Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Use Of Force Standards

  1. #1
    Doc's Avatar
    Doc
    Doc is offline
    AKI Contributing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,364
    Thanks
    4,244
    Thanked 14,836 Times in 5,532 Posts

    Default Use Of Force Standards

    What changing the UOF standard would mean to cops


    The persistent urge by police critics to tighten restrictions on the use of force surfaced again this month after a controversial shooting in Sacramento, California.

    A state legislator told a press conference that she will introduce a bill to change the legal standard for law enforcement in California from using “objectively reasonable force” to “necessary force.” That means officers would be legally allowed to use deadly force only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to prevent serious injury or death,” according to a spokesperson for the ACLU, which is among the activist groups behind the measure.

    Also, the bill would “encourage prosecutors to consider whether officers could have de-escalated a situation with verbal warnings or used nonlethal force” before resorting to gunfire, according to reports of the conference.

    At this writing, the exact wording of the bill has not been publicly revealed, but we asked a select group of police attorneys with Force Science credentials to comment on implications of the proposal. One noted in responding that “there are efforts in several parts of the country” to alter the current standard, so the drive for change is not unique to California.
    Here’s what our panel has to say:


    Cost will be fatal hesitation, court confusion, monetary windfall for plaintiffs
    Atty. Mildred O’Linn, Force Science Analyst, Manning & Kass law firm, Los Angeles

    What is required in use-of-force situations by officers under current law is a stringent enough burden without imposing additional scrutiny via a subjective “necessary” standard?

    Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor in 1989, the force used by law enforcement must be “objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” That means that officers must take into account everything they knew and believed to be true up to that moment when they made their force decision, and then they will be judged on whether their assessment was reasonable and their force appeared to be necessary.

    Potentially relevant factors for consideration can be extensive, ranging from the perception of an immediate threat to the relative size, strength, and age of the suspect compared to the officer.

    If the legal standard goes from an objective “reasonable and appears to be necessary” standard to a subjective “necessary” standard—and the “appears to be” disappears—officers will be faced with impossible decisions with unbearable consequences. The evaluation of their choices and actions in those “split-second decisions” in life-threatening circumstances would then be based on the ultimate outcome of the incidents.

    Judging an officer’s decisions in the bright light of day, when the smoke has cleared and the danger has passed and when you know the actual facts and circumstances, is clearly untenable. Officers cannot be expected to determine in the split-seconds available to them whether the weapon is real, the knife is sharp, the attacker is skilled, or even if the object in the hand is a gun or a phone when there is what reasonably appears to be an immediate threat to safety.

    Requiring officers in dangerous circumstances to further evaluate and make sure their actions are necessary could mean death, for example, when an individual reaches for his waistband. Maybe the suspect is just pulling up his pants or grabbing his cell phone—or maybe he’s drawing a gun.

    The cost of a “necessary” standard will be officer hesitation and deaths, a confusion in the legal standard for state and federal claims, and a monetary windfall to plaintiffs in civil litigation at great cost to taxpayers.

    This proposal is politically and financially motivated in a time when criminal consequences have been minimized and offenders are empowered by the lack of meaningful consequences. The reality is that we already ask so much of officers and we need to be reasonable in our expectations.


    “They want to prosecute more LEOs”
    Atty. Lance LoRusso, Force Science Analyst, LoRusso Law Firm PC, Atlanta, GA

    The goal of those who seek to change the standard is simple. They want to prosecute more LEOs who use deadly force.
    Much of their criticism of police behavior is born of ignorance regarding not only the laws of the use of force, but also the mechanics of the use of force, the force options available to LEOs, the potential danger of a suspect, and the speed and reality of deadly force encounters.

    These advocates look at the number of deadly force encounters with LEOs and argue they speak loudly of the clear need for additional training and changes to the legal standards by which LEOs are judged. In fact, the numbers speak loudly to the contrary. On average, LEOs arrest approximately 12-13 million people each year; they shoot and kill approximately 960. In truth, the use of deadly force by LEOs is rare.

    Perhaps the knowledge gap and intervention of politics is precisely why the Supreme Court recognized in Graham v. Connor that the actions of a LEO must be judged from the perspective of a “reasonable officer” who is trained and aware of the realities of the use of force—by police and against them. The reasonable belief standard now prevails as the clear statutory standard in more than 40 states.

    Changing from a “reasonable belief” standard to a “necessary” standard would be unworkable in the daily reality of law enforcement.

    “The calculus of reasonableness [allows] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation,” Graham states. If force that appears reasonable to the involved officer at the time and under the stress of the event is later found to be unnecessary, the LEO should not face a penalty for his or her actions, the Court ruled. A “20/20 hindsight analysis...in the peace of a judge's chambers” is expressly forbidden.

    A “necessary” standard invites and virtually ensures a hindsight analysis of LEOs’ actions. Any standard that invites the use of hindsight disregards the reality of policing.


