Use of Force Procedures for US Law Enforcement & Private Security- By, Richard Garrity

  • 2,867 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,867
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ““The Art of Restraint”The Art of Restraint” Use of Force ProtocolUse of Force Protocol Lethal & Non LethalLethal & Non Lethal
  • 2. ““The Art of Restraint”The Art of Restraint” Use of Force ProtocolUse of Force Protocol Lethal & Non LethalLethal & Non Lethal This presentation is proprietary information and can’t be copied or reproduced in any fashion without consent from the publisher owner, Richard Garrity
  • 3. ““The Art of Restraint”The Art of Restraint” Use of Force ProtocolUse of Force Protocol Lethal & Non LethalLethal & Non Lethal “Force is legitimate where gentleness avails not”. Pierre Corneille
  • 4. Leading the front lines:Leading the front lines:
  • 5. Leading the front lines:Leading the front lines:
  • 6. A growing partnership:A growing partnership:
  • 7. Mission & Purpose:Mission & Purpose: The primary purpose of this training exercise is to: 1. Insure first, the safety of the Officer 2. Insure the safety of the public 3. Insure the safety of the suspect (if necessary) 4. Reduce costly liability when applicable 5. Diminish the possibility of criminal charges or civil liability to the personnel involved
  • 8. Introduction:Introduction: The purpose of this comprehensive training module is to give public law enforcement and private security personnel proper guidelines on the Use of Force, both lethal and non-lethal. It is vital that this training presentation be viewed as a supplement to your existing training and should not be construed as replacement for said training. Use of Force guidelines should always be universal in spirit and in actual current written procedure.
  • 9. Introduction:Introduction: This presentation will mainly deal with several tools utilized and deployed by Police & Security: 1. The Taser Gun- stun gun 2. The nightstick- baton 3. Pepper Ball Gun 4. Use of Force discretion
  • 10. Introduction:Introduction: This presentation will also address as an operational supplement:  The dynamics, deployment, and use of force doctrine during an urban riot.
  • 11. Introduction:Introduction: Additionally, this presentation will focus on several key areas of legal interpretation and previous cases of prior incidents involving Use of Force, both justifiably and non justifiable. They are: 1. The color of authority 2. Lack of oversight- training 3. Costly liability concerns 4. Federal Court Intervention- 2009
  • 12. Introduction:Introduction: This presentation will not address directly, the use of service issued firearms. This training module is more focused on the use of non- lethal service issued weapons that very well can be lethal if not utilized properly or discriminately.
  • 13. Introduction:Introduction: Moreover, the intent of this presentation is to give the Officer a more clear and decisive situational direction as to when to actually use Taser guns, nightsticks, pepper spray, or an automatic pepper ball gun.
  • 14. Introduction:Introduction: Because police officers are charged with enforcing the law and maintaining public order, they are frequently placed in situations where they must attempt to manage or control an otherwise free citizen. Whether an encounter leads to an actual arrest or merely a temporary detention for questioning, these intrusions are often unwelcome and met with determined resolve.
  • 15. Introduction:Introduction: It is not uncommon for such police intervention to be resisted by the citizen or citizens involved. When this happens, officers frequently need to use forcible means to control and perhaps arrest the persons in question. It is then that the critical question is raised. Just what justifiable forcible means to control someone is warranted? It can be a very grey area, and this training module will attempt to shed more light & clarity on the subject.
  • 16. POLICY:POLICY: The primary duty of police officers is to protect the public, themselves and other officers. Less lethal force and control options may assist officers in performing these duties, but are not intended to substitute for the use of deadly force when it is reasonable and necessary.
  • 17. POLICY:POLICY: There is neither a requirement nor an expectation that officers attempt to use or exhaust less lethal options in situations requiring the use of deadly force.
  • 18. Where do we start?Where do we start?
  • 19. Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line:
  • 20. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence:
  • 21. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence: The need for comprehensive training programs for peace officers in the appropriate use of force is a matter of common sense and good management practice. Not surprisingly, the United States Supreme Court in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), noted that a municipality which fails to train its officers in those essential functions of their jobs may be held liable for subsequent acts of misconduct by employees violating constitutionally protected rights of citizens.
  • 22. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence: A majority of police administrators universally agree that inappropriate use of force by peace officers can drive a wedge between peace officers and the communities they serve. History has recorded how incidents of misconduct in the application of force can spark widespread civil unrest. Assessing the appropriateness of use of force and the parameters of a use of force training program necessitates a careful examination of state and federal legal requirements.
  • 23. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence: While it is expected that training academies and law enforcement agencies will choose to use various use of force training models with differing numbers of levels of force, they must ensure that their model and instruction comply with the general standards established by state and federal guidelines concerning appropriate use of force.
  • 24. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence: Use of force, both lethal and non lethal, must be reasonable when at all possible. When an Officer’s safety or the public is at risk, the level of force needed can reasonably be escalated to control the suspect and or situation.
  • 25. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence: It must also be stated that use of force is always on a case by case basis. Sometimes, excessive force is needed to bring a suspect in. Sometimes, to varying degrees, more force was needed than what was expected. Really, how do you measure what level of force was needed? Especially if you were not there?
