Let’s face it, mag couplers can get heavy when holding a rifle on a subject for a long period of time.  The pouches that strap to the rifle’s buttstock can come loose, and they can get in the way if you transition between shoulders to work around corners and cover.

The integrated mag pouch simply goes between your regular pistol magazine pouch and your belt, putting it where your hands have already trained to go for a reload.

Hopefully, we will be getting some of these pouches to test in the near future.  I want to see if the system works as well as it looks like it should.

]]> http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2010/02/16/center-mass-patrol-rifle-magazine-pouch/feed/ 3 http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2009/04/29/understanding-the-citizens-right-to-use-force/ http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2009/04/29/understanding-the-citizens-right-to-use-force/#comments Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:59:18 +0000 Richard http://www.bluesheepdog.com/?p=292 Police academies are woefully inadequate at teaching criminal law and criminal procedure. Typically, 40 hours or less are devoted to teaching criminal law (I’ve seen some states only require 16 hours). Generally, the teacher is a street cop, who may not spend a lot of time reading the statute books or slip opinions.

The focus of the classes is typically on defining what a “burglary” is, the difference between “assault” and “battery,” and elements of each crime.  Very little time is put on the rights of citizens to use force to defend themselves and their property.  Unfortunately, this means that police officers sometimes arrest the wrong people.

For example, here in my state, the law allows a property owner or a person acting as his agent (such as a merchant or a security guard) to use reasonable force, not including deadly force, to end another person’s trespass upon their property.  This could be a bar tender removing a disorderly drunk from a club, or a security guard escorting a shoplifter from a store.

In one case I am familiar with, a store clerk was working alone in an upscale cigar shop in a shopping mall.  Two males walked in, and one began to engage the clerk in conversation.  The clerk recognized that the one male was trying to distract him, while the other was trying to get behind a counter to remove some high dollar merchandise.  The clerk ordered the men to leave the store, which they refused, and the clerk called mall security for assistance.  The men began to threaten the clerk, a military veteran.  In response, the clerk physically tossed both men out of the front of the store.

The law is pretty clear on this matter.  The clerk was an authorized agent of the merchant, responsible for the store and its merchandise.  The men engaged in activity the clerk recognized as criminal, and ordered the men to leave, but they refused.  The clerk then physically removed them, without injuring them, which would seem to be a reasonable amount of force.  Yet, the responding deputy arrested the clerk.

The deputy claimed that the clerk battered the men (any unlawful touching of another could be considered battery), based solely on the statements of the men ejected from the store.  The clerk described the exact events I outlined above, while the two ejected men said the clerk “went crazy” for no reason, and threw them from the store.  The explanation of the two men does not appear reasonable to most cops with any level of experience.  Additionally, the deputy did not watch the store video that the clerk offered to show her.

After spending several hours in jail, posting a bond, missing work, and securing an attorney, the clerk got to one of the initial hearings.  Once the prosecution took a look at the video, the state immediately moved to drop all charges.  At this point, though, the clerk has lost a lot of money and time.  Plus the clerk now has an arrest on his record that he will have to explain when he applies for certain jobs or security clearances.

Part of the problem in this case was the lack of proper training given to the deputy.  The clerk told me that the deputy didn’t have a bad attitude, but rather she just did not seem to understand the law.  I believe that this is a common point of failure in the academies and field training programs.

I once encountered an instructor who advised recruits not to even consider self defense in any case they worked, because (1) we can’t make those decisions in the field, and (2) if it really was self defense, the defendant can bring up at trial and be acquitted anyway.  I was blown away by the ignorance of this instructor.  First, it is our job to investigate possible crimes and make decisions on whether or not a crime happened, and if so, who did it.  Second, if we arrest the victim because we don’t understand or want to learn the laws on self defense, aren’t we really then the bad guys?

Hopefully, you have a solid grasp on when you as a police officer are allowed to use force, and what would be reasonable.  In many states, the same standards apply to all other citizens as well, and this may be a good “rule of thumb” to go by.  Keep in mind that in some cases a non-law enforcement officer may be entitled to use more force than a police officer would be, and in many states force may be used to defend property, in addition to the lives of the victim and his or her loved ones.

It is an ethical obligation to know your jurisdictions laws on self defense and the use of force by citizens so we do not wrongfully arrest and prosecute victims instead of the bad guys.

Self defense laws are normally not too difficult to understand.  Sometimes their application becomes difficult when you are investigating cases, but arresting the wrong person because of our own ignorance is unacceptable.

