Essentially, this product is a pair of sunglasses with a built-in video recorder.

The camera records at 720×480 resolution at up to 35 fps, with about four hours of video fitting onto a single 4 GB MicroSD card.  The recorder is rechargeable via USB, and will run up to five hours on one charge.  Yes, it records audio with the video.  So, it is perfect for recording field interviews and the like.

I’ll be testing these on duty and in training.  I think that they will offer an awesome “first person” view of some of the training we are working on.  As I use the glasses over the coming weeks, I’ll post video samples here on the site.

©2011 James Russo

I have attempted to train quite a few rookies in safe traffic direction. There are many dangers in playing toreador to hundreds of two ton cars. I have a few tips.

First and foremost: Wear your reflective vest! Regardless if it is night or day. The darn thing is ANSI compliant for visibility and you are not.

Second, know clear hand signals. Hard to recreate here, but hand signals in daylight are much different than using that flashlight and cone in the darkness. Simple movements to direct the cars are best. Waving them forward, pointing toward turns, and holding out a hand or light for stop work best.

Next, you need your whistle. One long blow for stop. Two short chirps for go. This auditory addition to good hand signals is essential if you want to get their attention. And you do.

Make eye contact with drivers when possible. There is no clearer way to judge their intent than with seeing that they see you. Non-verbal cues can save your life. You can also watch the vehicle’s front tires. They are directional indicators.

Take a good position. When performing traffic control in a large intersection with turn lanes, stand in the debris field in the center of the intersection. That is where the cars don’t drive when traveling straight through or turning. Make this your happy place.

Do not stand behind your fully lit cruiser and wave a flashlight around in the dark. With a light bar, strobes, and standard illumination, your squad looks like a UFO. The drivers will not see you and your Maglite making Fourth of July sparkler motions out there.

If a driver is not following your instruction, do not aggressively walk toward them or block their path. They will undoubtedly win this game of chicken. You will just end up a two dimensional shape in the traffic crash diagram. Continue your attempts at communication from your happy place.

DO NOT TRUST THE DRIVING PUBLIC. They are unpredictable and can be easily confused by the chaos of an accident scene or emergency. This is especially true at night.

Two officers work better in a multilane intersection, if they are communicating well. One should be the primary and call the shots. This will minimize conflicting directions, which lead to paperwork.

Watch those larger vehicles. They take up more space in the roadway. I have literally had the side view mirror of a big truck brush my hair as it passed too closely. Yeow!

Traffic control is one our more dangerous daily jobs because we are so unprotected. Keep your head on a swivel, be paranoid, and use common sense. It can save your life.

Randall is a twenty-four year sworn police officer in Florida. He is his department’s K9 Sergeant and SWAT Team Coordinator.

The online Spanish lessons do not require registration and the classes are free.  It is self-directed training, meaning you can start and stop at any time.  This works well for police training, as most officers do not work 9-5 and are self-directed anyway.

A drawback to the class is the technology running the program is old and may not work on some machines.  Even though the lessons are web-based (html), the stated requirements of the course are old versions of Microsoft Windows (it makes no mention of Vista or Windows 7).  Mac OS, iOS, Android, Linux, etc are not officially supported.

I tried running the course on a Mac and an iPhone, but none of the audio would work.  Instead of using platform-neutral software, the audio appears to require Windows Media Player to play the audio.

It would be nice if the NIJ would update the program so that all of us can use the software.  With more agencies exploring the use of iPads and Android tablets in the field, the paradigm is shifting and the NIJ needs to catch up.

If you have a Windows machine, though, give the course a try.  It is free and you can do it in your spare time.

Here’s what then happened in the next few seconds:

Look at how fast this suspect attacked the officer with the knife:

05:01:55 – The officer stops his patrol car and shifts into park.

05:00:00 – The suspect exits his car.

05:00:02 – The suspect is slashes the officer in the face with a butcher knife.

If you’ve never seen a perfect example of the Tueller Drill, you now have.  Dennis Teuller was a police officer with the Salt Lake City PD, and he did a number of experiments regarding distance and reaction time.

The classic Teuller Drill essentially demonstrated a subject standing 21′ away from an officer can close the distance and stab an officer in about 1.5 seconds.  The average officer can probably draw his firearm and fire one shot in about the same amount of time.

The distance between the officer attacked and the suspect when he exited the car?  About 22′.

I know there are some people who might think the officers waited too long to start shooting the suspect.  Technically, the criticism would be correct insomuch as deadly force was justified prior to the actual use of deadly force.  However, reaction time isn’t an easy thing to calculate when under stress and in bad lighting conditions.

Reaction Time and Stress

In a reaction time study I reported on here, under ideal conditions, a police officer who knew he was going to be attacked with deadly force (no decision making involved), had a reaction time from threat to first shot of 0.39 seconds.  Keep in mind that is under ideal conditions:  lighting, weather and full knowledge of the threat.

In anything less than ideal conditions, reaction time will become longer.  Officers who are in body alarm response (aka “fight or flight”) suffer from various vision and cognitive effects, meaning reaction time can be slowed as the officers try to see what is in the suspect’s hand and form a proper response to the threat.

Lighting Conditions

As I reported in the article Visual Perception in Low Light, under non-threatening/non-stressful conditions well rested recruits had a great deal of difficulty in identifying known threats in low light.  In low light conditions, objects in the hand are very difficult to identify with any certainty.  In the dynamic conditions of a violent encounter, threat identification becomes vastly more difficult.

The shooting happened at about 5 am.  It was dark out with mainly lights from the patrol cars illuminating the scene.  The white light from the patrol cars were pointed in various directions, though at least one officer pointed his spotlight on the driver’s door (good job!)

The strobe effect of the emergency lights on the cars can also hinder the ability of officers to clearly identify an object or action.

The lighting conditions on the scene may have been enough alone to slow the officers reaction time simply because they were not able to instantly identify the knife.

Lessons:

• An end of the pursuit is not the end of the incident.
• Deadly attacks happen extremely fast.
• Distance is time and safety.
• Never give up.

Ultimately, the officer was injured and the suspect was killed.  The suspect was shot seven times and died at the hospital.  The shooting was ruled as a justified homicide.

Stay safe!

(A full, unedited copy of the video is available for download in the Blue Crew membership area.)

There are three course directed to the law enforcement audience.  Two are general familiarization courses while the third delves more deeply into DNA evidence collection.  There are more than a dozen additional classes for prosecutors and analysts.

Feel free to check these out.  Free training is rarely a bad thing, and since it is online, you can squeeze it in at the station between calls.

The course is sponsored by MTOA, but it is definitely patrol focused, not SWAT focused.

The course will be held February 6-8, 2012 in Milwaukee, WI.  Tuition is $465 and class size is limited to 24 officers.  For additional information and full course description, go to the MTOA site.