  • 26. Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence: The Bottom Line: You can’t do what you want. You, the Officer, the purveyor of justice, were hired to jealously adhere to guidelines, procedures, and use of force protocol. For every action, there is, a reaction. For those paying close attention, there is always a consequence for those actions, to reactions. We live in a different world today. As the old proverbial saying goes: “This is not your Father’s LAPD anymore”.
  • 27. Liability- Rodney King, LALiability- Rodney King, LA Lessons learned from “The Incident”
  • 28. Liability & the TaxpayerLiability & the Taxpayer
  • 29. Liability- Rodney KingLiability- Rodney King In the aftermath of the infamous 1991 videotaped beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, questions about the prevalence and type of police misconduct and Use of Force persist to this day. This very incident only served to undermine and negatively impact police departments across the country. Subsequent acts of police wrongdoing have contributed to increased citizen distrust of the police and civil liability for police agencies. In 1994, a civil jury found the city of Los Angeles liable for 3.8 million dollars in damages.
  • 30. Liability- Rodney KingLiability- Rodney King The incident also led to sweeping changes in the LAPD with drastic federal oversight. Use of Force guidelines were dramatically overhauled and several Officers involved were sentenced to federal prison. Up to 8 LAPD Officers and 2 California Highway patrol Officers were present during the sustained beating in which 56 baton blows were administered and two Taser shocks. 10 uniformed personnel should have been able to clearly take King into custody, an unarmed man.
  • 31. Liability- Rodney KingLiability- Rodney King The Christopher Commission federal internal report found that a culture existed within the LAPD that tolerated or supported officer excessive use of force. Its conclusions validated accusations from members of the Los Angeles ethnic community and general public that had charged officers with abuse for years.
  • 32. Liability- Rodney KingLiability- Rodney King Data collected by the Christopher Commission revealed that a core group of forty-four officers had generated repeated citizen complaints but had failed to be effectively disciplined by the department. This mgt. oversight failure very well may have led to one of the deadliest riots in United States history, April 1992.
  • 33. Rodney King: The PCPRodney King: The PCP DefenseDefense In the 1991 incident, a Taser supplied by Tasertron to the Los Angeles Police Department failed to subdue Rodney King – even after he was shot twice with the device – causing officers to believe he was on PCP. Its lack of effectiveness was blamed on a faulty battery. However, this does explain, in part, why to some degree, numerous Officers resorted to extreme baton blows believing he maybe on PCP or another controlled substance.
  • 34. Liability- Excelon SecurityLiability- Excelon Security In 1989, a security officer of the Excelon Detective & Security Agency in Boston, was patrolling the exterior premises of the main Boston Public Library in Copley Square. The Security officer came across a homeless man who was sleeping on a granite bench attached to the library. The Security Officer told him he was trespassing and ordered him to leave. The homeless man ignored his commands as the S/Officer was wearing a civilian winter coat.
  • 35. Liability- Excelon SecurityLiability- Excelon Security The security officer then grabbed the man and swung him as hard as he could onto the sidewalk. The homeless man suffered a broken arm and multiple abrasions from the violent encounter. The incident made the local news and embarrassed the City of Boston. The security company was found liable for 75.000 thousand dollars and the security officer was charged with assault & battery. The security officer had a previous felony record but was not properly screened or vetted during the hiring process.
  • 36. Liability- Boston PoliceLiability- Boston Police
  • 37. Liability- Boston PoliceLiability- Boston Police In the Spring of 1988, in a highly publicized incident, a Boston Police Officer pulled behind a city cab parked next to the Lafayette Mall in downtown Boston. The Officer ordered the cab to move. The driver refused, stating he was not blocking traffic. The Officer then pulled out her service issued 9mm glock pistol and pointed it at the driver’s head and ordered him to move or else. The entire incident was caught on video surveillance. When BPD officers discovered there was a security camera mounted on the roof, they demanded that Security Forces Inc. turn over the tape.
  • 38. Liability- Boston PoliceLiability- Boston Police SFI refused and would not open the re-enforced door to the security operations command center. The Massachusetts State Police ended up taking possession of said video tape that purportedly captured the entire incident. The consequences of this act? The police officer, a 10 month rookie, was immediately fired and the other Officers who tried to take possession of the tape were suspended. The incident costs the City of Boston 100.000 dollars and some very unwanted publicity. A public relations disaster.
  • 39. A few bad applesA few bad apples
  • 40. To Serve with IntegrityTo Serve with Integrity It is imperative that before we proceed any further with this Use Of Force presentation, that we point out that the majority of Law enforcement and Private Security personnel conduct themselves in a professional and prudent manor. Approximately 600,000 local, state, and federal peace officers and approximately 1.7 million private security personnel patrol and enforce every day, various laws and regulations & execute use of force protocol without serious incident or gross violation of such protocols.
  • 41. To Serve with IntegrityTo Serve with Integrity A few bad apples will always give any service industry, a black eye. Sometimes it simply cant be foreseen, anticipated, or controlled. Police & Security personnel who blatantly abuse or engage in excessive force or gross violation of use of force, only tarnish the image of all personnel who wear the uniform and this further enforces perceptions and stereotypes of sworn personnel by a public they are protecting. It is, counter-productive.
