Armed encounters and escalation of force?

[21H40]

Have you planned out any levels of interaction other than shooting someone? The Army called it "escalation of force" though I've heard it referred to as a "continuum of force." I am sure there is a new phrase to describe the steps between "hello" and bang.


For example, the man who shot through his front door and killed a teenager in Kansas City. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/us/kansas-city-teen-shot-wrong-house/index.html

In my home, someone checking to see if the door is unlocked gets a loud "Can I help you?" The firearms are still ready and available, but IMO unnecessary without more of an aggressive threat.

We live in the country so there aren't too many visitors after dark, but when there are, it is usually because they are in serious need. Another example is a neighbor's high school aged kid wrecked his truck down the road from my house. He staggered up to our door to ask for help because he lost his phone when the truck wrecked. I feel like my response at the time - to not engage with lethal force - was appropriate. Instead of shooting, I turned on the porch light and spoke to him.

Do you have a plan for the time before shooting is necessary?

 

[old lady new shooter]

If somebody actually rings the doorbell or knocks, yes, absolutely, I will talk with them (through the locked security door) as step one. And sometimes that is the only step necessary. I had multiple experiences like that in Cali, with bad actors whom I thankfully successfully persuaded to leave.

If their first move is something else, that's a different story. Aggressive banging on the windows at the back of the house for example. As long as they're still outside I would likely still start with verbal engagement, but probably less politely.

If you are in an area with a lot of what used to be called vagrants, their first step may be something else entirely. One time in Cali I heard a noise at the front of my house, I thought it was the gardener coming to repair something, but when I looked through the window it was a stranger, fiddling with my main water valve. I banged on the window to get his attention and he told me in Spanish he was thirsty and needs a drink. I said OK, he can drink from the hose (which was right there and connected to a faucet, not the main valve). On his way off my property he grabbed several oranges off my tree, I banged on the window again and he said he was hungry. So multiple red flags: 1. Why not just knock on the door and ask for something to eat or drink? 2. Why fiddle with the main valve to ostensibly get a drink? 3. Why start speaking in Spanish without even asking if I speak Spanish? (NOTE: This was typical of illegals, normal Hispanics would never do that.) 4. Why just take oranges without asking, when I would have given him permission had he asked? I felt that was kind of calculated insolence. Later after he left I noticed my water pressure was very low. Turned out he had turned it almost all the way off at the valve. My handyman opined that the whole encounter was likely a ploy to get me to come outside so he could force his way in or something.

Bottom line for me is, harden your house and do not voluntarily admit anyone regardless of what story they tell you. You can talk to them all you want.

 

[AJC1]

Have you planned out any levels of interaction other than shooting someone? The Army called it "escalation of force" though I've heard it referred to as a "continuum of force." I am sure there is a new phrase to describe the steps between "hello" and bang.


For example, the man who shot through his front door and killed a teenager in Kansas City. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/us/kansas-city-teen-shot-wrong-house/index.html

In my home, someone checking to see if the door is unlocked gets a loud "Can I help you?" The firearms are still ready and available, but IMO unnecessary without more of an aggressive threat.

We live in the country so there aren't too many visitors after dark, but when there are, it is usually because they are in serious need. Another example is a neighbor's high school aged kid wrecked his truck down the road from my house. He staggered up to our door to ask for help because he lost his phone when the truck wrecked. I feel like my response at the time - to not engage with lethal force - was appropriate. Instead of shooting, I turned on the porch light and spoke to him.

Do you have a plan for the time before shooting is necessary?

I firmly believe in escalation of force and that's what the navy called it. The saying "when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonablely employed" means exactly that. You can and should skip steps based on indications, but shooting a kid on your porch is easily avoidable. I know my training will be used against me, so I will execute just as trained so at least I can claim I followed the procedure.

 

[FL-NC]

Yes- I not only carry a handgun, I also carry an edged weapon, and I have some experience using "non weapon objects" as weapons. I also train 3x a week in mixed martial arts and kickboxing, which is probably the most beneficial training I do- it is great for fitness and puts many more tools in the toolbox. Right now both my shins are covered in bruises and I have a nice little mouse on my eyebrow. Fun times!

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes- I not only carry a handgun, I also carry an edged weapon,

Both are deadly force. For a trained practitioner, so is kick-boxing.

It is a good idea to carry pepper spray for occasions when deadly force is not appropriate.. I would not characterize the purpose as one of "escalation of force".