The X2 is slightly larger than the X26. From their spec sheet, the X2 is ½” longer, 1” taller, and ½” wider than an X26. It also weighs twice as much. Okay, so it adds a bit of bulk to the gun belt.

A major advantage to the X2 is dual sighting lasers. The dual lasers help with a main culprit of ECD ineffectiveness: probes missing their target. I found that the top and bottom dart lasers were dead-on inside 25 feet.

Accurate hits are easier when you don’t have to guess where the bottom dart is going to land. The top dart laser is constant on, while the bottom dart laser pulses. This comes in handy if you need to cant the weapon for prone suspects or difficult shots.

Another real improvement to the platform is the back up shot capability. No more fumbling with a second cartridge for a reload. Missed with the first shot? Just fire the second.

The X2 allows you to engage two suspects and “control” either one, or both, using the trigger and ambidextrous secondary buttons. These secondary buttons toggle between cartridges or can activate both sets of probes.

Through the use of the secondary buttons, drive stuns can be accomplished without firing the cartridges. They also allow for the daily spark test without removing the cartridges. What agency hasn’t had someone negligently fire off a set of probes while spark testing?

The Smart Cartridges for the X2 are recessed in the housing, so they cannot be knocked off, as can those on the X26 or M26. If you’ve ever had a cartridge get unseated in an older Taser, you can appreciate this feature.

Unlike an X26, the X2’s casing is waterproofed to IPX-2 standards, which equate to the device withstanding 3-5mm rainfall per minute for 10 minutes and the device tilted 15 degrees from normal in four directions.

These are the main improvements, though there are more that I don’t feel are all that important to the operator, such as internal self diagnostics or advanced display options.

Something I think may be a bit difficult is transitioning officers to the X2 from the X26. In an average X26 engagement, after deploying the probes into a suspect, an additional application of the ECD involves depressing the trigger again.

With an X2, this procedure will fire off the second cartridge into wherever the thing is pointed. Re-energizing the first fired cartridge is accomplished by pushing one of the secondary buttons, not the trigger.

I think training repetitions with the new X2 will overcome any confusion with this functional difference. We conducted drills alternating targets and toggling between the two expelled cartridges.

The basic way the X2 effects neuromuscular incapacitation is little different than with previous Tasers. The real advances of the X2 are in the total package that delivers the NMI. Taser’s solutions have increased this device’s overall field effectiveness and durability.

Randall is a twenty-four year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department. He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective, and SWAT Team Leader. He is currently the K9 Unit Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

If you are not familiar with the Street Survival Seminar, you don’t know what you are missing.  The two-day class is one of the best officer safety courses you can take.  Period.

For more than 30 years, Calibre Press has presented the Street Survival Seminar all over North America.  I am a former student, and their training both saved my life and helped me make some major felony cases via criminal interdiction as a street cop.

I took my first Seminar in Atlanta, GA in 1998.  At that time, it was a three day course.  The speakers were dynamic and the material was cutting edge.  I carried away a workbook that was more than 150 pages jammed with research, articles, case law and information that I still refer to more than 12 years later.

When I took the course, I believe I had the extraordinary instructors David Grossi and Bob Willis.  Today, you get training legends like Dave Smith (J.D. Buck Savage!).

The Street Survival Seminar is a top-notch training program and worth every penny.  I never regretted my decision to spend money on the class, and you will not either.  The course is normally $215/officer.  Go in with a buddy during this deal, and drop the price to almost $100.

A couple of notes:

• Neither Calibre Press nor the Street Survival Seminar are sponsors or advertisers at BlueSheepdog.  They just have a great product in which I believe very strongly.
• Several instructors and former instructors offer discounts to BlueCrew members, but the discounts do not apply to the Street Survival Seminar.  It would be kind of hard to beat the buy one, get one free discount anyway.
• If you don’t know who J.D. Buck Savage is, you are still a rookie.  Please visit Dave Smith’s site and watch all of the old training videos.  (Watch the hands, rookie!)
• If you don’t know who J.D. Buck Savage is, you may not have seen Smokey and the Bandit.  If not, please get yourself a Dr. Pepper and a Diablo sandwich, find this classic movie on Netflix and enjoy an “educational” movie on law enforcement.

In Nevada and British Columbia this summer, graduates of the certification course in Force Science Analysis, where human behavior studies are explored in depth, have used that training to help officers accused of wrongdoing in pursuit and physical control situations.

In one case an officer was saved from a possible prison term on felony charges. In the other, an officer’s controversial pre-emptive actions in stopping an attack before it started were vindicated, clearing him and 2 backups in a citizen’s “excessive force” complaint case.

FATAL PURSUIT. The chase case, which eventually involved Force Science Analyst Jeff Martin as an expert witness, began about 2220 hours on a Wednesday in May, 2010, in a commercial/industrial section of northeast Las Vegas.

Behind the wheel of an old black Honda Civic, a suspect later identified as 26-year-old meth abuser Ivan Carrillo was driving so erratically–creeping along at 12-15 mph, swerving across lanes, stopping suddenly in front of another motorist–that a citizen phoned 911 to report him. Among responding officers were Andrew Ubbens, 26, and Aron Carpenter, 29, in marked units of the Las Vegas Metropolitan PD.

Earlier in the day, investigation would show, Carrillo had been involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend and mother of his daughter, who told him he “scared her” and said she didn’t want to see him anymore. He argued that life would not be worth living without her. In an interview with Force Science News, Martin speculated that Carrillo, high on drugs, may have deliberately sought to attract police with his bad driving, with a suicide-by-cop-type plan to make it look like they caused his death during a pursuit.

With Ubbens and Carpenter behind him, Carrillo now took off, cranking the aged Honda up to 60 mph while weaving through traffic. The officers gave chase, but a sergeant heading toward the area quickly called off the pursuit. The officers maintained later that they eased off active pursuit but “continued to follow” at normal speeds without emergency lights or sirens, anticipating an inevitable accident and thinking they should be close by to help anyone injured.

After Carrillo locked brakes and skidded sideways through an intersection, after he drove north in southbound lanes, after he successfully drove out of a PIT maneuver by Ubbens, after he slowed as if to stop then speeded up again, the accident occurred in a matter of mere minutes.

As Carrillo’s path crossed into the city of North Las Vegas, Carpenter was “allowing him to drive away,” the officer later testified. Suddenly Carrillo, driving in an adjacent lane, decelerated and cut sharply in front of him. The officer said he stomped on his brake pedal and jerked the steering wheel, trying to avoid him. He felt a bumping sensation and heard a grinding sound that seemed to indicate he’d struck the left rear of the suspect’s Honda.

Carrillo steered back into his own lane, then accelerated and spun the Honda across multiple traffic lanes and into oncoming traffic. The resulting pileup wrecked 4 vehicles and left a woman motorist seriously injured. Carrillo was killed.

