Editor’s Note: Police1 “First Person” essays are the place where P1 Members candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which our members 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. This week’s feature, from P1 Member Matt Simmonds, is a response to John Bostain’s article Training without force continuums: Learn to love the law. A former Pennsylvania State Constable and Deputy Sheriff, Matt is presently Lead Instructor for Use of Force/Defensive Tactics at the Penn State Justice and Safety Institute, Deputy Sheriff Training Academy in State College, Pa. The views expressed in this article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Penn State Justice and Safety Institute or Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Do you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members? Send us an us an e-mail with your story.
By Matt Simmonds
There have been several articles published recently — not just here on Police1, but elsewhere too — concerning problems of utilizing use of force models, continuums, paradigms, or whatever name you choose to use, in LE training.
Agencies no longer use models instead rely on case law as it pertains to the fourth amendment and what is reasonable. Some of the reasons were a feeling that models tended to predict a subject’s behavior, and that they do not list all the variables that a LEO might perceive in a given situation. Another was that officers felt they had to go up one step at a time in order to get to a higher level of force, and as a result were hesitant to use the appropriate force under stress because they were unsure if it was in fact “reasonable.” Concern over legal issues arising from officers being locked into a particular model in post-incident cases was another reason.
Models are just what they are, models, nothing more. I feel that if it is presented properly in training, and if its true purpose is understood, a model will not only be a valuable training tool, but also an integral part of use of force report writing. After all, any good model is based upon actual case law.
There are many different models in use today. No matter what design or terminology is used, they all have one thing in common. That is that they give a student/trainee an outline, or a base from which to categorize subjects actions and then, depending on individual agencies policies on Use of Force, a general idea of what type of force is reasonable. Case law gives us a standard for reasonableness (Graham v Connor… et al) so that we have a legal standard.
What models do NOT give us are all the variables that come into the picture in real world conflicts. That is where the instructor must start giving examples. We cannot print them all because there are an infinite number of variables and not enough paper to print them on. But if enough examples of variables are explained in the classroom, and then the trainee is exposed to realistic scenarios where they must recognize and articulate the variables that were present, they can clearly justify reasonable force utilizing the model.
Some models describe a subject’s actions very clearly and are well defined, as are the control options. In fact, so well defined that with seven categories, no matter what your use of force policy is, the subject will fit into one of these categories. Just about everyone can remember seven categories of subject actions, starting with low level cooperative and all the way up to high level assailant. Incidentally, when presented to a jury in this fashion, it can help the layperson understand the officer’s actions also.
An Example
1 — Low level cooperative — complies without direction
2 — High level cooperative — complies with verbal direction
3 — Passive resister — does not comply with verbal direction
4 — Active resister — moves to avoid physical control
5 — Low level assailant — actions aggressively offensive without weapons
6 — Mid level assailant — actions may cause minor injury
7 — High level assailant — actions may cause serious bodily injury or death
There is no ambiguity and it is based on the officer’s perception as long as they can clearly articulate any variables that were present at the time. As with any subject, there are different degrees of risk.
For example, you have a subject who is 6’2” and 280 lbs and he just beat someone to death with his bare hands. A LEO who is only 5’6 and 170 lbs. attempts to arrest the subject. He starts with verbal direction. If the subject complies and control is established with just verbal direction, he is a cooperative subject. If he tries to pull away during cuffing, he is a moving resister. As long as there is no attack on the officer, he has not risen to the level of assailant.
However, because of the variables (size of subject, size of officer, prior knowledge of assaultive behavior, etc.) in this situation, the officer may use a higher level of force to establish control. If the subject does attack the officer, he may rise to any one of three levels of assailant. Given the size differential, the officer may even articulate deadly force, where an officer who is trained and of similar size and stature may only articulate a lower level of assailant where OC or some other lower level of force would be reasonable. The bottom line is this: using a model as a guide can ensure the officer acted reasonably.
Use of Force Instructor Issues
I’ve been involved in teaching defensive/control tactics and use of force for almost twenty years. One thing I’ve learned is that we can never stop learning.
I remember leaving my first instructor training feeling that I was given all the tools I needed to take back to my agency and help save the world. After a very short period, I realized that if I do not fully comprehend the technique or the curriculum, I was doing a disservice to my fellow LEOs. It was then I started to explore different systems to ensure we were getting the absolute best training that was available. During that period I have seen and heard a couple of dozen different explanations and interpretations of various use of force models and certain tactics.
We often look at our instructors in awe and take everything they say and teach as gospel. The sad truth is there are far too many “certificate mills” out there today that are willing to award an instructor certificate as long as they receive a check. It’s valid to ask the question whether an instructor has “earned” their certificate or “obtained” it.
Big difference.
My Criteria for an Academy Instructor
1 — They must be passionate about the job
2 — They must be proficient in all techniques and able to demonstrate them
3 — They must be proficient in understanding Use of Force and able to give demonstrations to include variables
4 — They must be able to watch trainees practice progressions and recognize and correct mistakes fairly and objectively
5 — They must continuously show a desire to improve
It is getting harder and harder in this age of budget constraints and cutbacks to ensure our LEOs are getting what they need to not only win on the streets, but also in the courtrooms. But we cannot afford to take shortcuts that will jeopardize them either. Administrators and others responsible for training may have to take a hard look at trimming some other areas of curriculum in order to assure sufficient time to train in the areas that may save lives.
They must also evaluate the current training in DT and Use of Force and be certain that the techniques are realistic. They can’t be included just because someone learned them from someone who learned them from someone else who went to a “certified” training given by yet someone else way back when.
A prime example would be cooperative subject handcuffing. We have seen every handcuffing technique you can imagine. What is the goal of a cuffing technique? To get control of a subject quickly is the answer. So why teach a technique that will not allow an officer to overcome resistance upon that “first touch”? And not just for the 6’4’’ “Manzilla” officer and a smaller subject, but it must be effective for female or smaller officer vs. the larger more powerful subject as well.
Far too often I hear complaints from veteran officer’s that their training did not include overcoming resistance to cuffing. Instead they were told to “get the cuffs on any way you can!” This is not very responsible training, certainly not realistic, and even unconscionable. Are these the same instructors who are trying to teach reasonable use of force and hope that the trainees can grasp the concept?
One downside to training with a model can be time. Some academies do not allow sufficient hours of training in DT and use of force and trainees often get too much information in too little time to fully comprehend a model — or to get confidence in the tactics they learned. The trainee needs to be exposed to the lecture portion (approximately four hours) and then enough time to be exposed to realistic scenarios with experienced instructors to fully understand what the model represents and how it is to be used. If an academy is able to accomplish that, then a use of force model should remain as a valuable part of their curriculum.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Simmonds