  • 42. To Serve with IntegrityTo Serve with Integrity Many times justified Use of Force incidents will be vilified by the media and certain segments of the public. What seems more often than not, you just cant win no matter what you do in the daily performance of your duties and protecting life. You feel alone and unappreciated. Sometimes, tasering or clubbing a citizen is necessary dependent of the circumstances and level of resistance or violence that the Officer is faced with. More often than not, the public does not see what happened before Use of Force was used, nor do they understand the gravity of the situation.
  • 43. Doing the right thing.Doing the right thing. When faced with scrutiny over Use of Force incidents or allegations of excessive force, if you believe, truly believe that you acted within the scope of your authority, that you made an attempt to stay within the spirit of such protocols, then never have shame or doubt about your actions if you know that they were lawful and reasonable. Sometimes, justifiable acts of use of force will be met with punishment or public resentment. The only thing you can do, “Is deal with it”.
  • 44. Doing the right thingDoing the right thing You can write all the policies & procedures about Use of Force, but ultimately, it is all about common sense. It is not always black & white in transparency, it always comes down to right and wrong.
  • 45. Serving with distinctionServing with distinction A Baltimore Police Officer, circa 1980’s
  • 46. The power of oneThe power of one Police officers, Deputy Sheriffs, Federal agents, and Special Police (Security personnel with restricted powers) are able to wield considerable official power in areas such as arrest, search, and seizure. Broad discretion is an inherent element in police officers’ decision making that contributes to the circumstances under which they choose to take enforcement actions.
  • 47. The power of oneThe power of one Often, these actions involve the use of different degrees of force and methods of handling evidence. Discretion and reaction are key to how a difficult situation can be resolved with the least turmoil.
  • 48. The power of oneThe power of one It should also be duly noted that Police and Security personnel are not social workers either. Although great strides have been made over the last 20 years in terms of community policing and forging a stronger partnership between local law enforcement and the public, Police officials still have to be on constant guard against disorder. Many times there actions are not agreeable with media outlets or the public.
  • 49. The power of oneThe power of one Some citizens feel they should be walking around the beat shaking hands and being Mr. Friendly. Big ole smile on their face. No. Although a Police or Security Officer should always be professional, helpful, and courteous, they are not running for Mayor. They have to be firm, hard, no nonsense, and deliberate with their mission at hand: To deter crime and protect the public with due diligence and uncompromised integrity.
  • 50. Serving with distinctionServing with distinction Metro Police staying alert, Boston, 1975
  • 51. The power of oneThe power of one It is imperative that each individual Officer build a strong and trusting repore with the district he or she is assigned. But, they are not there to make friends either. There is a fine line and it can be a delicate one at that.
  • 52. The color of law:The color of law:
  • 53. The color of law:The color of law: Definition: Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law” that does not mean that the action was lawful or justified.
  • 54. The color of law:The color of law: Officials charged with violation of color of law: 1 Neshoba County, Mississippi Deputy Sheriff and the Sheriff (1965)- Murdered civil activists 4 LAPD Officers (1994)-Rodney King incident The China Lake murders- Tulare, CA. Officer- 1984 NYC cop who stole dead victims property-1993 2 Detroit Officers- the Malice Green incident- 1992
  • 55. The color of law:The color of law: When police or private security forces act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating such instances and prosecuting such matters. Excessive force and unreasonable use of force can fall under violations of the color of law definition. A security officer who violates the color of law while acting under the direction of a sworn police officer, can be held responsible for civil and criminal charges.
  • 56. Federal Guidelines:Federal Guidelines:
  • 57. FBI Definition:FBI Definition: According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, their definition of “color of law” is as follows: U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security officers have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies— authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in their perspective jurisdictions and our country.
  • 58. FBI Definition:FBI Definition: These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations. Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to prevent widespread disorder and preserve the health of our nation’s democracy.
  • 59. FBI Definition:FBI Definition: That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
  • 60. FBI Definition:FBI Definition: The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. During the year 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:
  • 61. FBI Definition:FBI Definition: •Excessive force; •Sexual assaults; •False arrest and fabrication of evidence; •Deprivation of property; and •Failure to keep from harm. * As excerpted from the FBI official website, Civil Rights section
  • 62. Guidelines for PrivateGuidelines for Private Security:Security:
  • 63. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: • When faced with a clear and immediate threat of imminent bodily harm, always try first, to retreat with any people present, to a secure and safe position.
  • 64. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: •Use of Force is permitted ONLY when it is absolutely necessary to protect yourself and others, from a clear and immediate threat of bodily harm, and only when all options have exhausted
  • 65. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: •Use only that degree of force that is necessary to repel an attack or the threat of an attack. Do not further provoke or incite what you perceive to be an impending attack or threat of attack.
  • 66. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: •DO NOT use force to protect property. There may be special considerations that apply under extreme certain circumstances. Unless directed to, follow standard UOF policy.