 

[Kleanbore]

Have you planned out any levels of interaction other than shooting someone? The Army called it "escalation of force" though I've heard it referred to as a "continuum of force."

I firmly believe in escalation of force and that's what the navy called it.

No. The continuum of force is an enforcement concept, employed primarily by sworn officers in the lawful performance of their duty to effect compliance or an arrest. It is not a defensive concept, and the escalation of force has no place in lawful self defense.

For the defender, the key word is deescalation, which can be combined with avoidance. The defender's objective is to obviate the need for using force in the first place.

Should defensive force be required, the level of force is determined by the nature of the threat. There are two levels of defensive force--non-deadly and deadly. there is no continuum of lawful defensive force.

 

[AJC1]

there is no continuum of lawful defensive force.

That might be true, but it's not like the submarine crew is out chasing down bad guys in the street. Every armed sentery was taught this in sset shipboard security engagement tacticts, taught by the fbi. Now the course changed when the did a two part srf security reaction forces courses. Needless to say training and education over the years has changed or evolved. I'm definitely no lawyer but I've dabbled in plenty of security programs and training.

 

[21H40]

No. The continuum of force is an enforcement concept, employed primarily by sworn officers in the lawful performance of their duty to effect compliance or an arrest. It is not a defensive concept, and the escalation of force has no place in lawful self defense.

For the defender, the key word is deescalation, which can be combined with avoidance. The defender's objective is to obviate the need for using force in the first place.

Should defensive force be required, the level of force is determined by the nature of the threat. There are two levels of defensive force--non-deadly and deadly. there is no continuum of lawful defensive force.

What tools should a civilian have for de-escalation? It isn't like you start with shooting and work your way down to talking.

I guess I'm thinking about tactical options - in my earlier example, turning on the porch light allowed me to see the person banging at the door AND alerted them that someone was watching. Lights don't force anyone to do anything, but I would consider them a tool in an effort to protect my family while also delaying lethal force until more information is gathered.

 

[Kleanbore]

What tools should a civilian have for de-escalation? It isn't like you start with shooting and work your way down to talking.

I guess I'm thinking about tactical options - in my earlier example, turning on the porch light allowed me to see the person banging at the door AND alerted them that someone was watching.

Deescalation is usually appropriate for the out of doors, or on the road. Starts with "my fault, I do apologize" and continues with going elsewhere.

In the case of someone banging at the door, there is nothing to deescalate,.

A resident has absolutely no business going to deadly force or the threat thereof simply because someone is "banging at the door". That reaction would only be appropriate if the resident had reason to believe that an actual threat of deadly force was imminent--opportunity, ability, and jeopardy--and that there was no other means of defense available.

 

[AJC1]

What tools should a civilian have for de-escalation? It isn't like you start with shooting and work your way down to talking.

I guess I'm thinking about tactical options - in my earlier example, turning on the porch light allowed me to see the person banging at the door AND alerted them that someone was watching. Lights don't force anyone to do anything, but I would consider them a tool in an effort to protect my family while also delaying lethal force until more information is gathered.

Well presence alone changes the caliber of the crime at a minimum. So if you establish presence both know that the game has changed....

 

[shafter]

In my mind if you are forced to use deadly force you have already failed in several other areas. You've failed in avoidance through situational awareness. You failed at deescalation, and you failed in escaping the situation. Violence becomes the final option and you can't afford to lose that one.

Self defense is a multifaceted proposition. It may not begin as a deadly force situation right away. It might be a hands on situation first and if you can't control that fight you may never get a chance to pull your firearm. Far to few gun owners are preparing for a non deadly force fight which may escalate.

 

[GEM]

Disagree to some extent. If you are in your house of worship and a rampage nut walks in with an AR-15, you haven't failed. Yes, you might say that you could have avoided by never leaving the house, or the house of worship should have had perimeter guards. Yes, maybe you could escape.

However, I don't regard that as failure laid on the victim.

 

[lightman]

I don't see having to deal with a violent encounter as a failure. Not unless you loose. I believe in situational awareness, common sense, avoidance, ect. Sometimes stuff just happens. How the situation escalates depends on the other guy.

