September 25, 2016
Tampa, FL
By Richard E. Alvarez
I often find myself being asked by friends and co-workers about police use of deadly force whenever a shooting occurs, especially when it involves unarmed people or African Americans, because of my service as a police officer with two departments. Working in a reentry based, primarily African American, Christian nonprofit ministry, I find these questions as both opportunities to correct misperceptions, foster better understanding of police policies, as well as a potential professional pitfall if I misspeak or inject politics into the matter. Make no mistake about it, I have very strong feelings about the direction this nation is going in the manner it treats those entrusted to protect and serve all of us, and their use of deadly force. I try to guard against natural biases, since I spent so much time doing the job. At the same time, I am a criminal justice reform advocate in many ways, so I think I have a very unique viewpoint on these issues. That, however, is not the purpose of this article. The real purpose is to allow those who view law enforcement from the outside a peek inside the world of law enforcement by describing training and policies with regard to the use of deadly force. I think this perspective might help people better understand why, how, and under what circumstances police will use deadly force. It might also lend some insight into how to avoid being killed by police officers, as well as suggest some possible areas for change or improvement. There is one caveat, which is I've been out of the game for nearly ten years now. I'm sure some things have changed, but the basics should be the same, so here we go.
Police officers are saddled with a massive amount of responsibility. In many cases, officers only have a high school education, but they are expected to make life and death legal decisions that have serious ramifications to both themselves and others. Make a decision too quickly, and you may make a deadly error. Make a decision too slowly, and you might not get to see your family again. It is absolutely impossible for someone who has never done the job to fully understand what that means and what it does to you and your psyche. Officers do receive quite a bit of training, but it varies from department to department. In all cases that I'm aware of, however, police officers are required to attend a basic training course, which lasts for about three to four months. During this training, an immense amount of knowledge and skill must be acquired in a very short amount of time. Police work is both physical and cerebral. Officers receive physical fitness training, unarmed self-defense training, less than lethal weapon training, and firearms training on the physical side. They also learn how to safely pull over vehicles and search structures. On the mental side, they must learn all of the relevant state laws and local ordinances that they will be required to enforce in the line of duty. They must learn the use of force continuum, how to process a crime scene/forensics, and how to properly document everything. They must learn how verbally take command of a situation and to diffuse hostile situations.
Upon graduation, the training continues on the job. The next 2-3 months will be spent in the field training program, where new officers work closely with field training officers to put their newly acquired knowledge into practice on the streets of their jurisdiction. This is a very dangerous phase, because the lack of experience of these young officers can easily get them killed. Officers continue to work on the skills in the classroom as well, with legal updates, verbal judo, and use of force. During use of force training, it is explained that the decision to use force is complicated, but must be made decisively and quickly. If it is not, the results can be fatal. Officers are shown many videos and tapes about poor decisions or just the dangers presented by resistive and armed suspects. It can be quite frightening to think about, but each officer must complete a gut check to see if they can make that decision when the time comes. They also have to not be paralyzed by fear of death. It is a calculated risk that all officers take and must be o.k. with. So, when I hear that training is lacking in police departments, I say there is always room for more training, but generally speaking, most police departments do a pretty good job.
The Use of Force Continuum is a way to teach officers how much force to use on suspects that are dangerous and/or not submitting to arrest. It is a protocol created by both the Chief of Police and likely the lead prosecutor for the city or county where the department is located, and it follows generally accepted policing policies for the state and the nation. Some minute parts may vary between departments, but it is generally pretty similar across the board. In the departments I worked for it went something like this:
1.) Police presence: Often the mere arrival and presence of an officer is enough to deter crime or calm a situation.
2.) Verbal Commands: Officers take control of situations most frequently with the use of their verbal skills. This is where an officer directs people out of harms way or directs a suspect to surrender and submit to arrest. Any refusal to comply with the lawful order of a police officer is a crime in most jurisdictions and will lead to an escalation up the use of force continuum if not complied with. This is where verbal judo, or de-escalation techniques are used to defuse situations if possible, as well.