  • 67. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: • If able to, always utilize the 911 system for Police assistance, as your first and primary method when confronted with these volatile situations.
  • 68. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: Always notify the dispatch operations center or Field Manager if applicable, the Account Manager, and site client contact- Manager on Duty (MOD) if directed to do so.
  • 69. Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security: Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols: •Record all incidents involving the Use of Force on the standard incident report site forms with brief reference to such incident(s) on your daily activity report.
  • 70. The Taser GunThe Taser Gun
  • 71. What is a Taser Gun?What is a Taser Gun?
  • 72. What is a Taser Gun?What is a Taser Gun? A TASER gun is an electroshock weapon which uses electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles. The device functions by affecting "neuromuscular incapacitation” and the devices' mechanism "Electro-Muscular Disruption (EMD) technology". Someone struck by a Taser gun experiences stimulation of his or her sensory nerves and motor nerves, resulting in strong involuntary muscle contractions.
  • 73. What is a Taser Gun?What is a Taser Gun? Tasers do not rely only on pain compliance, except when used in Drive Stun mode, and are thus preferred by some law enforcement over non-Taser stun guns and other electronic control weapons. At the present time, there are two main police models in use today, the M26 and X26.
  • 74. Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun? Tasers were introduced as non-lethal weapons to be used by police to subdue fleeing, violent, or potentially dangerous people, who would have otherwise been subjected to what they consider more lethal weapons (such as a firearm). Since teaming up with police forces in 1999, Taser has had widespread success, with a 2009 Police Executive Research Forum study stating that officer injuries drop by 76% when a Taser is used.
  • 75. Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun? The Taser fires two small dart-like electrodes, which stay connected to the main unit by conductive wire as they are propelled by small compressed nitrogen charges similar to some air gun or paintball marker propellants. The air cartridge contains a pair of electrodes and propellant for a single shot and is replaced after each use. There are a number of cartridges designated by range, with the maximum at 35 feet.
  • 76. Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun? Cartridges available to non-law enforcement consumers are limited to 15 feet. The electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing and barbed to prevent removal once in place. Earlier Taser models had difficulty in penetrating thick clothing, but more newer versions (X26, C2) use a "shaped pulse" that increases effectiveness in the presence of barriers, such as clothing, light jackets, etc.
  • 77. The Taser X-26 ModelThe Taser X-26 Model
  • 78. The Taser X-26 ModelThe Taser X-26 Model
  • 79. The Taser M-26 ModelThe Taser M-26 Model
  • 80. Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun? Tasers also provide a safety benefit to police officers as they have a greater deployment range than batons, pepper spray or empty hand techniques. This allows police to maintain a safe distance. A study of use-of-force incidents by the Calgary Police Service conducted by the Canadian Police Research Centre found that the use of Tasers resulted in fewer injuries than the use of batons or empty hand techniques. Only pepper spray was found to be a safer intervention option.
  • 81. Use of Drive Stun Mode?Use of Drive Stun Mode? Some Taser models, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the Taser is held against the target without firing the projectiles, and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. "Drive Stun" is "the process of using the EMD weapon [Taser] as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the EMD and placing it against an individual’s body.
  • 82. Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun? This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed. Guidelines released in 2011 in the U.S. recommend that use of Drive Stun as a pain compliance technique be avoided. The guidelines were issued by a joint committee of the Police Executive Research Forum and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
  • 83. Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun? The guidelines state "Using the Taser gun in drive stun mode to achieve pain compliance may have proven limited effectiveness and, when used-deployed repeatedly, the drive stun mode may even exacerbate the situation by inducing rage in the subject or suspect."
  • 84. Electrode skin entry:Electrode skin entry:
  • 85. The power of pure voltage:The power of pure voltage:
  • 86. 500 Volt Shotgun:500 Volt Shotgun:
  • 87. The barbed electrodeThe barbed electrode
  • 88. ~100 Foot range~~100 Foot range~
  • 89. Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use:
  • 90. What is wrong with this picture?What is wrong with this picture?
  • 91. Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use: According to the analysis of the first 900 police Taser incidents by the Houston Chronicle, no crime was being committed and no person was charged in 350 of those cases. In addition, it has been reported that the Houston Police Department has "shot, wounded, and killed as many people as before the widespread use of the stun guns" and has used Tasers in situations that would not warrant lethal or violent force, such as "traffic stops, disturbance and nuisance complaints, and reports of suspicious people."
  • 92. Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use: In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, police found that 25% to 30% of the situations in which a Taser was employed met the criteria for the use of deadly force. Although Tasers were originally proposed as alternatives to lethal force, they have entered routine use as a way to incapacitate suspects or as a "pain compliance" method at times when the use of firearms would not be anywhere near justifiable or an operational tactical option.
  • 93. Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use: “There are less draconian tactics that can and should be used in those situations where a Taser was deployed in order to achieve compliance," said George Kirkham, a former police officer and Florida State University criminology professor. They include reasoning, commands, guiding with open hands and "pressure pain compliance" - pressing sensitive areas, such as the jaw, and other sensitive pressure points of the human body.