During a departmental investigation, the sergeant averred that he had 3 times ordered “all units” to discontinue pursuing and that Ubbens and Carpenter had consistently defied him. The theory developed that Carpenter, while traveling at high speed in continued pursuit, was driving too close to the suspect and that contact between the cars caused Carrillo to lose control and veer to his death. Carpenter insisted that he was driving at legal speed, that he made no intentional collision with the suspect’s vehicle, and that he was not in active pursuit at the time of the fatal crash.

Nonetheless, the PD recommended to the county District Attorney’s Office that both officers be charged criminally. In September 2010, Ubbens was charged with misdemeanor reckless driving. For Carpenter, more serious charges resulted: 2 counts of felony reckless driving. Found guilty, he could face 6 years’ incarceration and $5,000 in fines on each count.

Last January, Ubbens pleaded no contest to failure to use due care, a misdemeanor. He was ordered to pay a $500 fine and perform 50 hours of community service.

Carpenter refused to cop a plea. He was fired and went to trial.

Martin was the final witness called in his defense during a week-long jury trial in Clark County District Court last July. An expert in pursuit policy and tactics, Martin is himself a police attorney in California and a former municipal officer there with 28 years’ LE experience. He received his Force Science Analysis certification in 2008.

Much of Martin’s expert witness testimony under questioning by defense attorney Bret Whipple concerned the “fluid and dynamic” situation Carpenter faced during the final 10 seconds leading up to the crash.

While the prosecution claimed that reckless driving by Carpenter had contributed to the fatal accident, the defense raised doubts that contact between the cars had even happened, let alone been the cause of Carrillo veering to his death. What Carpenter interpreted initially as an impact could have been the sensation and sound generated by the thumping effect of the officer’s anti-lock braking system forcefully engaging. Indeed, there was no forensic evidence that conclusively established that collision actually occurred.

Be that as it may, Martin testified that perception and reaction time, not recklessness, was a key factor in this rapidly evolving and unusual event. Even traveling at or near legal speed, as Carpenter claimed he was, he would have been thrown severely behind the reactionary curve by Carrillo’s sudden swerve in front of him, Martin explained.

Drawing on a classic model used in the certification course, he described for the jury the 3 steps of reaction:

1) Identification of the stimulus. If you’re primed to see something, you can react faster, Martin explained. But something unexpected–Carrillo’s abruptly decelerating and swerving into Carpenter’s path, in this case–delays recognition. Carpenter’s attentional focus at the time this happened–had he been glancing down at his dashboard, for example–could have delayed awareness of the problem even more.

2) Selection of a response. Force Science has measured lag time incurred even by having to make simple “go/no go” decisions. But that time is extended, Martin explained, when more options are available and you have to decide among several which to choose, the situation Carpenter faced in trying to determine the best defensive driving maneuver for avoiding Carrillo’s car.

3) Initiation of response. Executing the physical maneuvers to follow through on the choice that’s made adds yet more time.

Martin says, “What I hoped to convey to the jury was that any contact between the squad car and the suspect’s Honda was the result of an inevitable lag in stopping time rather than a deliberate or reckless impact. And at worst, any contact was no more than an insignificant glancing brush. It was not decisive in Carrillo’s controlling his vehicle and was not Carpenter’s fault.”

In his opinion, Martin testified, Carpenter had acted reasonably throughout the engagement and was “driving with due regard,” in compliance with the department’s pursuit policy and not in rogue defiance of the sergeant’s orders.

As Whipple put it in his summation, Carpenter “was an officer trying to do his job to the best of his ability. He wasn’t trying to hurt anyone.”

The jurors were out for less than an hour. Their verdict: not guilty by a vote of 12-0.

Tears welled up in Carpenter’s eyes after the verdict was read. “The nightmare I’ve had to live for the last year and 2 months has finally come to an end,” he told a reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “I stood up for the truth. I had no intention of being that close to him.”

Through arbitration, he now hopes to get his job back.

PRE-EMPTIVE TAKEDOWN. The Canadian case, in which Force Science Analyst Steven Ing played a key role, also started with what appeared to be an impaired driver.

After midnight one morning, about 2 months before the Las Vegas pursuit, an officer on patrol in Victoria, BC, pulled over a van whose male driver appeared to be steering erratically, weaving and making wide turns. The neighborhood being “rather rough,” 2 backup officers quickly responded.

As the primary and 1 backup approached the vehicle toward the passenger side, they heard “a weird banging noise from inside.” Then the van’s panel door slammed open and the driver leaped out, highly agitated.

They ordered him back inside, but he refused to cooperate. He continued his resistance despite repeated commands and seemed to be moving toward what the officers thought would be physical aggression.

The primary officer went hands-on and with the help of the backups and well-placed knee strikes, took the subject down and handcuffed him. The driver suffered some abrasions in the process.

As it turned out, he wasn’t drunk or high, just a mental patient off his meds. His van had some mechanical problems that affected the steering. After he passed roadside sobriety tests, the officers dusted him off and sent him home.

The subject waited nearly 9 months before filing a citizen’s complaint. Besides challenging the legality of the stop, he claimed the officers had no grounds for taking him to the ground and used excessive force in the process, causing his injury.

The flow chart for complaints “looks something like a nuclear science diagram,” Ing says, but eventually the matter landed on his desk. With a law degree and 23 years’ LE experience, much of it in uniform assignments, Ing is now an inspector who heads the department’s Executive Services & Professional Standards section. Among his responsibilities is assessing evidence gathered during internal investigations and rendering decisions on the merits of public complaints.

In this case, the primary officer stated that he initiated the takedown on the basis of certain “pre-assaultive cues” that convinced him that the complainant was preparing to physically attack him. These included, in addition to verbal hostility, the driver “squaring off in a combat stance,” clenching his hands into fists, exhibiting a “1,000-yard stare,” and displaying “resistive tension” during their dialogue beside the van. The backup officers confirmed that such indicators had been present.

“It was a good list,” Ing says, and from his own street experience and martial arts background, he agreed that such cues can be valid predictors of pending aggression. He believed the officers’ force was justified.

The problem was that his decision was subject to review by an external independent civilian oversight body. If that group disagreed with his finding, the case would then go before a retired judge for further assessment.

In British Columbia, Ing explains, civilian overseers (as well as the media and activist lawyers) had previously “expressed concerns over the use of ‘pre-assaultive signs’ to justify use of force by police.” Questions had been raised about “how you can predict what someone is going to do,” and the sentiment among some reviewers (“official and unofficial”) seemed to be that “an officer had to take a punch first” before reacting.

“I needed to explain to people who had never been in physical combat why officers sometimes need to use pre-emptive force and why it can be justified at times when a subject technically hasn’t ‘done anything’ yet,” he says.

