Police Use of Force

Why, How, and When

By Mike Bauman

It is a difficult truth that police officers sometimes have to use force in the performance of their duties. Most often police use of force ends with no injuries and a safe arrest. At other times, it can end with serious injuries or even death.

All police departments have strict policies governing the use of force. These policies vary by department, but often share common threads.

Police officers use force to affect an arrest, prevent a suspect’s escape, protect themselves or others, or protect property. Officers carry a variety of tools to accomplish these ends. Police are charged with using the minimum amount of force necessary in any given situation.

Police officers use something called the “Force Continuum” as a guide to determine what level of force is appropriate based on the seriousness of the circumstances they are faced with. Force Continuum delineates the officers’ level of control and the suspect’s level of resistance.

By default, police use of force is always reactive. An officer must encounter resistance prior to using force. However, officers are trained to perceive and react to resistance in its earliest stages. Resistance doesn’t have to be active. Resistance can be as simple as refusing to comply with an officer’s orders.

Typically, police officers are allowed to use a level of force that is one level above the suspect’s level of resistance. For instance, if a suspect attempts to punch an officer with a fist, the use of an intermediate weapon such as a baton or chemical irritant would be warranted. Other factors do come into play. For instance, if the suspect in our scenario was an 11-year-old child, intermediate weapons would likely not be reasonable. On the other hand, if the suspect was a professional wrestler and the officer was somehow incapacitated and believed himself to be in danger of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force might be an appropriate response.

All of these factors must be weighed in a split second by the officer on the street.  Failure to get it absolutely right can lead to serious criminal and civil penalties. Every officer knows that a decision that is made in a dark alley with adrenaline pumping can be criticized and reviewed by the public and the courts for days, weeks, months, and even years.

Deadly force is an interesting concept in itself. Deadly force can be defined as force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury (broken bones, permanent disfigurement) or death.  By that definition, a police officer who strikes a suspect on the head with a flashlight or a baton is using deadly force. A kick to the genitals is also deadly force, as is shooting someone with a firearm, or running them over with a car!

The use of deadly force is the ultimate tool in an officer’s arsenal. It is reserved only for the direst of situations. Officers may only use deadly force in self-defense when the suspect shows the intention of causing serious bodily injury or death, is capable of doing so, and has the opportunity to do so. Officers use deadly force, not to kill, but with the intention of neutralizing the threat.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by Mike Bauman in General News category

 
  • George Metcalf says:

    Mr. Bauman,
    When a police officer is needed at a place of business to remove a uncontrolable patron. Would it not seem reasonable that the patron would be arrested and taken to a facility that could deal with his or her state of mind?
    Certainly if police were needed to remove such a person, a reasonable amount of resistance has been demonstrated . Almost any kind of public disturbance will culminate in a arrest.
    My heart is broken over the loss of a true vetran war hero. I owe that person, Mr.Kenneth Yeager,
    to voice my feelings about his untimly death. In almost any way you look at his service to our country,
    he died for us. If the use of deadly force was not intended to terminate his life, prove it to me and his family.
    It seems numerous bad decisions were made that evening by law enforcement. I hate to use the term
    ( wrongfull death ) but that is the only term that describes the end result of the police involvement.
    Please understand I agree with using deadly force when a gun is aimed at anyone. My issues are with what happened from the time Mr. Yeager was engaged, and then allowed to return to his vehicle.
    We all know what happened after that point.

    George Metcalf

  • Michael Bauman says:

    Mr. Metcalf,

    Thank for reading our paper.

    I did not attempt to address that particular incident in my article due to lack of specific information. It would be a truly unfair to make any assumptions about the persons involved without knowing all of the facts.

    As to your question regarding what’s normal on an “unwanted party” call, giving the person the chance to leave once the police arrive is the action that is taken in almost all of these situations barring other circumstances. There are several reasons for this: 1) the police typically hope to achieve voluntary compliance 2) this ensures there are no miscommunications or ambiguity about the order to leave 3) often, the person in charge of the property prefers to not get involved in a drawn out prosecution. Frankly, if the person complies and leaves, very few non-violent public disturbances end in arrest.

    Based on the information that has been released, this particular shooting sounds as if it was justified in that the officers used deadly force on a person who had the intent (pointed the weapon at them), the capability (had the weapon in the first place), and the opportunity (his intended targets were within the range of his weapon). The question that will be asked in a civil court, however, is could the officers have handled the apparently contained suspect in a different manner to effectively wait him out while maintaining their safety? We don’t have that information yet.

    As to the Mr. Yeager’s service, as a veteran myself, I too feel the tragedy of this situation. However, please remember, the officers who had a weapon pointed at them and responded with deadly force did not know about his service. They were charged with fulfilling their duties that night the same way Mr. Yeager was in his days of service. While I can not know another’s mind, I know the vast majority of officers would not have preferred to kill anyone. However, they will act decisively to protect their lives (or yours or mine, for that matter) and go home to their families at the end of their work day.

    Perhaps, instead of attacking anyone, officers or suspect, we should all acknowledge the tragedy of the incident and have an open discussion about how we treat our veterans, both as a government, and as a society.

    If you are the same George who posts here regularly, and negatively, thank you for a thoughtful and open minded comment.

  • cna training says:

    Keep posting stuff like this i really like it

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>