  • 94. Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use: Professor Kirkham further states: "Officers are taught these measures that are lower on the force continuum in training. We have pictures of people who won't let go of a steering wheel, and when pressure is applied, their hands come off and no harm is done."
  • 95. Getting your hands dirtyGetting your hands dirty Instead, Police are skipping up the use of force continuum through impatience and lack of training. They have become it seems, lazy and revert to the Taser to acquire what they demand immediately, compliance. A motorist “resisting” your verbal commands is not a reason to Taser them. It seems that many law enforcement officers have forgotten how to “get their hands dirty”.
  • 96. Getting your hands dirtyGetting your hands dirty Critics claim that risk-averse police officers resort to using the Taser in situations in which they otherwise would have used more conventional, less violent alternatives, such as trying to reason with a cornered suspect or utilizing the less dangerous, however effective pepper spray to gain the desired control they seek. As well, tasers may and are being used without warning to surprise suspects before being arrested.
  • 97. Getting your hands dirtyGetting your hands dirty As Police Officers and private security, it is expected that from time to time, you will engage in hand to hand combat. It is part of your duty. Sometimes you will have to get physical with a subject in order to gain control or that desired “compliance”. When meeting resistance to verbal commands, there are other tools at your disposal that are far less drastic than the Taser. Pepper spray for rowdy, agitated, or verbally threatening subjects is a far better alternative.
  • 98. Facts: Taser use soarsFacts: Taser use soars From October 2001, when Boca Raton Police (Florida) added Tasers to their arsenal, to last December 2004, 19 police agencies in Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast adopted the Taser gun. Their use soared from 82 firings in 2002, to 226 in 2003, to 712 last year. Law Enforcement officers are becoming complacent and dependent on the Taser, therefore deployments of said Taser and civil lawsuits are rising dramatically.
  • 99. Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid… A Boynton Beach police officer stopped a man for riding a (non-motorized) bicycle after dark with no headlight. When the man dismounted and started to run, the officer shot him with a Taser. The officer took the man and his bike to the police station, issued him a citation, then released him to ride his bicycle into the night - with no headlight.
  • 100. Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid… April 3rd , 2013, Springfield, Illinois- A police officer threw an 8 month pregnant woman to the ground and then proceeded to taser her. The woman and a male companion were being combative in a parking lot and would not follow the officer’s commands. So, the procedure at that point was to taser her?
  • 101. Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid… On 9 April 2008 on BBC 1, the program “Traffic Cops” showed London Police surprising a pedestrian by shooting him with a Taser without warning, before arresting him on suspicion of theft. The suspect had no weapon and was talking with a bystander and posed no threat, when officers leapt out of a car and tasered him. The suspect was later found to be an innocent pedestrian.
  • 102. Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid… “The police maintained that it is lawful to make use of the Taser before making an arrest, in case the suspect is not cooperative”.“In case” the suspect is not cooperative?
  • 103. Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid… November 22, 2011, Scotland Neck, North Carolina , Roger Anthony, 61, died a day after being tasered while he was cycling. Police had been called after the deaf man had fallen off his bicycle. The caller said Anthony appeared drunk, and may have hurt himself. When the Police arrived, Anthony was unresponsive to questions by the Officer (as he could not hear) and was tasered. Even if the man could hear, why was he tased??
  • 104. Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid… March 18, 2012, Honeymoon Island, Florida- James Clifton Barnes, 37, was struggling with police officers, but in handcuffs when tasered by Kenneth Kubler, a marine deputy. He stopped breathing, and died a few days later. You never, never tase any suspect while in handcuffs, as if you do, the suspect has no free movement of their hands to cushion the blow to their head when they fall to the ground.
  • 105. Poor judgement….Poor judgement…. September 2011, Pinellas Park, Florida, Danielle Maudsley, 19, in a persistent vegetative state, after falling and hitting her head following being tasered. She was fleeing handcuffed, and FHP officer Daniel Cole tasered her from behind without warning, in lieu of physical contact. When the woman was laying on the ground pleading she could not get up and needed help, the Deputy never rendered any aid and called her “stupid”.
  • 106. Just plain smart!!Just plain smart!! The UCLA PD (University of California-Los Angeles Police Dept. released its new Taser policy on December 10, 2007, in light of the highly publicized taser incident on November 15th , 2006. According to UCPD Chief Karl Ross, the new policy is considerably longer, includes specific definitions of appropriate and in- appropriate use, and explicitly prohibits use against a "passive resister".
  • 107. Richard Farnham- Pinellas CountyRichard Farnham- Pinellas County
  • 108. Trouble in the PanhandleTrouble in the Panhandle
  • 109. Scene of the incident….Scene of the incident….
  • 110. The costs of indiscriminate:The costs of indiscriminate:
  • 111. The Point of No Return:The Point of No Return:
  • 112. Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use: The case against Lisa Steed, Utah HP:
  • 113. Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line: During her 10 years as a Utah state trooper, Lisa Steed built a reputation as an officer with a knack for nabbing drunken motorists in a state with a long tradition of tea totaling and some of the nation's strictest liquor laws. Steed used the uncanny talent, as one supervisor once described it, to garner hundreds of arrests, setting records, earning praise as a rising star and becoming the first woman to become trooper of the year.
