The Use of Force Continuum

[vis-à-vis]

When I did Police Auxiliary work about 3 years ago, we studied what they called the "Use of Force Continuum." Since I cannot sleep, I thought I'd google that and review.

Here is an example taken from US Customs:

And then I found an article that I would like to post.

According to the National Rifle Associations’ Right to Carry 2004 Report, 64% of all the citizens of the United States of America live in one of 38 Right To Carry States (RTC). The majority of states within the U.S. have laws and statutes that give an individual the legal right to defend them-selves. Obviously there can be vast differences between the actual mechanics of the laws and statutes themselves between different states, but the filament of commonality between the states laws and statutes that seem to be present in each state is the “Reasonableness Standard”, also referred to as the “Reasonable Man Standard”, which in short is the legal standard to weigh the actions of an individual in a use of force issue. If the “normal” person on the street or jury would have acted within the same manner, given the information at hand, a person has met the “Reasonableness Standard”. Within the Law Enforcement Community, Police Agencies must have written guidelines, detailing the Agencies official “Use of Force Policy and Procedures”. Along with the official use of force policy, Agencies also have to implement and train their officers on the “Use of Force Continuum”. The Use of Force Continuum is a model which is a graphical representation of a police departments official use of force policy, detailing the progression of the use of force an officer is authorized to use, depending on a suspects behaviors and actions. Unlike the Law Enforcement Community, most civilians in States that have the right to carry, spend little, or no time talking about force options, but only on using deadly force and the circumstances surrounding its’ legal use (i.e. being a reluctant participant, immediate fear of death or great bodily harm, retreat not practical or available, no lesser force will do, preventing the commission of a felony in the actors place or abode, etc. . . .). I truly feel that a Civilian Use of Force Continuum is needed and mandatory to help civilians understand the realities of human conflicts along with possible alternatives to using “Deadly Force” and which “Less Lethal” force options are available to them.

Most Use of Force Continuums have the following progressing levels:
1. Presence of the Defender/Officer.
2. Verbal commands.
3. Soft-hands (compliance & redirection techniques, display of non-lethal weapons).
4. Non-lethal weapons (OC spray, Electronic Restraint Device).
5. Hard hands & Impact Weapons
6. Deadly force

One important aspect of the “Use of Force Continuum” is that a person does not have to always enter at the same spot or the lowest option on the force continuum, but at the level that would be “reasonable” in which to respond to whichever threat they are confronted with.

Most of the times, conflicts can simply be resolved by an assertive and commanding “Presence”. Part of teaching self-defense to people, is instilling them with confidence and mindset to handle themselves emotionally and physically. Often we have heard criminals comment that they chose their victims, because of the passive-avoidance type of body language. By teaching student to always present an assertive presence we can begin to master the first stage of the “Use of Force Continuum”.

Usually the first two stages of the “Use of Force Continuum” go hand-in-hand. Presence coupled with strong verbal commands/negotiations, etc can often de-escalate a situation. Any and all self-defense training should include some type of scenario based training where students can master the art of presence and verbal commands to handle potential threatening situations. The verbal stage of the use of force continuum includes conversation and persuasion and then commands and ultimatums, such as stating to a would-be thug or assailant “hey, I don’t want any trouble, I am just going to leave”.

As we progress up the “Use of Force Continuum” so does the severity of our actions, which leads us to the third stage of the continuum Soft empty hands. Soft empty hands techniques encompass biophysical techniques that involve compliance, redirections or posturing/display of non-lethal weapons.