    Impossible, unworkable standard will cost police & civilian lives
    Atty. Scott Wood, Force Science Analyst & Force Science faculty, Wood Puhl & Wood law firm, Tulsa, OK

    If necessary means you have to wait to see a gun, and wait to see if it is pointed, and wait to see if the suspect fires, it will be an unconstitutional statute. If it requires you to exhaust all other less lethal options before using deadly force, it will be an impossible standard, and extremely costly to law enforcement in terms of lives lost.

    If such a statute were passed, and I was an officer in California and did not quit my job, I would demand to be retrained in this new way of analyzing whether deadly force was “necessary.”

    One of my favorite citations on the use of force is from, ironically, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Scott v. Henrich, (39 F3d 912, 914):

    “Requiring officers to find and choose the least intrusive alternative would require them to exercise superhuman judgment. In the heat of battle with lives potentially in the balance, an officer would not be able to rely on training and common sense to decide what would best accomplish his mission.

    “Instead, he would need to ascertain the least intrusive alternative (an inherently subjective determination) and choose that option and that option only.

    “Imposing such a requirement would inevitably induce tentativeness by officers, and thus deter police from protecting the public and themselves. It would also entangle the courts in endless second-guessing of police decisions made under stress and subject to the exigencies of the moment.”
    Exactly right.

    If an impossible and unworkable standard is adopted, more calls will turn into “drive through” investigations. On the most dangerous calls, lives will be lost, police and civilian, while the numerous calculations of what is “necessary” are carried out.
    The genius of Graham v. Connor, which bends and moves with the facts of every case, has guided use-of-force training for almost 30 years. Tinkering with such a cornerstone of the law might have serious and far-reaching consequences we can’t even see now.


    A “feel good” gateway into no man’s land

    Atty. Emanuel Kapelsohn, Force Science Analyst & Advanced Force Science Specialist candidate, president of the Peregrine consulting corporation, Fogelsville, PA

    The feel-good attempt to change the standard from “objective reasonableness” to “necessity” would discard well-established case law, and put the police officer, and the courts, into no man’s land.

    A standard of necessity for the use of force does not require officers to exercise reasonable judgment but instead requires them to foretell the future. Consider this hypothetical:

    An enraged man, screaming obscenities and brandishing a machete, advances toward an officer from less than 20 feet away, ignoring commands to stop. At some point, before the attacker is within contact distance, most courts would say it is “objectively reasonable” for the officer to fire in defense of his life.

    But was it “necessary”? How do we know that if the officer had simply holstered his gun, knelt down, and pleaded for his life, the attacker wouldn’t have abandoned his attack? Or if the officer had used pepper spray or a Taser or empty-hand defensive tactics or had simply run away, it would not have proven effective? We cannot say any of these unlikely options would not work without trying them. And if any did work, then shooting the attacker was not necessary, was it?

    If your response to this is that necessary, as a use-of-force standard, doesn’t actually mean “necessary”—it means what the officer reasonably believes is necessary—then we have returned to the “objectively reasonable” Graham v. Connor standard that already exists. But if “necessary” means what most people would understand it to mean—that the officer had to use the force he used, because no lesser force would have sufficed; in other words, that the officer used the minimum amount of force that would control the violent situation—then this is requiring the officer to foretell the future.

    The fact is the untrained media commentator—or politician or member of the public—usually has little, if any, understanding of the factors that properly enter into an officer’s decision to use high levels of force. Changing the standard that guides that decision is merely a “feel good” measure that scraps 29 years of carefully established federal case law and imposes an impossible, superhuman task on officers.

    Challenge to politicians: Experience reality exposure before supporting change
    Atty. Laura Scarry, Force Science Analyst & Force Science faculty, DeAno & Scarry law firm, Chicago

    It is clear the proposed legislation is purely emotional, a knee-jerk reaction to a recent controversial shooting as opposed to a well-thought-out and educated response to a complicated issue.

    What I find most frustrating about the proposed bill is that the legislature spends so much emphasis placing the responsibility on police officers in deadly force situations. Sure, officers must be held accountable when they engage in criminal behavior but in my experience representing officers after shootings, I have yet to represent one who “wanted” to kill the suspect who confronted them with real or perceived threats. A common thread I see with all my clients is that they felt they had “no choice” but to react the way they did and often ask, “Why did he/she do what they did to force me to act?”

    The power of that question resonates with me deeply. Officers KNOW that they work in a fishbowl, they KNOW that their every move can be found on video, whether it’s from their dash cams, body cams, civilian cell phones, or surveillance cameras. So why would an officer murder someone when they know their actions are going to be criticized afterward? Even those who were justified in using deadly force to subdue a suspect risk losing everything they worked hard for.

    Officer behavior, as we well know, is primarily in response to suspect behavior. I often wonder what the outcome would be in these high-profile incidents had the suspects just complied with the officers’ lawful orders to stop, get on the ground, or show their hands.

    By Illinois law, deadly force is justified when an officer “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person.” I am not really concerned about the use of the word “necessary” per se. What I am concerned about is whether the proposed bill in California eliminates an officer’s “reasonable belief” that such force was necessary.
    Also, I have concerns about the suggestion by the bill’s sponsors that officers must use other alternatives before resorting to the use of force, including “warnings, verbal persuasion, or other nonlethal methods of resolution or de-escalation.” This is completely unrealistic.

