http://www.fletc.gov/reference/reports/fletc-journals/FLETC-journal-Fall2006.pdfThose of us in the law enforcement community
know them by many names, such as Use of Force
Continuum, Use of Force Model, Use of Force Ladder,
or Use of Force Matrix. Regardless of what they are
called, visual models depicting progressive escalation
and de-escalation of force have become a mainstay in
the law enforcement community. There is a legitimate
debate among police trainers, administrators and
attorneys as to whether Use of Force continuums still
serve a vital function in the modern law enforcement
agency. The purpose of this article is not to take sides
on the issue, but rather to examine the facts, and allow
the reader to make an informed decision as to whether
continuums still serve a purpose in their agency.
Use of Force Continuums have been used in law
enforcement training for many years. According to
Bruce Siddle, founder of PPCT Management Systems
and author of “Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge”, the
first Use of Force models were based on early models
found in U.S. Army Military Police Manuals from the
early 1960’s.1 Siddle also indicated that those models
may have been based
on models developed by
France in the mid 1940’s.
According to police
defense expert George
Williams, “in the late
1960s, law enforcement
trainers who sincerely
desired to assist officers
in properly employing
force developed force continuums.”2 The Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) first developed
its own Use of Force Model as a result of the Use
of Force project which began in September 1990.
Regardless of when they were developed, Use of Force
Continuums have been a foundational element of law
enforcement training for the past twenty years.
Whether one is for or against the use of continuums
in training, an objective look at most continuums
will reveal a number of pitfalls that may limit their
usefulness. The most obvious pitfall is that Use of Force
Continuums are not typically based upon the
standard
established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham vs.
Connor3. The Graham court established the standard
for Use of Force that applies to all American police
officers, regardless of jurisdiction. The Graham court
held that Use of Force used by police officers is judged
upon the
“objective reasonableness” standard of the
Fourth Amendment and incorporates the concept of
the totality of the circumstances. In Graham the court
specifically stated “the test of reasonableness under the
Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition
or mechanical application”4, but that is exactly what
Use of Force Continuums attempt to do. Additionally,
most Use of Force Continuums do not address the
concept of the totality
of circumstances.
Most continuums are
structured in such a
way that a specific
subject action equates
to a specific officer
response, regardless
of the totality of
circumstances known to
the officer at the moment force was used. Experienced
law enforcement officers know that Use of Force
incidents do not occur in a vacuum. There are factors
such as known violent history of the suspect, duration
of the action, officer/subject variables, and other facts
that make up the totality of circumstances. Rather than
a specific response to a subject’s actions, there may be
a wide range of reasonable responses from which an
officer may choose.
Another problem is there is no consensus on the
definitions used in the various models. Passive
resistance may mean many different things to many
different officers. One officer may view passive
resistance as a protestor who refuses to stand up, while
another officer perceives that same protestor as actively
resistant. Who is right? Active resistance is generally
defined as threatening an officer;5 shoving, striking,
wrestling with, and even biting an
officer.6 In contrast, passive
resistance is described
by the following
suspect actions: (1)
remaining seated,
refusing to move,
and refusing to bear
weight;7 (2) protestors going
limp, or persons chaining themselves
together and covering their hands with maple syrup
to impede the use of handcuffs;8 (3) protestors
employing lock-down devices that immobilize their
arms and prevent their separation by police, although
the protestors could disengage themselves from the
devices.9 In many instances, continuums define actions
as active resistance which the courts have defined as
passive resistance. These inconsistencies only add to
the confusion an officer may experience when trying
to apply concepts taught by a model in a dynamic Use
of Force incident.
Finally, most Use of Force continuums are just not
practical from an application standpoint. While they
may certainly have benefit in explaining Use of Force
to juries in a sterile, quiet courtroom environment,
they hardly represent the “tense, uncertain and rapidly
evolving”10 circumstances faced by police officers in the
field. Linear models, progressive models, or whatever
name one may call them, encourage the officer to
try to find the minimal amount of force necessary to
control a subject’s actions.
What happens when that
minimal amount of force fails to control the subject?
The officer now has to use even more force to control
the subject, which is likely to lead to more injuries to
both the officer and the subject who is resisting arrest.At a recent law enforcement trainer’s conference this
analogy was used:
“If there was a fire at your home, would you want
the responding firefighters to attempt to calculate
the minimal amount of water that is necessary to
put out the flames, or would you prefer them to
use the reasonable amount it would take to get
the fire out? If they attempt to use the minimum
amount of water, and it doesn’t work, the fire
will most certainly get worse”11