  • 114. Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line: Steed joined the agency in 2002, and during her first five years, she earned a reputation as a hard- worker whose efficiency led to high arrest totals. By the time she ascended to trooper of the year in 2007, she was held up as one of the agency's top stars. In 2009, Steed became a member of the DUI squad. Her 400 DUI arrests that year were thought to be a state record, and more than double the number made by any other highway trooper. She earned special recognition at the state Capitol.
  • 115. Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line: Steed's career, however, turned. In 2012, while on the witness stand in a DUI court case, Trooper Steed acknowledged purposely leaving her microphone in her patrol car so that superiors wouldn't know she was violating agency policy by administering a breathalyzer before the field sobriety test. A blatant violation of UHP policy.
  • 116. Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line: By April 2012, her credibility had come into question so much that a prosecutor said he would no longer prosecute DUI’s if Steed's testimony was the only evidence. The credibility of an investigating police officer is paramount. If you can't trust the police officer at their word, there's very little left that you can trust with an ongoing investigation. It’s the tainted fruit syndrome.
  • 117. Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line: Today, however, Steed is out of work, fired from the Utah Highway Patrol, and she, and her former superiors, are facing a class action lawsuit in which some of those she arrested allege she filed bogus DUI reports, one defendant even stating he passed the BAC (blood alcohol content) 3 times and was still arrested. One supervisor stated previously that it was his opinion that 400 DUI arrests in one year by a state trooper was near impossible. His concern was ignored by UHP officials.
  • 118. Lisa Steed, The taser IncidentLisa Steed, The taser Incident In 2009, a police car dashcam recording caught her Tasering a man during a DUI stop after he refuses to get out of his car, saying he'd like to call a lawyer. The man, Ryan Jones, can be heard calmly saying, "Ma'am, please don't shoot me with a Taser," before Steed zaps him and he begins to scream. When Jones was eventually tested, his blood alcohol level was a 0.03, well below the legal limit. The video went viral-
  • 119. Lisa Steed, The taser IncidentLisa Steed, The taser Incident The case was settled in November 2011 when the state paid Mr. Jones $40,000 without admitting wrongdoing. Again, costly liability to the state and the state taxpayer because of poor training and im- proper oversight of a law enforcement officer on the basic parameters of when a Taser should be deployed and how it should be utilized in the field.
  • 120. Operational Objective:Operational Objective: You do not Taser any suspect unless your safety is imminently in danger, the suspect is exceptionally violent, the suspect is not controllable, or the suspect displays a clear and immanent threat to the public at large, or him/herself. Other than that, your Taser should not be out of it’s holster. The Taser is an alternative to deadly force. Period.
  • 121. Trooper Daniel Cole- FHPTrooper Daniel Cole- FHP
  • 122. United Nations view:United Nations view: The United Nations Committee Against Torture ruled that the Taser gun is a form of torture, and "can even provoke death." The group issued the statement in response to news that Portugal has purchased Taser X-26 stun guns for its police force. Basically, the UN thinks that's a bad idea, and a violation of the UN'S Convention against Torture.
  • 123. United Nations view:United Nations view: This instructor and this presentation strongly disagrees with the stance of the U.N. There is a place for the Taser gun in United States Law Enforcement weapon arsenal. It is just how and when it is deployed that is the focus of this training module. The only “torture” scenario plausible would be multiple taser strikes of a clearly non-violent individual.
  • 124. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in:
  • 125. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in:
  • 126. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: A federal appeals court ruled that a California police officer can be held liable for injuries suffered by an unarmed man he Tasered during a traffic stop. The decision, if allowed to stand, would set a rigorous legal precedent for when police are permitted to use the weapons and would force some law enforcement agencies throughout the state and presumably the nation to tighten their policies governing Taser use.
  • 127. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: Michael Gennaco, an expert in police conduct issues who has conducted internal reviews of Taser use for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and other agencies, said the ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prohibits officers from deploying Tasers in a host of scenarios and largely limits their use to situations in which a person poses an obvious danger.
  • 128. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: This decision talks about the need for an immediate threat. Some departments allow Tasers in cases of passive resistance, such as protesters who won't move. Tasering for "passive resistance” is out the door now with this decision. Even resistance by tensing or bracing may not qualify.
  • 129. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: The unanimous ruling, issued Monday by a three- judge panel, stemmed from a 2005 encounter in which a former Coronado, Calif., police officer, Brian McPherson, stopped a man for failing to wear a seat belt while driving. The driver, Carl Bryan, who testified that he did not hear McPherson order him to remain in the car, exited the vehicle and stood about 20 feet away from the officer but did not exhibit any threatening moves.
  • 130. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: Bryan grew visibly agitated and angry with himself, but did not make any verbal threats against McPherson, according to court documents. McPherson has said he fired his Taser when Bryan took a step toward him, which Bryan denied. Bryan's face slammed against the pavement when he collapsed, causing bruises and smashing four front teeth. Even if Bryan had taken a step toward McPherson, this was not justification to taser him.