Shortly before becoming involved in the case, Ing had graduated from the Force Science certification course. He decided to frame the “cues” issue in the context of “a concept spelled out in scientific detail” in that training.

As part of a 12-page report he submitted to the civilian reviewers, he explained “the principle that action will always be faster than reaction.” That means, he wrote, that in a force confrontation an attacker who acts spontaneously “will always be able to initiate an attack before an officer can react to it.”

Police officers “in the lawful execution of their duties are not expected to suffer a physical assault before exercising their authority to arrest or to use force to defend against an assault,” Ing maintained. Consequently, an officer observing and then reasonably “using ‘pre-assaultive’ cues to help determine whether or not an assault is imminent…is a valid practice that does not undermine the officer’s credibility.”

“Force Science helped me understand the scientific basis behind this and helped me learn how to frame the concept in language ordinary people could understand,” Ing says.

In July, he learned that this training paid off. “The civilian oversight body held that my findings were reasonable,” he reports, “and no further action was taken against the involved officers.”

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

A side benefit to the newsletter is you are automatically entered to win this month’s prize: a Smith & Wesson Micro90 pistol light.

Don’t worry – no purchases are necessary, we don’t do anything unseemly with your e-mail address and no animals were harmed in the production of this newsletter.

Author and FWC secure gator’s jaws.

It is part and parcel for our profession that we, as officers and deputies, regularly interact with the local animals.  Not always the human kind.

Whether dealing with a cow on the freeway or a bear in a neighborhood, law enforcement officers face deadly encounters with animals that we are not necessarily trained or equipped to handle.

Having worked in Florida, I am familiar with most of our indigenous species.  We more often deal with alligators, local snakes, injured birds, and loose domesticated livestock, though Florida is also home to coyotes, bobcats, panthers, hogs, deer, and bears.

In addition, unusual species such as monkeys, apes, caimans, exotic big cats, and other imported animals inhabit the state through legal and illegal means.

In my jurisdiction, we encounter aggressive alligators, especially during the spring mating season.  Though since discontinued, training in how to safely capture an alligator was part of my academy curriculum in 1987.

Back then, officers from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (now the Florida Wildlife Commission, FWC, for short), brought live alligators to the Vo-Tech for the cadets to wrangle.  After a classroom session, we went outside where a live alligator (ours was about 7 feet long) was set free in the yard.

Under the watchful eyes of the Game and Fish officers, the cadets roped the errant gator and safely applied tape to its jaws.  I’m sorry today’s recruits don’t get to practice this sometimes needed skill.

I have had to use this training on several calls over the years and I was glad I had learned the basic safety guidelines for handling this dangerous reptile.

Author gets the tail-rope on a gator.

Each region of the country has different animal issues, whether incursions by our own alligators or by polar bears on the other side of the continent in Alaska.  Officers should make sure that they have at least basic knowledge of their local wildlife.  Even if you are not going to effect a capture, having an idea of how the animal can hurt you is important.

In March 2011, a Smith County, TX sheriff’s deputy was killed while directing traffic at the scene of an injured cow on the highway.  The cow suddenly charged the deputy and threw him into the air.  The deputy subsequently died of his injuries.  The cow was euthanized.

This very unfortunate line of duty death should remind us of the caution we need to exercise around animals.  Admittedly, I was nearly knocked down by a galloping horse once while we tried to corral a small herd on a local road.

I stress that we only attempt to capture or detain an animal in an exigent circumstance, and when we are properly trained to do so.  Heightened care needs to be taken with any injured animal.

The photos that go with this story are from us dealing with a 10’ gator that was roaming through crowded restaurant parking lots.  It was alligator mating season and he needed to be immobilized while we waited for the FWC or a trapper to arrive.

12’ parking space equals 10’ alligator.

In my area, we are lucky to have trappers that will respond to dangerous wildlife calls.  Unfortunately, their response times vary.  Sometimes we have to stabilize and wait.

Along with the hands-on alligator training, my academy had an animal identification class, which taught us various poisonous and non-poisonous snakes and insects.  Probably the most important lesson learned was:  If you can’t figure out what it is, don’t mess with it.

Add all of this to the number of domestic dogs, cats, snakes, and birds that will bite or scratch you and there is almost a whole separate job description to learn.

We need to treat animals with the same situational awareness that we do with people.  Complacency and trust should not be in our work vocabularies.  To paraphrase the legendary J.D. Buck Savage, “Watch the paws!”  Stay safe.

Police Alligator Training

Randall is a twenty-three year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department.  He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective, and SWAT Team Leader.  He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

Officer Involved Shooting

The dominant goal of citizen police academy programs is to get civilians to walk a mile in an officer’s boots. Thanks to the creativity of Force Science Analyst Steven Goard, those who attend the academy conducted by the Livermore (CA) PD walk an important extra mile–through the landmines of a simulated OIS investigation that tests their memory and perceptions of a personal controversial shooting.

The participants, including some police critics, learn first hand the vagaries of human behavior under pressure and the challenges of credibly defending a deadly force decision that may seem suspicious to outside observers.

“Invariably they’re shocked by the experience,” says Goard, who has now developed the OIS-investigation feature across 10 of his department’s citizen academy sessions.

Among many satisfying payoffs, he recalls the reaction of an African-American woman in her late 60s. “I feel guilty,” she told Goard as she shook his hand after the exercise. “For years, I’ve been skeptical of the police. I bought into the way the media report police shootings. I just didn’t have the knowledge to enlighten my thinking.”

Speaking for the Force Science Institute, executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski notes, “Part of our mission is to educate the public about the truth of use-of-force dynamics. Steve Goard has crafted a memorable way of doing that. It’s an approach that other agencies and the communities they serve could benefit greatly from following.”

At 38, Goard has been a Livermore cop for nearly 9 years, cycling through assignments in training, SWAT, sex crimes investigation, and patrol. An avid student of human behavior, he’s currently working toward a master’s degree in psychology. He’s read so deeply on the subject that his fellow officers have nicknamed him Bookworm. After FSI began offering its certification course in Force Science Analysis, he attended at his own expense to further pursue what he calls “my passion.”

Even before that training, he’d been integrating Force Science concepts into his department’s semi-annual citizen academy after hearing Lewinski speak at a seminar in nearby San Francisco. Further fueled by his Analyst training, he expanded and polished the initial content into its present format.

The citizen academy meets roughly 4 hours a week for 17 weeks. About half way through the term, after they’ve sat through use-of-force lectures, experienced a simulator exercise, and fired some of the department’s SWAT weapons, Goard introduces the 30-35 participants typically enrolled to a special force-on-force scenario.

Partnered up and armed with Glock Simunitions pistols in a shoot house built by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, they’re instructed to respond to a given 911 call and “handle the scene as you think appropriate based on what you’ve learned in class and as you think police officers should in real life.”

