Force Decisions. Rory Miller
as a continuum, the format alone could influence citizens to believe that the officer is required to tap an armed hostage taker on the shoulder, and then attempt a takedown or wristlock, and then try a baton before shooting to save the hostage.
I have never actually seen someone who believed this, just heard rumors.
Another argument stems from the legal world. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) is one of the fundamental findings that define force law and policy in the United States. One of the most far-reaching and important implications in Graham is the understanding that force incidents are so chaotic and unpredictable that it will never be possible to decide in advance, or to present a formula about what is and isn’t appropriate.
In that hierarchy of preferences, there are a few that civilians express concern over that make sense to officers. The first is tangible harm versus emotional harm.
Certain segments of our society honestly believe that “words can cut like a knife.” No one could believe that who had ever seen a knife wound. In order to accomplish a legitimate goal I will, if necessary, scream, insult or even demean rather than touch. I would rather, by far, hurt someone’s feelings than someone’s body. It is a lower level of force. It is preferable to be rude and have the offensive drunk leave on his own power than to be nice and push him out. Nice and no touch combined are better of course, but only if it works.
The second is the difference between injury and pain. Finger locks hurt. OC (pepper spray) hurts. Tasers hurt a lot. The injuries from these are minimal. Loud screams of pain bother people, and they should, but they are qualitatively different from the wet pop of a ligament tearing or the sickening thump of a head hitting concrete.
Some consider the continuum to be an attempt to write a cookie-cutter answer to a chaotic problem, explicitly against the guidance in Graham.
The most compelling argument, to my mind, is that with proper training, the continuum may not be necessary. The bottom line: You are expected and required to use the minimum level of force that you reasonably believe will safely resolve the situation plus understanding the “Factors and Circumstances” of section 1.7 gets to the same place.
I will be describing a continuum here. As a friend once said, “Models are models. Many are useful. None are true.”
The reason is that models make some very important things easy to teach. They are common sense, but sometimes common sense needs a little explanation:
The officer doing absolutely nothing is the preferred use of force: people doing the right thing because it is the right thing and they are good people.
An example of a Force Continuum.
If that fails, the next best option is a gentle reminder, probably just a look.
If there must be interaction, it is better to engage reason than to hurt feelings, better to hurt feelings than to touch, better to touch than to hurt, better to hurt than to injure, and better to injure than to kill.
The force continua are just ways to put that order of preference into words.
What follows is just an example. Different agencies use different Force Continua and not all include the same things at the same levels. For instance, using pressure on the sides of the neck to cut off blood to the brain is considered by some agencies to be deadly force and by others to be a control technique.
The Levels of the Force Continuum
An officer has a reasonable expectation that when he shows up at the scene people will stop misbehaving. This works in most instances. A cop car in your rear-view mirror is one of the more effective traffic control devices. Most normal people do not break laws in front of uniformed officers.
Officers are taught early in their careers that a professional appearance enhances their presence. It is easier to disrespect or ignore a slob than someone who looks like he takes the job, and therefore his duties, seriously.
Presence is a very powerful but very subjective attribute. In On Killing, Lt. Colonel David Grossman pointed out that even major military battles are won more often by display than by a physical destruction of the enemy. An impressive show of force—whether a line of musket men in bright coats with hats that make them look seven feet tall or a phalanx marching in perfect order—does more to break the will of the enemy than to increase killing efficiency, especially when combined with the confusion, smoke, and dust of real battle.
Officers use these concepts as well—lights and sirens, the black armor of the riot squad, and even the starched uniform, peaked hat, and shiny badge are all aspects of presence. If the presence is sufficient, you rarely have to use physical force. That’s a good thing.
Few rookie officers are taught much beyond this. What skill they develop in projecting presence is learned on the job or by watching older officers.
There is also a danger here—many rookies and even some experienced officers come to count on the power of the badge and the uniform. Most people quit being bad when they see an officer. Most follow directions. Some officers come to expect this and are surprised—and injured—when they presume threats will comply.
A small number of officers expect the uniform to do the job for them. We call it ‘hiding behind the badge.’ It doesn’t work very well. As an officer, you need to develop the skills, experience, and reputation to earn respect. That is real presence.
There is more skill and more variation at the verbal level than at all other levels combined. SWAT tactics don’t approach the complexity of a good debate, much less the nuance of talking down an emotionally disturbed person (EDP) in crisis, or eliciting a good description from a traumatized child.
In a law enforcement career, you will never run into a useless piece of information. You might discuss the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau with protesters; global economics with a pimp; mathematics with an arsonist; and string theory with a murderer—all in the same month. Building rapport is a matter of common ground and a skill.
Prior to a Use of Force, if there is time, we try to talk the threat into complying. Ask, Advise, Order, and Check is a common and useful system.
Ask: “Sir, you are under arrest and you must go to jail. Please turn around and let me handcuff you.” Asking does no harm. It works a surprisingly large percentage of time. At this stage, if you are polite, it is hard for the threat to convince himself that you are the enemy and he is righteous. ‘Please’ is a magic word, just as they said in kindergarten.
Advise: “Sir, if you do not let me handcuff you, I will use force against you.” In the advise step, you let the threat know the consequences of not complying: sometimes it is force, sometimes that they may be considered a suspect, or just that someone he or she cares about may be disappointed. This book is about force, but force isn’t always or even usually the best option.
Sometimes it helps to display or describe the kind of force you are contemplating. One of my colleagues, Steve Pina, actually gives a short class on Taser to the threat, with good success. Without displaying the force option, I have very rarely had the threat comply at this step. Be aware that threatening to use a level of force that you could not justify is, in itself, excessive force. At this stage, you are still being polite and it is harder for the threat to make it personal.
Order: “Sir! I am giving you a direct order! Turn around and put your hands behind your back now!” I don’t know why this works so much more often than the ‘advise’ stage, but it does. Maybe it is the shift from polite to command voice.
Check: “Sir, you are telling