  • 131. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: The appellate court did not rule on whether McPherson acted appropriately, but simply cleared the way for Bryan to pursue a civil case against the officer and the city of Coronado in a lower court. Based on Bryan's version of events, though, the judges found that McPherson used excessive force in firing the Taser, since Bryan did not appear to pose any immediate threat
  • 132. The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in: In spelling out their decision, the judges established legally binding standards about where Tasers fall on the spectrum of force available to police officers, and laid out clear guidelines for when an officer should be allowed to use the weapon. The judges, for example, said Tasers should be considered a more serious use of force than pepper spray, a distinction that runs counter to policies used by most US law enforcement.
  • 133. ““non-lethal” but deadly:non-lethal” but deadly: Tasers are potentially dangerous because a jolt of electricity, at just the right moment in the heartbeat cycle, can trigger ventricular fibrillation. There are vulnerable periods in the cardiac cycle, when shocks can cause dangerous arrhythmias. If you are shocking someone (or a suspect) repeatedly, it becomes a bit like Russian roulette. At some point, you may hit that vulnerable period
  • 134. ““Non-lethal” but deadly:Non-lethal” but deadly: Tasers do have a place in the inventory of weapons utilized by American law enforcement and private security forces. Although this presentation can seem critical of Taser use, it is the “judgment” of some when deploying such a weapon that is the concern and focus. Tasers are actually a brilliant and proven tool as an alternative to deadly force or violent encounters where control is critical. A Taser also offers a second chance for some offenders>
  • 135. A “Second Chance”A “Second Chance” An excellent example of positive use deploying a Taser is a scenario like this: A citizen (who generally has a good reputation) has a bad argument with his wife. He is angry. He goes to the Bar to “drink it away”. He gets drunk and actually more agitated. He becomes hostile and belligerent. The Police are called and they try to calm him down. He produces a knife and wields it in a manor that is threatening. The man obviously does not have much sense to him or control. He wont put the knife down.
  • 136. A “Second Chance”A “Second Chance” Now, historically, in this type of situation, the use of deadly force could be permitted, however, in this scenario, the use of a Taser would be more prudent considering the circumstances. (The man is clearly threatening, but has not lunged at the officers). The man was extremely intoxicated and not in the right frame of mind. The Taser could easily incapacitate him without the need of shooting him with a firearm which would most certainly kill him. Thus, the Taser has given you a “second chance” at life.
  • 137. A “Second Chance”A “Second Chance” We should also clarify that although a Taser can easily disable a dangerous suspect without generally killing him, it is also noted that the Taser cant save the day in every incident. If law enforcement officers encounter suspects who are armed and dangerous or they are being shot at, then the use of deadly force (firearm) should be used of course. Tasers obviously have no place in a heated fire fight or other firearms.
  • 138. The US Supreme Court weighs in:The US Supreme Court weighs in:
  • 139. Graham VS Connor-Graham VS Connor- 490 US 386 (1989):490 US 386 (1989):
  • 140. OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS:OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS: Graham v. Connor, in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen's claim that law enforcement or security officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person.This case also established the doctrine that the judiciary may not use the Due Process Clause instead of an applicable specific constitutional provision.
  • 141. OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS:OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS: There are two key aspects or rules that must be followed in order to help in the decision making process: • The level of force must be reasonable when attempting to accomplish your objective, which is control under the circumstances. • Once your objective has been achieved, you must deescalate to a level sufficient to maintain control.
  • 142. OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS:OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS: Violations of these rules could subject an officer to criminal action or civil liability. In the context of making an arrest or other seizure of a person, the standard “objective Reasonableness” is applied when assessing an officer’s actions and behaviors.
  • 143. OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS:OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS: Claims that law enforcement or security officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, detainment, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard.
  • 144. OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS:OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS: The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force action must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
  • 145. OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS:OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS: The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force action must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
  • 146. Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols: Tasers were designed for use as an alternative to deadly force, and as a means of self-defense for law enforcement officers. Police Officers are trained repetitively so they’ll react instinctively in the field. The old saying is, “Cops will revert to their training when faced with life-threatening situations”.
  • 147. Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols: Taser darts penetrate the skin, and therefore may pose a hazard for transmitting diseases via blood. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements and the Bloodborne Pathogen Protocols should be followed when removing a Taser probe. The removal process may also be addressed in an Exposure Control Plan (ECP) in order to increase Taser probe removal safety.
  • 148. Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols: OSHA does not give clear guidance as to how to remove the probes, the guidelines only state that the removal must be done safely. Current methods of Taser Darts include removing the probes by hand, removing the probe with pliers or similar tools, or using the D.A.R.T. Pro and X-TRACTOR TIP Removal System made by Global Pathogen Solutions. When handling contaminated sharps OSHA guidelines should always be followed.
  • 149. Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols: Tasers, like other electric devices, have been found to ignite flammable materials. For this reason Tasers come with express instructions not to use them where flammable liquids or fumes may be present, such as filling stations and methamphetamine labs.
  • 150. Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols: An evaluative study carried out by the British Home Office investigated the potential for Tasers to ignite CS gas. Seven trials were conducted, in which CS gas canisters containing methyl isobutyl ketone (a solvent in all CS sprays used by the United Kingdom police) were sprayed over mannequins wearing street clothing. The Tasers were then fired at the mannequins.