Stay safe!

A lot, if not most, police departments lay out a use of force continuum that is linear in nature. Along the line are subject actions and appropriate police responses. Most policies allow a police officer to move up and down the scale depending on the circumstances, with the admonition that officers are to “…use the minimum amount of force necessary…” Sounds good, but its not. Here’s why.

No one can possibly know what the “minimum amount of force necessary” in a given case could be, and this opens you and the department up to endless second guessing by a jury when the “poor victim of police brutality” takes you to court.

In the landmark case, Graham v. Connor (490 US 386 (1989)), the United States Supreme Court took notice of this fact, and simply required police officers to use a “reasonable” amount of force based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officer.  Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that officers should not be judged with “20/20 vision of hindsight.”

So, how does this play out in the real world? Let’s say you roll up on a EDP (emotionally disturbed person) who is running into traffic and screaming at cars. If you don’t do something quick, he may get hit and killed by a passing motorist, or he may cause a serious motor vehicle accident. He ignores your verbal commands, and when you try to escort him from the roadway, he actively pulls away from you and assumes a fighting stance.

What is the “least” amount of force: oleoresin capsicum (pepper) spray, a TASER, a baton, or a strike with your personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.)?  The plaintiff’s attorney will present your department policy to the jury, and then present an expert who will say that there were other lesser force options that were ignored by you.

If your policy reflects Graham v. Connor, and you are simply required to be reasonable in your use of force, you may choose any of the above force options to control the situation. All you have to show in court is that your choice was a reasonable choice. It is a lot harder for an attorney to show that you were unreasonable.

Here is another example. You respond to a local motel on a report of a shooting. When you arrive, you spot a person matching the description of the shooter walking away from the general area of the reported crime. You bail out of your squad, draw down, and order the person to put their hands up.  The subject glances back at you, and instead of complying, he spins towards you while bringing his hand from the small of his back and starts to point something at you. Fearing for your life, you shoot the person. Unfortunately, you discover the subject is not the shooter, rather he is a deaf man who was trying to show you a plaque he carried indicating that he is deaf. Uh-oh.

If your department requires you to use the least amount of force necessary to control the situation, you have violated policy, as mere officer presence was enough to gain compliance from this person. On the other hand, the objective reasonableness standard accounts for the fact that you were using the best information you had at the time of the incident, and that when the subject, matching the description of a shooter from a nearby crime, made a motion consistant with drawing and pointing a firearm, placed you in reasonable fear of being shot.

I hope this makes sense.  A lot of people would rather gouge out their eyes than read court opinions, but Graham v. Connor is one of those big ones every officer needs to read.  Keep in mind that none of this is legal advice, nor am I suggesting you deviate from your department’s policy. Rather, if you have a policy more restrictive than the Supreme Court standard, you may want to pursue a policy change. Contact your department’s legal advisor and/or union lawyers/reps, and work to improve the policy you are held to.

Stay safe!

For years it has been common knowledge that departments that issue both TASERs and O.C. spray (pepper spray) should be careful to buy a non-flammable formulation of O.C. Early formulations of O.C. used an alcohol-based carrier, which was effective, but was also flammable. At least one incident occurred in which a stun gun was used on a combative suspect who had already been sprayed with an alcohol formulation of O.C. with both spectacular and disasterous results.

Most manufacturers produce non-flammable pepper spray formulations for police departments. Some even label the O.C. as safe to use with TASER-type weapons. I suspect that most departments, like my own, have accepted the manufacturers’ testing of their own products.

CRT Consulting, a less-lethal weapons research company, tested 48 different formulations of pepper spray to determine if the O.C. is safe to use with a TASER. The results were not encouraging.

Using a forensics dummy wearing a t-shirt and jeans, the CRT Consulting test team applied a 10 second cycle from a M26 TASER, while spraying the manequin with a 2-3 second burst of O.C. Of the 48 formulations tested, 12 were marked as “non flammable,” or “EDW Tested and Safe.” Of those 12, eight resulted in flames and ignition of the clothing, including the can marked “EDW Tested and Safe.”

Your department may want to contact CRT Consulting to determine if your pepper spray really is “non flammable.” Certainly, testing your current O.C./TASER combination should be a priority before something ugly happens to put you as the lead story in tonight’s news.

Prior to this magazine article, CRT published an article on PoliceOne about this subject here.