At the scene, each pair encounters role-players in circumstances that quickly evolve into a tense situation designed to make the “officers” feel threatened. Details vary, but the core action generally involves a subject pulling out a cell phone, reaching for a wallet, brandishing a toy gun (plainly signified by an orange tip ), gripping a power drill, or displaying angry gestures.

“Invariably at least 1 of the student partners shoots, and most often both do,” Goard explains. “When the scenario is at its highest peak, a safety officer standing directly behind them activates an air horn or fires several blank rounds at the floor from a .38 handgun.” Everything is captured from different angles by a battery of hidden video cameras.

Immediately after the scenario, the partners are separated and told that since 1 or both used deadly force, they will need to undergo a mini OIS investigation. They are then told to fill out a questionnaire or submit to an oral interview about what happened.

The questions are based primarily on information typically sought after a police shooting, according to what prosecutors and survivors of real OISs have told Goard. In part, these include:

• Describe the call.
• What did you first observe at the scene?
• What were the suspect’s actions?
• What did you do?
• What, if any, level of force did you use?
• If you used your firearm, how many rounds did you shoot?
• Describe the suspect.
• Describe the scene.
• What kind of weapon did the suspect display, if any?
• What did you feel or experience during the encounter?
• What was said by you and by the suspect?
• What did your partner do?
• Did you hear any loud noises?
• Did you see any guns with orange tips?

And so on. “We get a lot of blank looks or blank spaces on the questionnaires because they don’t remember,” Goard says.

That task over, with no further discussion “I tell the students that I’ll be doing a presentation for the class at a later date to discuss their scenarios,” Goard says. During off hours at home, he then carefully edits footage from the cameras to reconstruct a comprehensive picture of each encounter and burns all of them to a DVD that will later be played and given to the students.

The defining moment comes weeks later shortly before graduation day. Goard starts off with some important preliminaries. First, the students are asked to again write down an account of what happened during their scenario. Then Goard shows them dash-cam recordings from YouTube or PoliceOne’s BluTube of various “mistaken judgment” shootings involving cell phones, toy guns, and other controversial elements. “I ask them to comment, and they generally remark on how ‘really bad’ the incident looks and express doubts about the involved officers’ justification for shooting,” he says.

Finally, he plays the videos of them using force and compares what the hidden cameras documented with the articulation of events they gave. “You can actually feel the shock in the room,” Goard told Force Science News.

Certain consistencies arise class after class:

• After their encounters, “all the students report seeing a gun or seeing a gun actually fired at them, which prompted them to shoot,” Goard says. “Yet in the videos, they see themselves using deadly force on people with wallets, cell phones, drills, and unarmed.” One student described a role-player as threateningly pointing an automatic rifle; in reality the “suspect” pointed aggressively with his arm.

• “They’re also always surprised at what they didn’t see that was right in front of them, how much the mind ignores under stress,” Goard says. “Amazingly, none of the students recall hearing the air horn or the blanks being fired, nor do they complain about their ears ringing even though they didn’t have ear protection. And they never see the orange tips on toy guns. A common comment is, ‘I didn’t have time to pay attention to that.’ They were worried about whether they were going to die, not about looking for orange tips.”

• Typically, the students fire more rounds than they estimate in their reports. One who said he shot only 4 times actually shot 19. Some have inaccurately claimed there was no suspect weapon in their scenario and that they didn’t shoot at all.

• Some are sobered to see that they kept “shooting and shooting and shooting–maybe 6 or 7 additional rounds–even though the suspect was down and not fighting back.” Or that they shot a suspect in the back when they said they had shot him in the chest.

• At least 85% of the students find they haven’t given accurate descriptions of the suspect, of important scene elements, or of their partner’s behavior, Goard says.

• There tend to be major differences between accounts the students give when initially questioned about their shooting and when describing the event again weeks later. In some cases, their memories have improved significantly with time. But there have been instances in which students in their second telling describe scenarios they weren’t even involved in, having apparently internalized someone else’s experience during conversations about the exercise. There are also notable differences between the accounts partners offer about the same scenario, just as there often are between fellow officers in real-world shootings.

The inconsistencies and omissions open the door for Goard to confront the students with some of the suspicions officers under investigation often have to contend with in similar circumstances: Are you lying…conspiring…contriving amnesia…trying to cover up unsavory truths?

Goard completes his presentation by explaining some of Force Science’s research findings regarding reaction time, turning time, “excessive” shots, attentional blindness, and other behavioral phenomena associated with high-stress, life-threatening encounters. He also reports on the well-known studies of perceptual distortions conducted by Dr. Alexis Artwohl, a National Board Member for FSI and a faculty member for its certification course. “The students are always very surprised at how similar their experiences are to her discoveries,” Goard says.

“Overall, it’s quite a ride,” he concludes. “From the feedback we get, I do believe that the exercise broadens the citizens’ views of officer-involved shootings and opens their minds to the ways controversial shootings can be sensationalized. We’re only 35 miles from where the BART shooting occurred, so we’re very familiar with how police actions can get distorted.

“It’s interesting to hear data, but it’s always more powerful to get at least a taste of how data transforms into reality. And the fact is that these people may someday be jurors, judging a police-shooting case. Hopefully, they’ll remember their experience and cut a well-intentioned officer some slack.”

Goard left us with a fascinating footnote. He mentioned that the academy graduates often share the DVD of the scenarios that he gives them with civilian friends while explaining the cognitive shortcomings that were exposed during the mock investigation. “Sometimes those friends attend future academies,” he says, “and even though they’ve seen the scenarios they still make the very same mistakes when it’s their turn behind the gun.”

For more information, Steve Goard can be reached at: SGoard@ci.livermore.ca.us

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Smith

The One-Leg-Stand (OLS) test is the final validated test in the NHTSA approved battery of three sobriety tests. Like the other two tests, the OLS is a divided attention test, meaning the subject being tested must divide their attention on several different instructions to successfully complete the test.

Operating a motor vehicle safely requires the driver to divide their attention (multi-task) on a continuous basis. You should familiarize yourself with with this concept as it helps a judge or jury understand that these tests are not meant to “fail” the tested subject, but are meant to gauge their ability to perform multiple tasks at the same time – something a sober driver does all the time.

STARTING POSITION

Like the other two tests the subject should be instructed to stand with their feet together, heels and toes touching, and their arms down to their sides. The subject should be instructed to remain in that position while the rest of the instructions are being given. Once they have assumed that position ask them, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” Be sure to get a verbal acknowledgment that they understand before moving on to the other instructions.

Like the other tests the NHTSA Manual states that this test should be performed on a relatively dry, hard, and level surface. Use common sense here and go out of your way to ensure the safety of the tested person – this is your duty, but it also looks great in court.