  • 151. Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols: In two of the seven trials, "the flames produced were severe and engulfed the top half of the mannequin, including the head”. This poses a particular problem for law enforcement, as some police departments approve the use of CS gas in riot type situations before the use of a Taser.
  • 152. Use of Force Continuum:Use of Force Continuum:
  • 153. Use of Force Continuum:Use of Force Continuum:
  • 154. Use of Force Continuum:Use of Force Continuum:
  • 155. Use of Force Continuum:Use of Force Continuum: As suggested by Instructor Richard Garrity: 1. Verbal, loud commands 2. Pressure Point Pain Compliance 3. Officer Assistance for Compliance 4. Pepper Spray- Pepper Mace 5. Use of an ASP or Baton/Nightstick* 6. Deployment of the Taser gun 7. Deployment of a firearm (verbal or actual)
  • 156. UOF Continuum:UOF Continuum:
  • 157. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use:
  • 158. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: Seminole, Florida, May 8th , 2007- While Pinellas County Deputies were searching the Intracoastal waters between Indian Rocks Beach and the Oakhurst section of Seminole for a gun from an earlier unrelated arrest, the Deputies observed a man in a Dodge pickup behaving erratically, yelling, and flailing his arms, The Pinellas deputy called for backup and two more cruisers arrived.
  • 159. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: As three deputies approached on foot, the man rammed two cruisers, then smashed into a fence, and then backed up again. Two deputies fired at the truck. The pickup managed to get out from under the bridge and headed east on Walsingham Road. Another deputy spotted the truck and followed it to a residential area where the vehicle stopped and the suspect charged the deputy where upon the deputy tasered the suspect.
  • 160. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: The shock of the taser on the suspect resulted in his death. Although this is rare for a taser to indeed take a life, the use of the device was clearly justifiable given the circumstances of the suspect’s behavior and ramming of police vehicles. All law enforcement personnel involved in this were clearly acting within the scope of their authority and the color of law. The suspect brought about his own demise through the course of his actions.
  • 161. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use:
  • 162. The Stoughton Brawl:The Stoughton Brawl:
  • 163. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: Stoughton, Massachusetts Police Officers were called to a social club on Porter street. A fight had broken out at a baby shower attended by more than 200 people at a local club, and the fight escalated into a full scale brawl in a scene that Stoughton Police Executive officer Robert Devine later described as “INCREDIBLE CHAOS.”
  • 164. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: It took almost an hour for 20 officers from Stoughton, three other local departments, the Massachusetts State Police, and the Norfolk Sheriff’s office to get the situation under control and arrest 4 people. No one involved in the incident suffered serious injuries that required hospitalization, and Devine credits use of the Taser on one of the subjects as helping diffuse the situation and control the dangerous brawl.
  • 165. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: Had we not had the Tasers, the officers, in my opinion, would have been justified in using firearms,” said Devine. “I think their threat kept the brawlers at bay and assisted in getting control of the situation before serious injuries were inflicted on the subjects or even serious injury to our own officers had we engaged in hand to hand combat, or the use of firearms, which is what we want to avoid”.
  • 166. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use:
  • 167. Los Angeles- Feb. 2011Los Angeles- Feb. 2011
  • 168. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: Los Angeles police officers responding to a call of a gun assault discovered the suspect fighting with four men at a downtown business. The suspect refused commands to lay on the ground and show his hands in full visibility. In order to subdue the man, officers had to use body weight, punches, and a stun gun numerous times. Hobble restraints were used to control the suspect’s arms and legs. Upon arrival to the hospital, the suspect died.
  • 169. Summerville, S.C. May 2011Summerville, S.C. May 2011
  • 170. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: 38-year-old Arthur Lee Thompson Jr., attempted to steal a computer from Walmart. Officers say he left the store without paying. A store employee confronted the man, and officers say Thompson hit the employee in the face, left the computer, and drove away in a Jeep. Officers eventually pulled the vehicle over, and it was at that point that police say the crime took another violent twist.
  • 171. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: Police say the suspect got out of the vehicle, and refused to follow the officer's commands to surrender; in fact, according to an incident report, the man began throwing punches at the officer, landing at least one. The deputy responded by hitting the suspect with his taser, but it had no affect. Another driver stopped to help the officer, who police say was attacked a second time by Thompson. The incident report says the suspect
  • 172. Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use: got into the officer's vehicle. The other driver and the officer attempted to stop him from getting away, even slamming his car door on Thompson's leg, but the suspect was able to speed off. Eventually, The suspect turns down a road where it collides with what appears to be a flatbed truck carrying a tractor. The officers rush the motor vehicle and taser Thompson one more time before being able to finally get him into custody. Justified.
  • 173. Officer safety, ultimately, is infinitelyOfficer safety, ultimately, is infinitely paramount to avoidparamount to avoid ceremoniesceremonies like this:like this:
  • 174. USE OF FORCE PROTOCOLSUSE OF FORCE PROTOCOLS Thank you for attending today’s presentation on Use of Force protocols~