The Fourth Stage of the Use of Force Continuum is “Non-Lethal Weapons” such as Oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper Spray/O.C.) or Electronic Stunning Devices. As an Instructor, I have found that this is one of the areas most lacking in training amongst the civilian sector. In the United States, we may have 38 states with Right to Carry laws in effect, but not many people use less lethal weapons and technologies, or receive the appropriate training for the less-lethal tools they use and carry. Many people buy or carry O.C. (Oleoresin Capsicum/Pepper Spray), but have never received training, or been exposed to the agent themselves with little or no understanding how O.C. works, the effects it will have on the attacker and possibly the victim if used incorrectly. Many people who are unfamiliar with O.C. have some type of magical belief that an attacker sprayed with pepper spray or O.C. will be immediately incapacitated, without realizing that around 10% of the people in the world will have little to no reaction to Oleoresin Capsicum; and even those people who are affected will have anywhere from 10 seconds to 2 minutes to continue to attack you.

The final stages of the “Use of Force Continuum” encompass Hard Empty Hand Techniques/Impact Weapons and then of course Using Deadly Force. Many Americans have taken karate classes or self-defense classes hoping this would protect them from harm or random acts of violence. Martial Arts is a wonderful place to start to learn empty hand techniques, but real world self-defense encompasses quick, easy to use and devastatingly effective techniques that a person can utilize in moments of high stress were they have lost all fine motor skills. Unfortunately, most martial artist themselves are unaware of the conditions and requirements concerning the legal use of force.

Each state that has RTC has legislation and statutes that regulate the legal use of deadly force, but rarely is there clear direction in what is allowed or permissible in less-lethal use of force cases.

By instructors and States adopting a “Use of Force Continuum” for civilians, we can provide alternatives to self-defense scenarios and situations and prepare citizens for the realities of violence and it’s consequences. By providing a graphical representation of what is allowed or not allowed in the civilian “Use of Force Continuum” we can provide a graphical representation of what is “reasonable” when using force to defend ourselves and what progressions or stages the “average” person progresses through in the course of defending themselves.

As a Law Enforcement and Civilian Instructor, I love the fact that a large majority of Americans live in states where they can exercise their rights to self-defense, while at the same time being very concerned that many people’s training in self-defense is an all or nothing approach, being trained only in the “use of deadly force” while having little or no exposure to less-lethal weapons training and force options. I feel through training and utilization of a “Civilian Use of Force Continuum” we can provide the CCW permit holder with options for use of force that they are currently unprepared for when deadly force is not legally an option, but some degree of force is.

Source

 

[gunsmith]

thanks!

 

[BullfrogKen]

I've seen attempts to make the UoF Continuum conform to the armed citizen before. I have yet to be persuaded of its appropriateness.

 

[Librarian]

The Force Continuum seems to apply to LEO because under law and/or department policy they have to stay there and deal with the behavior. (Unless things get too hot, of course - withdraw and call for reinforcement can be appropriate.)

I think we who do not have that obligation usually try to leave, and step into the continuum at level 3 (OC and run) or 5, (skipping 4 entirely) because escape didn't work.

 

[obxned]

Chances are in the real world things will happen far too fast to give thought to this. Like they say in the commercial: 'Life comes at you fast'!

 

[Jeff White]

I don't see how the use of force continuum is applicable to a private citizen. A private citizen may disengage, a peace officer has other duties.

Jeff

 

[vis-à-vis]

I don't see how the use of force continuum is applicable to a private citizen. A private citizen may disengage, a peace officer has other duties.

Jeff

I am inclined to disagree that it is inapplicable. While a police officer has the task of investigating and cannot remove himself from certain situations, the civilian's only option with regard to force is not deadly force. There are situations we may encounter wherein we might find ourselves at level 3 on the continuum and have to use OC.

What a scale does is help someone gauge where they are at in an encounter and what type of force may be necessary. It also shows a process of escalation which may be necessary to stop a threat. I think we talk about this in application to ourselves without calling it the use of force continuum. To call it wholly irrelevant is to claim something that is simply not true.

 

[Tim Burke]

Very limited applicability for the civilian. In both cases, you should be using the minimal amount of force to accomplish your task. However, for a civilian, the task is usually to disengage.
If efforts to disengage result in an armed citizen being followed and re-engaged, yet do not justify deadly force, e.g. an aggressive panhandler, OC is a nice option.