    I challenge supporters of this bill to experience reality-based training simulators/videos to truly understand why police officers may make mistakes in the use of deadly force, before requiring the unattainable.
    "Nothing is more dangerous than the conscientiously ignorant, or the sincerely stupid." - Martin Luther King Jr.

    "Knowledge speaks but wisdom listens." - Ed Parker Sr.

    "It's much easier to quote, than to know." - Ron Chapél


    www.MSUACF.com

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Doc For This Useful Post:

    KirkS (07-07-2018),nelson (07-07-2018)

  3. #2
    nelson is offline
    KenpoTalk
    Adv. Yellow Belt
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    81
    Thanks
    4,698
    Thanked 2,055 Times in 1,335 Posts

    Default Re: Use Of Force Standards

    Will study and digest sir!

  4. #3
    Doc's Avatar
    Doc
    Doc is offline
    AKI Contributing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,364
    Thanks
    4,244
    Thanked 14,836 Times in 5,532 Posts

    Default Re: Use Of Force Standards

    Quite simply, the "necessity" of anything can sometimes only be determined "after the fact." Therefore the only correct standard has to be what was "reasonable" from your point of view, even if it turns out later to have been "unnecessary."

    The classic example is when someone presents themselves with a "replica" handgun or rifle and points it at you or someone else. You shoot to stop them to "possibly" save your own or someone else's life. Then you discover the firearm wasn't real and therefore wasn't even a lethal weapon.

    Shooting the individual wasn't "necessary" to meet that standard or goal, but there was no way for you to determine that at the moment it is presented, therefore while it wasn't "necessary" at the moment, it was absolutely "reasonable" for the officer/deputy to fear someone was about to use deadly force against someone or against them.

    This even goes so far as to when a suspect has no weapon at all. If you give commands for someone to "put your hands where I can see them, and don't move," and they suddenly "reach" for something, unless you are behind cover, you don't have the luxury of waiting to see what they're doing. Your commands were simple and direct. A failure to comply only forces the officer/deputy's hand into a situation where he no longer has control of the circumstances, and in fear of his life, he responds. An action is faster than reaction. This is why an officer attempts command and control over suspects to avoid this happening. If they comply and allow the officer/deputy to take control, usually nothing happens.

    But fighting with, or failing to comply with a man who has a gun pointed at you is just plain stupid, however, it happens quite frequently. Unfortunately, some do not survive this encounter, other so. Some do it on purpose in "Suicide by cop" scenarios where the suspect wants to die but doesn't have the stones to do it themselves.

    We live in a country where freedom is everything, but as I always caution "freedom is not free." You have to surrender some of that freedom temporarily to its government representatives, and it happens to all of us at some time or another. Getting pulled over by the police is a "detention" whose consequences could lead to anything from a "warning" for a traffic infraction, to a shooting death of the suspect OR the officer/deputy. You never know what is going to happen when you stop a car, and everything you might imagine does happen and cops will always be caution and strict in contact with you until they feel comfortable that they know who and what you are.

    Lastly, the press loves to talk about "shooting an unarmed suspect." They fail to recognize that in any police contact there is always at a minimum, one gun even if the suspect doesn't have one, he may try an take yours and use it on you. The whole idea of "unarmed" is ludicrous. There are a plethora of people on this forum who could possibly beat a person to death with no weapons but their hands and feet. The press thinks unarmed means no gun or knife. I worked a homicide where a woman was beaten to death with an empty "Coke Bottle" that never broke but was used as a lethal weapon.

    Simple rule, do not antagonize, threaten, or fail to follow the commands of someone authorized to use deadly force. Doesn't mean you can't state your case and disagree with the officer's conclusions, but we have mechanisms in place where you can challenge what he says, and make complaints, and or even sue. There is no shortage of lawyers willing to take on a deep pockets government police agency for a nice payday. A judge will listen, and so does the department because they hate negative publicity of any kind.
    "Nothing is more dangerous than the conscientiously ignorant, or the sincerely stupid." - Martin Luther King Jr.

    "Knowledge speaks but wisdom listens." - Ed Parker Sr.

    "It's much easier to quote, than to know." - Ron Chapél


    www.MSUACF.com

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Doc For This Useful Post:

    nelson (07-10-2018)

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pro Force Strong Arm
    By BJTipton in forum Kenpo General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 01:16 PM
  2. MT: Testing Standards
    By MT Post Bot in forum Kenpo From Other Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2009, 12:42 PM
  3. MT: Standards For An Adult Black Belt
    By MT Post Bot in forum Kenpo From Other Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 09:20 AM
  4. Standards Of A Black Belt
    By MJS in forum Kenpo General
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-11-2008, 11:57 AM
  5. Falcons Of Force
    By Rob Broad in forum Ed Parker Kenpo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2006, 05:48 PM