Keep the subject in this position during the entire instructions phase of the test. If they step out, stop your instructions and require them to regain the starting position. Remind them that their ability to follow simple instructions is paramount to establish their level of sobriety. Note each time they sway, hop, raise their arms or step out of the starting position for your report. These are not “clues” to be scored, but are observations to indicate their impaired state. More on that later.

If the tested subject is wearing awkward shoes (high heels, cowboy boots, etc.) you should ask them if they want to take the test in their shoes or take their shoes off. Let them decide and get a verbal commitment either way. This shows your impartiality in conducting the test, and a genuine allowance on behalf of the subject. Trust me, the impaired driver will give you plenty of clues of impairment without resorting to trickery.

BASIC INSTRUCTIONS

Like the other tests, I always start by giving the subject a basic description of

what I expect them to do. This looks great in court because the instructions are simple, and it gives me time to think about what I am saying and doing. If you ever get tongue- tied during instructions you can always pause and ask the subject “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” During this time I will position myself about 10 feet away from the subject so that they can clearly observe my demonstration, and I can clearly observe any clues that the subject exhibits.

The basic instructions should hit the main points of the test. I inform the subject that when I tell them to begin they will balance on one foot, while raising the other foot approximately six inches off the ground. They will then count out loud in a manner that I will describe, and continue to count until I tell them to stop. That’s it! Simple and too the point.

I then ask the subject, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” After getting a verbalacknowledgment that they understand I move on to the next part of the instructions. Remember, if the subject says they don’t understand, ask them specifically what it is they don’t understand. Do not repeat all of the instructions again, simply repeat and clarify the part of the instructions that they do not understand. Always end with asking them “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”

DEMONSTRATION

During the demonstration part of the instructions I will assume the same starting position that I have placed them into, about 10 feet in front of them. I will then explain that they will stand on the foot of their choosing and raise the other foot approximately six inches off the ground. At that time I will raise one of my feet about six inches off the ground. You need to practice this so that you know how to balance with all your duty gear on, and give an appropriate six inch example – this is important. I will also explain that they need to keep both legs straight during the test. Bending either or both legs during the test makes balancing much easier so you must watch for this and correct it if it begins to happen while you are scoring the subject.

Once I have my foot six inches off the ground I will explain and demonstrate that they need to point the toes of their raised foot so that the foot is parallel to the ground. This is a part of the divided attention test so do not let them cheat on this.

After placing my foot in the proper position I will advise the subject that they will begin counting in this manner, “one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three, and so on until I tell you to stop”. I will remind them that during the test they need to keep their arms down to their sides, and keep both legs straight. I will then ask them, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” After getting a verbal acknowledgment I will lower my raised foot and finish out the instructions.

Here’s a cheat for you to help you in your demonstration. If you find yourself off balance then slightly bend the leg you are standing on. Don’t make it obvious, but a slight bend will give you greater balance. Once you’ve done this, move your raised foot slightly towards the leg you are standing on, maybe even as far as directly in line with the leg your standing on. This will put your body more in line with itself and therefore more balanced. During the instructions you should be watching the subject – DO NOT LOOK DOWN. Looking up (on the horizon) makes it a lot easier to balance then looking down at your raised foot.

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Now you are ready to give the person the final set of instructions. Like the WAT

test, do not try to mix the final instructions into the demonstration. More officers fail doing this and lose confidence in themselves and the tests because they try to cram too much information in while trying to maintain their balance. Unless you have high-wire balance naturally you are bound to lose your balance or rush the instructions (forgetting some along the way). Either way it makes you look foolish and unprepared. By breaking the test instructions into four distinct parts you can avoid the overwhelming pressure to throw everything at them at one time. Dividing the instructions into these four parts is also incredibly powerful in the courtroom because it makes the test easy to understand for judge and jury alike.

The final set of instructions uses the “head-to-toe” method to remember what you are going to instruct.

HEAD – Instruct them to look down at their raised foot during the test.

MOUTH – Remind them to count out loud “just like I did”, until you tell them to stop.

ARMS – Their arms are to remain at their sides during the entire test.

FEET – Keep the raised foot pointed and six inches off the ground during the entire test.

From experience I have added an instruction about what to do if they put their foot down during the test. Too often when a subject drops their foot the first time, they simply stop performing the test – like the first time they step off the line in the WAT test. To remedy that problem I give this final instruction – “if you happen to put your foot down during the test, regain your balance, raise your foot back into position, and continue counting where you left off.”

Before starting the test I will ask them one more time “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” At a minimum I have asked them if they understand four different times, and I have not continued with instructions before getting four separate acknowledgments that they do in fact understand – great stuff in court. Be careful here. Do not accept head nodding or grunting as an acknowledgment. Request them to say “yes” or “I understand” or some other form of clear acknowledgment. Then the are locked in! At this point you are ready to have the subject begin the test.

The NHTSA Manual recognizes four (4) validated clues of impairment on the

OLS test. If you see two (2) or more clues then there is a high probability that the subject is impaired. All of the clues are found during the performance stage of the test, but if the subject exhibits lack of balance or the inability to follow instructions during the instructional phase those observations should be documented.

THE FOUR CLUES OF (OLS)

1. Sways while balancing – Being fair the sway should be more than one inch off center.
2. Raises arms for balance – more than six inches from their sides.
3. Hops – moving the foot they are balancing on is a “hop”.
4. Puts foot down – try to note on what count they did this, and how many times.

Swaying – you should stand in a position that allows you to observe the subject and some stationary object in the background. This could be a utility pole, a tree, a billboard, or even your patrol car. This gives you the basis of how you measured the sway the subject exhibited. I’ve been asked this in court so be prepared to have a solid answer. Note the type of sway as well – front to back, side to side, or circular (orbital).

Raises arms for balance – requires you to observe the subject raise one or both arms more than six (6) inches from their sides. Document on what count they raised their arms and how many times they raised their arms. If they raise their arms 30 times remember that it is only scored as one clue, performed 30 times.

Hops – is probably one of the most incorrectly scored clues simply because too many officers are looking for the “bunny hop”. The subject does not have to jump off the ground like a pogo stick to be scored for hopping. What is most often observed is the

subject begins shifting on the leg they are balancing on to try to counter the movement of their raised leg or body. Even if the foot doesn’t completely leave the ground, their body movement is causing their foot to temporarily lose traction and position with the ground. Think about what that looks like from a ground-level perspective. In order for the subject to move out of position their foot is coming up enough to allow movement, when their entire body weight is on that foot – that’s hopping, score it!

Puts foot down – No brainer here. Note on what count and how many times the subject puts their foot down. One thing to be careful of is to make sure the subject returns their foot to (6) inches with a pointed toe after they’ve put it down once. And make sure they look at their foot – the subjects will quickly start doing cheats once they realize their balance is poor.

