Use of force continuum

[Titansfanmjfink]

I know you guys dont like to discuss tactics too much on this side of the board, so if this falls into that area, feel free to lock this.

I've read several articles regarding the Use of Force Continuum and whether its a positive or negative concept. It seems to be the prevailing theory is that the continuum teaches hesitation, which is obviously very dangerous.

The supreme court requires no such guidelines and makes judgements of Use of force incidents with the same knowledge the officer had at the time not with the "20/20 view of hindsight." Alot of the articles claim the continuum teaches the officer that he must perceive the threatening behavior, interpret that, think about where it falls an the continuum, then think of all the responses "allowed" by the continuum, decide which is best, and then act.

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled an officer only has to consider what is reasonable given a situation. While it may be found later that an officers response was excessive... it was not unreasonable given the officer's information at the time.

So I guess my question is... I know the continuum is widely used, but how many of you agree with having established "rules" as to whatforce can be used in response to a subjects behavior? And then having it further muddied up by having to consider officer/subject physical characteristics, any special knowledge the officer has of the subject, etc.

BTW, I can post the links to some of the articles if anyone would like.

[keith758]

The "force continuum" is a guidline to the use of force. Circumstances dictate what force can and will be used. There is no set rule for thwe use of force. I may use whatever force is necessary to stop the activity. I do not fight fair. I fight to win.

[Darin]

It's a guideline and it's fluid. You can't really have hard set rules as all incidents are different.

[manahmanah]

I think a lot of people (non-cops) misunderstand the use of force continuum. You do not have to use each force option in succession. If a situation calls for deadly force I'm going right to my pistol. Every situation is different. Also, several different officers can perceive the same threat differently. A lot comes into play.

[Titansfanmjfink]

The reason I pose this topic is because a lot of times, when officers are killed in the line of duty, it is found they they either hesitated in using force or did not use enough force. Many attribute this to the use of force continuum teaching hesitation.

I realize the continuum isn't a set of concrete rules, but I can see how some officers, especially new officers could hesitate before using force because that table/graph/image of the continuum has been drilled into their head.

[Joeyd6]

The reason I pose this topic is because a lot of times, when officers are killed in the line of duty, it is found they they either hesitated in using force or did not use enough force. Many attribute this to the use of force continuum teaching hesitation.

I realize the continuum isn't a set of concrete rules, but I can see how some officers, especially new officers could hesitate before using force because that table/graph/image of the continuum has been drilled into their head.

I think you are referring to teh old charsyou may have seen where "personas A, officer uses B."

That no longer exists. You have to explain whatyou did and why. That is different for each officer, even in the same situation. A smaller officer (male or female) who goes to arrest a 300 lb, 6'2" male, and fights for 30 minutes, would likely be able to justify a stringer use of force than if there were two officers or one officer who was a 6"2", 260 and former boxer. Its all fluid and changes by officers and their persepctive.

[RT302]

The key word is "because".
As in, (insert whatever force used here) "I shot the suspect because.....";)

Along with what Joey said, it's all in how it is articulated.

[Hockey9019]

Hell, even when you say "because" they still think you could have shot the gun or knife outta their hand or in the leg :rolleyes:

[Switchback]

Because of MISCONCEPTIONS that you had to progress through the continuum, rather than proceeding right to the necessary "level", many places are teaching it with a new approach. Rather than using the stair-step-looking table, I have been seeing more and more use of a continuum that looks more like a wheel or pie chart. It is often easier for people to see that they jsut spin it around to the necessary use-of-force and proceed... instead of working through all of them.

[Titansfanmjfink]

Yeah, I know my department has nothing resembling a continuum/table/chart. We simply have a list of possible suspect action (passive resistance, active resistance, active assault, lethal force, etc) and then a list of possible officer responses (officer presence, verbal commands, balance displacement, striking, taser, etc). However there is nothing suggesting that a certain response is associate with a certain action, unlike some of the color-coded tables I've seen. Its only for report-writing purposes.

[ChesCopPodz]

We teach a use of force wheel.

[Samuel]

The reason I pose this topic is because a lot of times, when officers are killed in the line of duty, it is found they they either hesitated in using force or did not use enough force. Many attribute this to the use of force continuum teaching hesitation.

I realize the continuum isn't a set of concrete rules, but I can see how some officers, especially new officers could hesitate before using force because that table/graph/image of the continuum has been drilled into their head.

IMO, "hesitation" is NOT caused by a force policy or force continuum per se. Even the most restrictive or outdated force policy will allow you to react. Sometimes what you may be allowed to react with is not enough but you still have something to react with.

IMO, "hesitation" can be a result of quite a few factors: not having your head in the game, a lack of familiarity/working knowledge of your force policy, a lack of training or poor training, too much "reverence for human life", too much worry about civil/criminal liability or public perception when it comes to using force, not having done enough what if/mental training - too much time lost during the OODA loop, etal.

I studied MA/DT for a long time before I got on the job. Even so, when I got sworn, I had a headful of things to consider with regards to uses of force. My department force policy is pretty darn good. I can jump to wherever I need to go and I have multiple options to choose from. I am also not limited to using a certain "brand" of techniques. Still, after graduation, I didn't have a good working knowledge of force. Cooperative? No problem. Combative/fighting? Green light is on, no problem. It was the middle ground (somewhere between resistive and fighting) where I had trouble knowing what I could say or do.

Something that I do see from time to time (on dash cam videos, in scenario training, in real life events, etc) is some LEOs not recognizing "pre-fight indicators" and/or signals that would lead him/her to believe that a subject was now (going to be) combative and no longer just resistive. E.g. If a BG is taking off his glasses and watch, loosening or removing his tie or hat, and cussing you out, you may want to stand by to stand by...

[Darin]

I think some hesitation is due to the civil liability being drilled into you in the academy. Don't get me wrong. You need to know that stuff but I heard way too much "If you do this then the bad guy will have half of your things".


I NEVER think about civil liability. I do my job the best way I know how. I'll go home after my shift.

[ChesCopPodz]

I think the hesitation is more about getting sued etc.

The one problem I have with the continuum is that we will fight how we train. If we are trained to step up in force, then I gaurantee that there will be officers that follow that literally on the street, because that's how they're trained.

I know of one case a while back where an officer was shot and killed because when it came time to shoot the bad guy, he fired two shots and reholstered, because that's how he was trained. He was found dead with his gun in his holster.

[RT302]

I know of one case a while back where an officer was shot and killed because when it came time to shoot the bad guy, he fired two shots and reholstered, because that's how he was trained. He was found dead with his gun in his holster.

That's why they teach to scan for additional threats, including the one that was shot, prior to re-holstering.