 

[upptick]

I carry but I do so with the complete understanding that if I ever have to discharge the firearm I also will likely have to explain why to a jury at some point. Not understanding that and not planning for the legal aftermath is just stupid. Hence, if you can't show that you had to use your firearm only as an absolute last resort, there is a very good chance that you yourself will be going to jail and an even better chance that you will be liable for civil penalties. Personally, I also carry pepper spray which will always be my first choice unless I'm presented with at attacker who is brandishing a firearm or other weapon or there are other circumstances which create a clear disparity of force, i.e. multiple attackers.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Remember-
Anything that you say on the internet may get read back to you in court... .

 

[Rexster]

I use neither term, as stated in the OP’s first paragraph. Word choice does matter.

“Escalation of force” is a poor word choice for civilian self-defense, in an era when the trendy term is “De-escalation.” Police departments are implementing “De-Escalation Training.” Big buzz words, these days.

“Force Continuum” was trendy, for a while, among police departments, until opposing lawyers started to use the very word “Continuum” against the police, arguing to juries and judges that police officers should use EACH step along the Force Continuum, one step at a time, rather than skipping any of the steps. It did not take long for legal advisers to tell PDs/agencies to STOP using the word “continuum” in their policies and training.

I worked for a very-big-city PD. We dumped “Force Continuum,” for the term “Force Options.” Emphasis was placed upon the officer using any force option that was reasonable, under the circumstances.

Force options are a good idea, for anyone. Knowing verbal de-escalation techniques are a good start. Empty-hand techniques are valuable. Less-lethal weapons should be considered. Going directly to guns is something that is not always a best choice.

A sub-set of less-lethal weapon is using a lethal weapon in a less-lethal manner. Be ready to have an attorney who understands this, if planning this option

I have a full plate of things-to-do, this day, so will end here.

 

[21H40]

In the case of someone banging at the door, there is nothing to deescalate,.

A resident has absolutely no business going to deadly force or the threat thereof simply because someone is "banging at the door". That reaction would only be appropriate if the resident had reason to believe that an actual threat of deadly force was imminent--opportunity, ability, and jeopardy--and that there was no other means of defense available.

So there are no de-escalation or escalation options? Perhaps using a different word helps. How about manage an encounter? I can think of many ways to make a situation worse, but I'm looking for ideas on how to avoid killing anyone.

 

[The Night Rider]

This is hard to address correctly because it feels like we're talking about two different things.

The OP is talking about dealing with someone approaching his home.

If someone I don't know approaches my home I "answer" the door through my Ring. If I don't know them I let them know I'm aware of their presence, tell them I'm not interested and ask them to leave.

From there it's only going to go one of two ways. They'll leave and life will go on or they'll try to break in and that will be treated as a home invasion and responded to in kind.

The place where any kind of "Force Continum" would apply would be an unknown person (or a known threat) trying to approach you and there is an "Escalation of Force"

Verbal warning "Sorry bro, can't help you." "I don't want to talk to you." GET TF AWAY FROM ME!!!!!"

Non lethal force multipliers such as OC While issuing verbal commands (at the top of your lungs so that any potential witnesses are aware that you are the victim.)

Then Deadly Force. "Stop! Get away from me or I'll shoot!" "He's trying to rob me, call the police!" and my personal favorite "BACK TF UP BRO!!!!"

De-Escalation Techniques would include apologizing no matter who was wrong. Unless the other person is looking for a fight that will usually do it. I don't think I've been in a bar since 1994 but there were a couple times I stopped something from starting just by telling the other person "I'm really sorry. Here let me buy you a drink." I also had a rule that if something like that happened I paid for the drink, settled my tab and left immediately.

Leaving the area, there is nothing in that shopping cart (assuming I haven't paid for it) that I need bad enough to stay and fight.

I have a personal rule that if it's a road rage type incident I never let the other driver get in front of me and if they do I take the next turn no matter what. The last time I was in a road rage incident (30+ years ago) I let the guy pass me and assumed he'd just go on his way. He pulled in front of me and started slamming on his brakes and trying to run me off the road.

OK I'm done

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Yes- I not only carry a handgun, I also carry an edged weapon, and I have some experience using "non weapon objects" as weapons. I also train 3x a week in mixed martial arts and kickboxing, which is probably the most beneficial training I do- it is great for fitness and puts many more tools in the toolbox. Right now both my shins are covered in bruises and I have a nice little mouse on my eyebrow. Fun times!

I can't say enough about the benefits of training kick boxing, Thai and/or Jiu Jitsu.

More tools is right. It also gives you a realistic understanding of how/what your options are for hand skills.

 

[FL-NC]

I can't say enough about the benefits of training kick boxing, Thai and/or Jiu Jitsu.