By the completion of the three validated sobriety tests you should be more than comfortable with the arrest/no-arrest decision. If done properly these tests have been proven to be incredibly accurate in identifying driver’s that are at the .08% B.A.C. level or above. The sharper you hone your skills in administering these tests, the greater the success rate you will have in snatching the .08% and .09% impaired drivers off the road. Anyone can locate the .15% driver, but a true professional is required to remove the threats posed by drivers with lower B.A.C. levels.

One final reminder – from the first observation of the Vehicle In Motion you should start preparing yourself for the lawyer-savvy subject who will not talk to you or perform your tests. Tune in all your senses to document the many minor details that intoxicated drivers will give you during Vehicle In Motion and the Personal Contact phases of D.U.I. investigations. That way Mr. Refuse-all doesn’t slip by, and you’re detailed reporting of observed actions will be sufficient to gain the conviction in court.

Happy Hunting!

Photo courtesy of Trung Nguyen

[Ed. note: This is part two of a series on Tactical Patrol.  The first article is Tactical Patrol Mindset.]

In this article I’d like to discuss a few of the most common critical incident calls where understanding the priority of life is critical to making a proper police response, especially for the initial patrol officers on scene.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This is probably one of the most frequent calls police receive, and also one of the most dangerous. Patrol officers should understand that it is the priority of life, along with the exigency exemption to the 4th Amendment, that allows officers to force their way into a residence to investigate a domestic violence report should someone refuse their entry. The courts are saying that the “victim” is more important than any privacy rights a suspect might want to enjoy, even in his own home. Understanding the priority of life gives patrol officers the confidence to act and to act quickly to properly handle domestic violence calls, and provide assistance to victims.

If entry cannot be obtained then officers should determine the situation’s facts. Is this a hostage situation? Is this a barricade? Are there innocent lives present? Answers to these questions will determine the most appropriate response of the patrol officers on scene. If you know people are inside and not answering, perhaps the best course of action is to surround the house and call them out to you. If the suspect refuses to exit, then perhaps a breach & hold (kicking in the door, but waiting outside the threshold) could be attempted. However, absent evidence of an assault in progress, treat it as a barricade and perform the “Four C’s” of patrol response to critical incidents (contain, control, communicate, call SWAT). Remember though, just because SWAT is called does not alleviate patrol’s responsibility to have an immediate action plan to enter and save hostages should that contingency occur.

If the victim meets you at the door and there are no innocents in the house, officers shouldn’t feel compelled to walk right into the residence to contact the suspect. How about calling the suspect to you where you can be in a position of advantage instead of walking into his.

If there are innocents in the house (children, other family, neighbors, etc.) patrol should try to separate the victim and suspect as quickly as possible. If the suspect has fled to a deep part of the residence then have the victim and innocents leave the danger area, and when they are secure, attempt to call-out the suspect. During this time an arrest team should be ready in case the suspect decides to exit.

BARRICADED SUBJECTS (SUICIDAL)

This is probably the most misinterpreted and mishandled call that police respond to today. However, if you use the priorities of life scale, the understanding of how to properly handle these calls should be more clear.

The first consideration should be to determine if any innocent people are close to the suicidal subject. If yes, than we must act to deprive the suicidal subject the opportunity to turn those people into hostages, or victims. If the answer is no, then we have to determine if the person is in a capacity to endanger innocents.

If the suicidal is armed in a public place we have to do something, which is the protection of innocents. This does not mean we rush the subject or expose ourselves needlessly to danger, violating the priority of life scale. Officers who approach suicidal subjects unnecessarily, were threatened and as a result killed the suspect, have been found civilly liable for “creating” a deadly force situation. Instead, we need to contain them and use less lethal intervention as quickly as possible.

However, if the suicidal is alone at home we need to completely re-evaluate our response tactics. What happens if the suicidal subject refuses to come outside? Should we force entry because they’re threatening suicide? Should we make this a prolonged “barricaded” subject call? I think the answer is no to both questions, and the National Tactical Officer’s Association (N.T.O.A.) seems to support that idea.

The reasoning goes back to the priorities of life scale. Being alone in his house, the suicidal poses only a threat to himself. I understand that “suicidal = homicidal” but in this particular situation the subject is in their own home and not posing a risk to anyone other than themselves. That’s the key to our decision making. A homicidal person poses a risk to the innocents living around them so our tactics have to protect the innocents by removing the threat.

Recent court decisions look unfavorably on police when they burst into the homes of suicidal subjects to “save” them and end up killing them instead. If the subject commits suicide than they made that choice in the privacy of their own home. Perhaps a call from a C.I.T. officer, or a local mental health provider would be appropriate, but a full-scale S.W.A.T. operation will probably only end badly for the police. If “negotiations” fail, notify neighbors to call if something changes and have mental health personnel continue attempts at phone follow-up.

Leaving may seem impossible, but the 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment. Any breaching or entry tactic is going to be seen as an escalation of the danger created by the police, which may result in an unconstitutional seizure by the police. Handling it like a barricade may result in a successful outcome, but how many extended suicidal barricades can your agency afford to conduct.

BARRICADED SUBJECT (CRIMINAL)

This type of incident really bring into focus the priority of life scale. If there are hostages or innocents in the residence, then our response is dictated by those facts. In a hostage situation information should be gathered to determine if there is an immediate threat to the hostage. If the answer is yes, then an immediate action plan should be executed including distractions, gas, and perhaps multiple entry points. All of this should be committed with the singular goal of getting to the hostage as quickly as possible to ensure their safety. Obviously one of the ways to ensure this goal is to eliminate the hostage taker if immediate compliance is not gained.

If there are innocents inside that are not hostages then we need to begin procedures to surround, contain and call-out. This is the more frequent case as we go to serve a search or arrest warrant and the wanted party refuses to come out. We need to separate the innocents from the suspect, and then evaluate our options.

I just attended the S.W.A.T. Team Leader course offered by the N.T.O.A. Several scenarios were debriefed where officers forgot the priorities of life scale and went in on a criminal barricaded subject. Officers were killed or injured. We have other tactics to resolve those situations safely – gas, gas, and more gas into the house.

Back in 2003 my S.W.A.T. team responded to assist a neighboring agency on a barricaded suspect that had engaged officers and firefighters in a gunfight. The Vietnam-vet had a history of mental illness. He lived with his 80-year old mother, and apparently got mad at her and stabbed her on the neck and arms. When she left to call for help the first officers and firefighters came under rifle fire from the house almost immediately. Having one of the first Lenco Bear Cat’s delivered to police, we responded and began evacuating the pinned-down patrol officers, firefighters and then neighbors. Eventually we saturated the house with gas and the suspect committed suicide. Before that happened about 150-200 rounds had been fired at responders. This guy had a plan and knew his tactics because our snipers never saw him in the house. When we were relatively certain the suspect was dead we still didn’t rush in. We used the Bear Cat as a battering ram. We pushed a car through and out the back of the garage to open up an exterior wall of the house and allow our E.O.D. unit to send in a robot. Only after the robot found the suspect laying in a bathtub did an Entry Team enter and confirm he was dead. Had we conducted a “dynamic” entry while the suspect was alive I’m quite sure that one or more of my teammates would have been wounded or killed.