3.) Soft empty hands: These are escorting techniques like guiding someone to the side of road, using arm bars to take them to the ground, handcuffing, and pain compliance/pressure point techniques. These are the least likely of the physical use of force techniques to cause any real harm to a suspect. Some departments prefer to use chemical weapons or Tasers at this stage, prior to using pain compliance/pressure points or arm bars and other techniques.
4.) Chemical agents/Tasers: Many departments have gone to the Taser over pepper spray, but we did not have that option when I was serving. I think it can be very useful to stop an aggressive attacker in some situations, but some people, especially those high on PCP, are often not affected by either of them. I also feel there has been an over-reliance on these agents as opposed to soft empty hands combined with verbal commands. The advantage is there are probably fewer injuries to officers.
5.) Hard Empty Hands: These are punches and kicks (yes police officers can legally punch and kick you under the right circumstances. This is the next level of force for highly resistive suspects.
6.) Impact Weapons: These are generally expandable batons these days like the ASP, but they can be old fashioned "billy clubs" or PR-24's, as well. These are used to bring down extremely resistive subjects who have not succumbed to the other techniques. Both hard empty hands and impact weapons are also guided by target zones. Large muscle masses and the nerves that run along the legs and arms are green targets and should be struck first if possible. Joints and the chest and abdomen are considered yellow zones and require a greater level of justification for the elevation of force, and the head and spine are red targets, which would require a justification to use deadly force in most cases.
7.) Deadly Force: This is generally a firearm such as a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, but it can also be an automobile, knife, or anything available if the situation gets bad enough. The use of deadly force is only authorized when there is a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or to others by a suspect. An officer must be able to articulate why they felt that either they or another party were in danger of being killed or seriously injured by the actions of the suspect. It does not always require that the suspect be armed.
The Use of Force Continuum is a guideline that officers must follow and be able to explain why they took the actions they did. It is not necessary to follow all of the steps in order. If the situation is getting worse rapidly, the officer may jump two or three steps ahead. Conversely, the level of force may also be reduced when resistance is reduced or stopped when compliance is attained. It is generally acceptable for officers to use one level of force higher than the suspect is using. It's not supposed to be a "fair fight." Police officers fight to win. That's why officers might show up in overwhelming numbers to arrest someone. The show of that much force is often enough to make someone surrender, which means no one gets hurt. An officer's primary goal is to go home and see their family every night.
Yes, it is perfectly permissible to shoot an armed person if they refuse to drop a weapon, even if they are not pointing it at anyone, as long as they are ordered to drop it if time permits. Officers are not expected to wait until a suspect actually points a gun or starts shooting when they can stop the suspect prior to endangering anyone else. Yes, officers can shoot a person with a knife when they are within 21 ft., because experience and repeated demonstrations have shown that someone with a knife can cover that distance and stab an officer before he can even get his gun out of his holster.
No, officers can't just shoot someone in the leg. Officers spend a lot of time at the shooting range honing their skills with their pistols, but combat is another story entirely. They can do shoot/don't shoot scenarios and conduct practice scenarios using real weapons loaded with marking rounds, instead of live ammo, but nothing can truly prepare an officer for the stress of combat shooting. If an officer is say 85% accurate on the range, his accuracy will drop to 20-30% in combat. There are many physiological reasons for this, such as tunnel vision and the adrenaline pump that accompanies being shot at. Research has shown that people who repeatedly train the same actions in practice will be more likely to revert to training when they lose their minds in the heat of combat. Therefore, officers are taught to shoot for the largest target, or "center mass", of a suspect in training, to increase the likelihood of actually hitting them. This video is great demonstration of what I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayZ_Cn0E6Qs.
