Force Decisions. Rory Miller

to comply.

      Any verbal commands given to the threat should be simple. Some of the criminals that an officer deals with will not be honor students, and might even be impaired by recreational chemicals. No big words. No complicated sentences. When possible, use positive (do) speech, e.g., “put your hands out” and not negative, e.g., “don’t hide your hands.” Tell the threat what to do as opposed to telling the threat what not to do.

      The orders should always be given by ONE officer. I feel sorry for the poor criminal facing two guns when one of the officers is yelling, “Don’t move!” and the other is yelling, “Get on the floor! Get down!” Even if the orders are not contradictory, multiple voices are confusing.

      Experts. Whenever there is a media-rich Use of Force, experts will come out of the woodwork to tell anyone who will listen that if the officers only had a “little more training” in dealing with emotionally disturbed people or the mentally ill, or the particular (after the fact) diagnosis of the particular threat, the force could have been avoided.

      This will come up more in section three, but let’s get this straight here: These experts are largely speaking from the safety of their desks. Counseling tens of thousands of patients in a clinical setting starts with someone who was stable enough to get to the clinical setting. Calming people who are emotionally distraught and might cry or threaten is not the same as talking someone down from a frothing, enraged, psychotic break.^*

      Patients listen. Universally, they want something the clinical expert can give: comfort, solace, or (in the criminal world) a slip of paper or report that will absolve the patient from bad acts or another slip of paper for drugs. The experts are experts in dealing with people who are at least stable enough to listen. Take away that condition and much of their expertise becomes irrelevant.

      Training is good. Insight is good. As the officer develops more experience, he can do more with knowledge. But whatever is learned and no matter from whom, training will always be a tool, not an answer.

      Ideally, verbal commands should be professional: no anger, no threats, and no profanity. You can make a case that profanity is closer to the “native language” of the average threat. You can show that sometimes, especially if you have not used profanity so far, a single example can get the threat to take you seriously.

      There is more going on, though. Force situations do not happen in a vacuum. Every action the officer makes is not only accomplishing the goal but is also creating witnesses. A witness who sees an officer grab a suspect by the throat and slam him against the wall will interpret the act very differently if he hears the officer say, “Don’t do it you son of a bitch! I’m warning you! I’ll beat the shit out of you!” than if he hears the same officer say, “Sir, don’t swallow those drugs! You could die!” Same actions, same reasons, entirely different witness perceptions.

      The application of force is one of the officer’s professional duties and he must do it like a professional…no anger…no sarcasm. Use calm professionalism because this is a job. Keep the ego out of it.

      A force continuum used in training by Multnomah County, Oregon 2007. Note levels of force, force options and levels of resistance.

      Example of a Force Decision Framework laid out as available options rather than levels.

      There is much more to learn, but the rookie will learn it on the job through trial and error.

Level 3: Touch

      Touch on the surface is simple. The hand on the shoulder to establish rapport, the hand on the elbow to steer a drunk in the right direction. It can be reassuring. It can be as comforting as a hug shared with someone who has just been rescued. It can de-escalate situations that are beyond words.

      It can also go very, very bad. Will that hand on the shoulder comfort the grieving survivor? Or trigger memories of abuse that the officer has no way of knowing? The danger lies in the fact that the officer is very close—well within reach should the threat decide to attack. If that should happen, the officer has already misjudged the threat’s intent.

Level 4: Pain Compliance and Physical Control

      Level 4 includes all of the techniques that have a good chance of getting the threat to go along with a relatively low risk of injury—things such as joint locks, pressure points, take downs, and, in some jurisdictions, OC (Oleoresin Capsicum aka pepper spray), and Taser.

      The goal at Level 4 is primarily compliance, getting the threat to go along with the program because to do otherwise hurts, but the officer also attempts to establish control at Level 4 to prevent the threat escalating to a higher level of resistance. Taking a threat to the ground, for instance, removes half of his potential mobility and makes it very difficult for him to strike. Thus, there is a mix of techniques here—pure pain techniques such as pressure points and also techniques that give the officer mechanical advantage to prevent or force movement from the threat.