More tools is right. It also gives you a realistic understanding of how/what your options are for hand skills.

Speaking of that- how's your training going?

 

[Old Dog]

Have you planned out any levels of interaction other than shooting someone?

My short answer is yes. And anyone who carries a firearm should have a plan rather than immediately resorting to lethal force; if they don't, they're completely clueless, irresponsible and probably stupid.

“Force Continuum” was trendy, for a while, among police departments, until opposing lawyers started to use the very word “Continuum” against the police, arguing to juries and judges that police officers should use EACH step along the Force Continuum, one step at a time, rather than skipping any of the steps. It did not take long for legal advisers to tell PDs/agencies to STOP using the word “continuum” in their policies and training.

I worked for a very-big-city PD. We dumped “Force Continuum,” for the term “Force Options.” Emphasis was placed upon the officer using any force option that was reasonable, under the circumstances.

Force options are a good idea, for anyone. Knowing verbal de-escalation techniques are a good start. Empty-hand techniques are valuable. Less-lethal weapons should be considered. Going directly to guns is something that is not always a best choice.

Absolutely. I brought up the outdated "use of force continuum" in the other thread (about giving a warning to an intruder that you're armed), seemed like it just went over some heads, particularly the guy who says he spent 25 years on the job yet couldn't understand why our first force option response (time and circumstance permitting) is always verbal directives and/or warning. "Verbal judo" or "tactical verbal skills," along with training on recognizing attack indicators and confronting EDPs should be high on the list of any citizen gun-carrier after initial basic firearms safety training and before spending thousands on a week at Gunsite.

 

[Jeff White]

The outdated concept of the "force continuum" was created for people who had a duty to act. It has very little relevance to the armed citizen who has no duty to act and is free to disengage. The armed citizen should focus his training and the other things he carries on disengaging or preferably avoiding the encounter. Verbal judo, soft empty hand and hard empty hand and OC. There is not any reason to ever go in any kind of order. If your attacker is armed deadly force is probably your first and only option. Verbal judo comes into play when someone at some public venue you are at tries to pick a fight, there seems to be a lot of that these days. It may escalate to empty hand techniques or OC so you can disengage. What you should carry is going to depend on your age and fitness level, any disabilities and your individual skill level. Your plans should focus on getting out of the situation, NOT WINNING! No one really wins.

 

[Kleanbore]

our first force option response (time and circumstance permitting) is always verbal directives and/or warning. "Verbal judo" or "tactical verbal skills," along with training on recognizing attack indicators and confronting EDPs should be high on the list of any citizen gun-carrier after initial basic firearms safety training and before spending thousands on a week at Gunsite.

That bears repeating.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Speaking of that- how's your training going?

I earned my blue belt a couple of months ago at 2.5 years or so. I'm still behind my peers in rank but I can hang so that's something.

I'm still at it as best I can. My son is 11 months old and I ended up paying for morning and evening classes so I can get to the ones that I can fit in the schedules. Still 2-3 times a week.

I'm in much better shape than 2.5 years ago. I've even gained 5 pounds in the right ways.

 

[starnbar]

My short answer is yes. And anyone who carries a firearm should have a plan rather than immediately resorting to lethal force; if they don't, they're completely clueless, irresponsible and probably stupid.

Absolutely. I brought up the outdated "use of force continuum" in the other thread (about giving a warning to an intruder that you're armed), seemed like it just went over some heads, particularly the guy who says he spent 25 years on the job yet couldn't understand why our first force option response (time and circumstance permitting) is always verbal directives and/or warning. "Verbal judo" or "tactical verbal skills," along with training on recognizing attack indicators and confronting EDPs should be high on the list of any citizen gun-carrier after initial basic firearms safety training and before spending thousands on a week at Gunsite.

So verbalization during an encounter within the confines of your home in the middle of the night not knowing if you are addressing one or multiple assailants is the correct scenario that was done recently and the homeowner was met with a hail of gunfire. I wouldn't use gunsite as the know all be all agent concerning deadly force you would be better to speak to your SAO and review some shootings from your state as they are in a much better position legally to address the shootings than a for profit company like you have suggested. however its a free country and you can claim that as a defense me I have seen a few homicides and yes they are all homicides even after being cleared by the state that fact does not change. But for the ones who maligned me saying I was shooting through a door or at someone in my yard you do not know my expertise nor my knowledge of law and therein is your shortfall not mine.