No, police departments don't usually release evidence, video, or reports of a us of force incident while it's under investigation, and no it's not a violation of FOIA. Those items must be released to the press, unless a judge orders them not to be, only after the investigation and/or prosecution is complete and they are requested. There are many reasons for this. One is that videos often don't tell the whole story and can inflame a public that simply doesn't understand the law or the rules governing deadly force prior to the uncovering of all of the evidence. It could also pollute a potential jury pool if this evidence is seen on television or the internet prior to a trial. Finally, processing all of the evidence and completing an investigation is a very time consuming and detailed process where it is extremely important that it is done correctly. Officers have no time to worry about releasing such evidence just to satisfy an angry or curious crowd.
Yes, an unarmed person can be shot if they pose a risk of serious physical harm or death to the officer or someone else. Examples of this are trying to take an officers gun, beating him to the point where he/she is nearly unconscious, choking them, or doing anything else that might result in loss of consciousness, broken bones, prolonged or intractable pain, or death to an officer or citizen. I was nearly killed by an unarmed man over an attempt to get him to get rid of his open container of alcohol.
No, there is no conspiracy to hunt down African American males by white police officers, or police in general. The vast majority of police officers are good people who must make very difficult decisions that can cause death to themselves or others. They are also human and can make mistakes. Making life and death decisions in the blink of an eye is inherently prone to occasional mistakes. That is why officers are often given the benefit of the doubt. Actual intentional criminal behavior is rare and is usually discovered and prosecuted quickly. It is also important to remember that each situation is different and requires a great deal of very detailed investigation, which when complete, is sent to the prosecutor to decide if he will take it to a grand jury to decide if charges are appropriate. The cases aren't always clear either. The prosecutor must consider the totality of the circumstances and apply the "reasonable person" standard to the officers actions. Would a "reasonable person" faced with similar circumstances make the same or similar decision, and does that decision fall within the bounds of the law and the use of force continuum? The general public is not equipped to make this decision. It is very important to remember that the public is not privy to all of the facts, either. The media loves to fan these flames in an effort to generate more interest and sell more newspapers or advertising opportunities. We live in an age of tabloid journalism where blood and conflict sells, and actual facts are less important. It is easier to run with a story that generates controversy, and later print a retraction, than it is wait and possibly miss the story. Ferguson is great example. The whole "hands up don't shoot," scenario was completely false and verified by the Justice Department and independent witnesses. All of the physical evidence supported Officer Wilson's story, including Michael Brown's fingerprints and DNA on his weapon. He was not shot in the back either. These are the facts, but the media didn't want to wait for those, and it resulted in a town burning, and a good officer never being able to do what he loved again.
No officer goes to work thinking they are going to shoot someone that day. Most officers make it through their career without ever firing their weapons outside of the firing range, but some are not so lucky. It is a hard decision that affects the officer, his family, the suspect, and the suspect's family forever. No officer wants to have to make that decision, but that is what they are hired to do. It can lead to stress, heavy drinking, and PTSD. Not only do officers not want to shoot you, most will make every effort to get you to comply, but that doesn't always work out. The easiest way not to get shot is not to put yourself in that position in the first place. Do what the police tell you to do. Answer yes sir or no sir. DO NOT resist them or fight with them if they try to arrest you, and don't argue. That is what court is for. Court will not be held on the street. If you feel you were treated unfairly or inappropriately, file a complaint or talk to a lawyer. No one hates a bad shooting more than a good police officer. It makes all of us look bad. More than that, no one hates a criminal cop more than a good officer. They are rooted out, prosecuted, and sent to jail. Trust me, I've seen it happen, and we all saw the officer in South Carolina who shot the suspect in the back while running away get charged and convicted for his actions. These incidents are rare, but remember most shootings are justified, and they represent a very small portion of the number of violent killings in this nation. There is always room for improvement and having community discussions with experts and police officials on the topic is the best way to start, not burning down neighborhoods. That is the quickest way to shift the focus from your cause and turn public opinion against you.
Today I pray for peace and reconciliation, and to see the respected status of those who risk everything for people they don't even know to be restored. We are living in very difficult times, and I hope this little article does something to promote discussion and real understanding about the use of force by police officers. God bless, and thank you for reading!
-Rich
