Editor’s Note: This week’s PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Members Kevin Jeffries and Lance Nickell — part two of a four-part series addressing the most critical element of officer safety: the need to think first! In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. If you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members, simply send us an e-mail with your story.
By Kevin Jeffries, Probation Safety Specialist, Arizona Supreme Court
and Lance Nickell, Probation Safety Specialist, Arizona Supreme Court
Safety can be significantly enhanced by understanding the OODA Loop concept. This concept was developed by a USAF pilot and combat veteran, Colonel John Boyd. Simply put, Boyd believed that responses to threatening encounters could be broken down into four recurring phases: Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Further, that the key to success is to speed through the process faster than your opponent, and to challenge their thought process by performing in an unexpected manner.
Let’s briefly consider each phase. The first is Observe, which is really situational awareness. In the Orient phase, our mind recognizes the threat and the level of the threat. In the Decision phase, our mind chooses a reasonable force option or other plan to deal with the threat. Then, in the Action phase, the plan is executed.
I have observed hundreds of officers work through countless OODA loops in reality-based non-lethal Simunitions training. The vast majority of officers perform correctly and complete the scenario or drill successfully; however, approximately 10 percent need some remediation to meet the student learning objectives. Officers tend to Observe and Orient very quickly (perhaps because they know some threat or serious issue will be presented). However, a few will mentally stumble on the Decision. Many officers wait too long to Act even though the decision is made, as they have the force option (i.e., OC spray, TASER, baton or firearm) in their hand. They simply do not deploy. This inaction is blatant as the “bad guy” (role player) is threatening with weapon in hand while standing within one arm’s length of the officer. In these cases, the officer either waits too long to act; or acts, but not until after the scenario is stopped, and they are coached.
Debriefing officers after the scenario usually reveals that the officers who hesitated on the Decision phase did so because they did not internalize their use of force training. These officers were not confident that they knew the appropriate force option. The delay in the Action phase is more complicated. Officers usually give two primary reasons for their reluctance to act. The first is they hang on to the belief that verbal commands will change the subject’s mind. The good news is that officers do develop great verbal skills. The bad news is they can over rely on them. Officers need to recognize that continuing to give verbal commands allows threatening subjects to close the distance, thus empowering the subject and compromising the officer’s safety.
The second reason officers hesitate to act is their concern that their department would not support them in their use of force, even a reasonable use of force. This concern is often overstated. The answer again is that officers need to know their agency’s use of force policy and the reasonable officer doctrine from Graham v. Connor. It is incumbent upon departmental officer safety instructors to clearly articulate use of force philosophies to officers and management alike. Departmental management should have no higher expectation of allowable force than the Constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment set forth in Graham.
Another possibility is that this inaction is more than hesitation; it’s reluctance. The average person does not want to — and perhaps will not — use deadly force even when in life-threatening situations. In fact, the military uses a variety of methods to train and condition soldiers to act lethally when in combat. This includes mechanical and mental leverage (Grossman, 1995). Therefore, officers should practice defensive tactics and, if applicable, firearms skills (mechanical leverage) and prepare mentally through visualization (mental leverage) to combat a reluctance that causes critical hesitation. Below, we will discuss the aspect of mental rehearsal, and how this exercise can benefit officer safety.
As noted earlier, the successful warrior is one who works through the OODA loop quickly and performs in a manner that the opponent will not expect. How does one do the unexpected? I believe a person who decides to be physically assaultive has a plan. This plan may be well thought out or spontaneous, and includes an expectation of how the victim will resist. I suggest that we resist violently, move quickly, and use full power with loud verbal commands. We do this in anticipation that the bad guy, true to form, will overestimate himself and underestimate his target. When we act in a manner contrary to the perpetrator’s plan, we cause the perpetrator to rethink (orient, observe and decide), which causes hesitation prior to Acting and provides officers with an opportunity to escape or enhance their defense. This allows officers to get inside the assailant’s OODA loop and force the assailant to sort through their OODA loop again.
Check back in two weeks for our next installment, ‘Mental rehearsal and threat assessment.’
About the Authors
Kevin Jeffries is currently employed by the Arizona Supreme Court in the Education Services Division as the Probation Safety Specialist. Kevin is considered a Subject Matter Expert in Defensive Tactics, Firearms and Use-of-Force. Prior to his employment at AOC he was a unit supervisor with the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) supervising the Mahoning County Probation Unit. While with the APA he was an Unarmed Self-Defense Instructor, Field Tactics Instructor and Chairman of the Akron Regional Training Advisory Council.
Kevin is a Lead Firearms and Lead Defensive Tactics instructor for the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts and was instrumental in developing both the firearms and defensive tactics curriculum. Kevin has presented Officer Safety trainings for the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and is a guest columnist for APPA’s Perspectives Magazine. Kevin also instructs on a national level as an adjunct faculty member for the Community Corrections Institute. He holds certifications as a Simunitions instructor, TASER instructor, NRA Tactical Firearms Instructor, NRA Handgun Instructor, and Glock Armorer.
Kevin received his Bachelor of Science in Law Enforcement Administration from Youngstown State University and his Master’s Degree in Public Administration at Western International University.
Lance Nickell is the Lead Firearms Instructor and Range Master for the Maricopa County Probation Department and develops curriculum and policy for his department’s officer safety related topics. In his 17 years as a Probation Officer, he has had numerous assignments including the Sex Offender Unit, Fugitive Location Unit, and Staff Development and Training. Lance assisted in establishing and currently manages his department’s firearms training programs and leads the department’s 20 firearms instructors.
Lance is also a Lead Firearms Instructor and Use of Force subject matter expert for the Arizona State Supreme Court. He has been recognized twice by this court as the Firearms Instructor of the Year. He has presented nationally for both the American Probation and Parole Association and the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology. As an avid shooter, Lance has won numerous Gold, Silver, and Bronze in the Arizona Police Games and continues competing at area matches.
References
De Becker, G., (1997). The Gift of Fear. Dell Publishing, New York.
Gillespie, T., Hart, D., and Boren, J., (1998). Police Use of Force, A Line Officer’s Guide. Varro Press, Kansas City.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).
Grayson, B. and Stein, M. I., (1981). Attracting assault: Victims’ nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31, 68–75.
Grossman, D., (1995). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Little, Brown and Co., New York.
Kenagy, J., (2010). Acting your way to a new way of thinking. For Your Advantage, retrieved 3.16.11 from http://kenagyassociates.com/resources.writing.php
Petrowski, T. D., (2002, November). Use of force policies and training, a reasoned approach (Part 2). The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 71 (11), 24-32.
Pinizzotto, A., Davis, E., and Miller, C., (2006). “Dead Right” Recognizing Traits of Armed Individuals. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, retrieved 3.18.11 from http://www2.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/publications/leb/2006/mar06leb.pdf
Prymer v. Ogden, 29 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir 1994).
Thompson, L. and Mesloh, C., (2006). Edged weapons: traditional and emerging threats to law enforcement. The Law Enforcement Bulletin, retrieved 12.21.10 from http://www2.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/publications/leb/2006/mar06leb.pdf
Thornton, Robert L.,(2003). New Approaches to Staff Safety, 2d ed. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Wardlaw v. Pickett, 1 F.3d 1297, 1299 (1993).
