do you ever recognize a more immediate need to define god or evil based on anything outside the Law? For example, is there anything for you higher than the Law? One obvious answer would be your religious beliefs and that would be completely valid. But another answer might be more universal, something that typifies the reason some become LEOs and others don't. That's what I'm looking for and my suspicion is that it's something archetypical, like the role of a Defender.

Thank you all once again, I'll await your replies!

Regards,

-Brandon

[elbuenob]

...we only respond to subjects "request" for its use...

Interesting point, I've never thought of it that way. Can you expand on how one "requests" to have force used on them? Obviously it's not made in writing, so there must be some set ways it happens. An LEO decision tree of options comes to mind, one that happens quickly, often immediately.

I'm very interested in what happens when one doesn't know they are making a request for force to be used against them - either because they don't know the triggers or are unfamiliar with what LEOs consider a request.

Very interesting and thank you!

[Switchback]

Interesting point, I've never thought of it that way. Can you expand on how one "requests" to have force used on them? Obviously it's not made in writing, so there must be some set ways it happens...

Really? I am having a very difficult time believing your sincerity. You can hardly be THAT obtuse.

If you're sitting outside a Panera Bread enjoying your foo-foo drink and a car comes barreling over the curve towards you, they have made a request for you to do one of 2 things, get run over or get out of the way. Can you grasp that, or is it too much of a stretch? The bottom line is we are reactionary. Surely it is not too complicated for you to grasp that we react within guidelines and it is the subject to whom we are reacting that determined the level of force. We don't arbitrarily choose a use of foprce option, based on your mood. Jeeeesh.

[Joeyd6]

Brandon,

Just because you don't see somebody sitting down, does not mean they are not breaking the law. You sit on a sidewalk on on private property and I tell you to move, and you refuse.....you are now breaking several laws. They are being non-violent but they are still criminals. And while you see pepper spray as violent.....it is not. It causes discomfort. Discomfort that is temporary. Violent is hitting them or using batons or shooting them.

[Samuel]

Thanks to everyone who has take time to reply. I'll probably end this thread now with a rephrasing of my last question since everyone has been incredibly helpful already and I'm not here to cause mischief:

Beyond the currently accepted method of defining Law through an arbitrating body,
like the government, do you ever recognize a more immediate need

What is a "more immediate need"?

to define god or evil based on anything outside the Law?

Was that supposed to be "good" or evil? IME, "Law" does not define what is "god" "good" or "evil" - law defines what is "Legal" or "Not Legal".

For example, is there anything for you higher than the Law?

For me, sure. Sometimes it comes into play and sometimes it doesn't based upon the totality of the circumstances. You have heard of "discretion", right?

One obvious answer would be your religious beliefs and that would be completely valid. But another answer might be more universal, something that typifies the reason some become LEOs and others don't.

How about I spin that around and point out that the vast majority of Criminals are criminals because they believe themselves above the Law or hold other things (such as fulfilling their wants/needs regardless if their actions are legal or not) higher than the Law?

That's what I'm looking for and my suspicion is that it's something archetypical, like the role of a Defender.

You lost me again with whatever it is you're looking for.

Thank you all once again, I'll await your replies!

Regards,

-Brandon

Let's try this again and let's stick with no more than $5 words and concepts because I never finished skoool. What exactly are you asking and/or what are you trying to say?

[L-1]

In an earlier post I mentioned that new information seems to come out every day that changes the direction of the UC Davis incident. A new and lengthy (30 minute) video tape has been published that clarifies things further. (See Below)

It appears the UC officers had made arrests when they were surrounded by the crowd, which was intent on not letting them leave with their prisoners. The group that was peppersprayed deliberately sat down in their path as part of concerted action to hem them in while the surrounding crowd chanted, "If you let them go, we will let you leave." Had the officers tried to walk over or through those sitting in, they or their prisoners could have been grabbed by those sitting on the ground, creating an altercation and freeing the prisoners.

This was not a peaceful protest. It was what is known as lynching under California law, the attempt to retake prisoners from the custody of officers. It is a felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.