The concept of “dynamic entry” was around in the beginning of S.W.A.T. The concept was that if S.W.A.T. entered a house with surprise (usually early morning) and diversion (flash bangs) that they could rush through the house and seize everyone before they could catch up in their O.O.D.A. cycle and respond. I’ve been a part of dozens of raids that conformed to this flawed ideology. Sadly, it has taken multiple failed attempts at dynamic entry for the police community to realize that there are better tactics to accomplish the same goal.

Much of what drove that push to rush was the desire to save evidence from destruction. Are you kidding me? Property and evidence are even lower on the priority of life list than the suspect! In essence the law enforcement community (especially S.W.A.T.) was placing the need for evidence or seizing the suspect, above the need to protect officers. For nearly 15 years now the N.T.O.A. has NOT endorsed a dynamic entry method except for hostage-rescue or active shooter situations where there are hostages or innocents in harm’s way.

HOSTAGE-TAKER/ACTIVE SHOOTER

By now the law enforcement community is pretty well-versed in the appropriate response to active shooters: get there, get in, respond to the sounds of the shooter, and rescue the hostages/innocents by capturing or eliminating the threat. Often times, however, active shooter training only emphasizes getting to the shooter and killing the shooter(s). The real goal is to protect hostages/innocents. They are the reason we are rushing in, not for the shooter, because we definitely don’t lower ourselves any further on the priority of life scale.

However, we need to remember that the overall police mission in critical incidents is to save lives, including the suspects. The choice to eliminate the suspect must be made only when saving him can not be accomplished without unduly risking harm to a person higher on the priority of life scale. And yes, that decision may literally be made in micro-seconds, but overall our mindset must be on the priority of life – we went in there to rescue hostages/innocents. Understand that I am not advocating officers to stop and help injured along the way. In a hostage taker situation we must advance as rapidly as possible to the hostages, even overstepping wounded or innocents seeking help.

Remember “why” we do what we do, and it will guide you on the “how” to do what we do right.

In the event of a hostage taker several considerations must be made before action is taken. To successfully weigh our options we need to consider the definition of “Immediate threat” and “Imminent threat”.

Immediate threat – the suspect’s actions are currently causing a serious threat of death or serious physical injury to the hostage.

Imminent threat – the suspect is capable of lethal action and is in close proximity to the hostage creating a jeopardy that the hostage could at any moment be at risk of death or serious physical injury.

At first glance that might seem to be splitting hairs, but it really is not. The important concept for law enforcement to understand (supported by the “reasonable” test of Graham vs. Connor) is that hostages are always in “imminent” danger as long as they are in close proximity to the hostage taker. This means that if we can establish separation of the hostage taker from the hostages, and the hostage taker is not negotiating or surrendering, than police should seriously consider deploying lethal force to end the threat imposed on the hostages.

If the hostage-taker shows “immediate” threat to the hostages than an emergency action plan must be executed to enter and quickly rescue the hostages – often by eliminating the hostage taker. Patrol officers may have to act based on the circumstances presented to them, so it is critically important for the initial patrol officers on scene to correctly assess just what type of situation that they are dealing with.

If however, the hostage taker is negotiating and not presenting an “immediate” threat to the hostages, than perhaps the best course of action is to allow negotiators to work on a planned release of hostages and surrender of the suspect. This must still be done with an Emergency Action entry team ready to go on a moment’s notice.
Hopefully this review of some common critical incidents that patrol officers respond to, along with understanding the priority of life scale, will allow patrol officers to have the understanding to make the proper assessments at the scene, decide on the best course of action, and have the confidence to act.

How do you think that will play out in the pending civil suit filed by the family of the decedent?

The officer in question was not the only one on the force who missed state mandated training.  In fact, of the eight man East Dublin Police Department, more than half did not attend the mandatory retraining and had lost their powers of arrest.  One of the people who failed to attend training and should not have the power of arrest?  Police Chief Bill Luecke.

If you be concerned about rigors of that use of force training, don’t be:  it is only one hour per year.  Mandatory firearms training accounts for one hour per year also, bringing the total to two hours per year.

Having started my law enforcement career in Georgia, I am pretty familiar with the training standards in the Peach State.  They aren’t terribly impressive.  Compared to other states, Georgia is ahead of some in the number of hours at the academy and such, but that doesn’t mean they are squared away.

When I first graduated the academy, I was “certified for life” on my duty pistol, as Georgia did not have any requirements for requalification.  Thankfully, that changed.  I still wonder how many cops working 20+ years only shot their service guns at the academy.

But, I figured that the East Dublin officer was an isolated incident.  Unfortunately, it is not.  According to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, “dozens” of Atlanta police officers have not been through mandatory retraining, which has resulted in their loss of arrest powers.  According to the article, more than 50 officers have been discovered to have lost their powers of arrest.  That number is likely to go higher, as there are still 600 files to review, or about 1/3 of the force.

How many criminal investigations do those officers represent?  How many use of force cases?  Arrests?

Lest you think I am picking on Georgia, let me present the Honolulu Harbor Police Department.  According to KITV-4 News, the state confiscated all of the weapons and vehicles used by the Harbor PD.  Why?  Among other reasons: the department lacked proper record keeping on firearms training, qualifications and other topics.

The harbor police still patrol, but without weapons.  Should any law enforcement action be needed, they call the sheriff’s department and county police.

The shocking thing is all three of these stories were published in the same week.  It really makes me wonder how many administrators are ignoring their responsibility to ensure the department is meeting minimum requirements, never mind being well trained.

This may sound a little silly to some folks, but I hope not.  We in law enforcement owe the citizens of our jurisdiction the best service possible.  That means our officer have to be well trained in all important areas of law enforcement.  At the top of that list should be the use of force.

The use of force is an integral aspect of law enforcement.  Officers who are well trained in the use of force (generally) and in the various weapon systems issued to them are unlikely to inappropriately use force, are more likely able to prevail in an armed encounter and are easy to defend against frivolous lawsuits.

Untrained officers are more likely to use an unreasonable amount of force (too much or too little for the circumstances), are more likely to be killed in a violent encounter and are hard to defend in frivolous lawsuits.  If you do not document proper training, the well-trained officer is also hard to defend against nuisance lawsuits.

The citizens deserve better.  Our officer deserve better.

When asked about the mandatory training requirements by a reporter, Chief Luecke said “Everything’s cool.”  No Chief Luecke, everything is not cool.