 

[TallPine]

I don't see how the use of force continuum is applicable to a private citizen. A private citizen may disengage, a peace officer has other duties.

I have to agree with Jeff (and others).

A police officer's role is generally offensive (no double meaning intended) while a private citizen's role is defensive.

Or, to put it another way, a police officer is initiating force against someone (usually for a good reason) while a private citizen is reacting to force initiated by another.

 

[telkontar]

The principles apply to all ...

though the application is pretty much as stated above. It should be common sense, however, for a non-LEO to flee before fighting. Some non-LEOs need to learn to reduce the bloodlust, though. Perhaps that was the point.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I don't see how the use of force continuum is applicable to a private citizen. A private citizen may disengage, a peace officer has other duties.

Jeff

Consider the head of a household dealing with a potential criminal entry or assault upon his home or family. The head of household has a duty to protect the household and disengagement is only an option if the entire household can successfully disengage.

Likewise, consider a teacher dealing with a potential criminal entry or assault upon his classroom or students. The duties of the teacher extend beyond personally disengaging.

Michael Courtney

 

[Jeff White]

Consider the head of a household dealing with a potential criminal entry or assault upon his home or family. The head of household has a duty to protect the household and disengagement is only an option if the entire household can successfully disengage.

Likewise, consider a teacher dealing with a potential criminal entry or assault upon his classroom or students. The duties of the teacher extend beyond personally disengaging.

In neither of those cases is the person legally obligated to act. It's ridiculous to expect an untrained and unequipped person to follow a force continuum. In each case their use of force will be to escape the situation, not to take someone into custody or otherwise force compliance. You are opening a up a big legal can of worms if you are going to start expecting private citizens to follow the same guidelines and conditions on the use of force that peace officers are required to follow. There is a reason that criminals fear and encounter with an armed citizen more then they fear an encounter with the police.

Jeff

 

[Trebor]

I agree that the Use of Force Continum can't be applied for civilians the same way it is for LEO's.

As a civilian instructor though, I know there does need to be some discussion as to what levels of force, short of lethal force, are appropriate for a civilian to use and in what circumstance. For example, for a civilian, when is pepper spray an appropriate response? Someone mentioned using pepper spray on an aggressive panhandler, but is that legal or advisable in most circumstances? So much of this is going to be dependant on state law though so I don't see how we can come up with a universal answer.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I've heard or seen many of the arguements for extending the UoF Continuum, or some variant of it, to armed citizens. I've still not yet been persuaded of its appropriateness. Pax and I discussed this a little about a month ago. I'll refrain from contributing any specific reservations until others have their opportunity to post. Actually, I very interested in hearing what pax might have to say on this topic.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Quote:
Consider the head of a household dealing with a potential criminal entry or assault upon his home or family. The head of household has a duty to protect the household and disengagement is only an option if the entire household can successfully disengage.

Likewise, consider a teacher dealing with a potential criminal entry or assault upon his classroom or students. The duties of the teacher extend beyond personally disengaging.

In neither of those cases is the person legally obligated to act.

I wasn't claiming to a legal obligation to act, but rather I was answering the rediculous expectation that disengaging is the only reasonable choice.

It's ridiculous to expect an untrained and unequipped person to follow a force continuum. In each case their use of force will be to escape the situation, not to take someone into custody or otherwise force compliance.

First of all, I am not expecting untrained and unequipped people to follow the use of force continuum, but rather pointing out that there are non-LEO situations where disengagement is a poor option and where it might reasonably be used by someone with appropriate training and available tools.

If I've got children in the home, I am more inclined to use force to protect them and to remove the threat from the home rather than use force to personally escape the situation.

When I think of forcing compliance in a home situation, my goal in using non-lethal techniques is to force the criminal invader to leave. You mistakenly assumed that the goal of of sub-lethal force in the home would be to take the criminal into custody.

You are opening a up a big legal can of worms if you are going to start expecting private citizens to follow the same guidelines and conditions on the use of force that peace officers are required to follow. There is a reason that criminals fear and encounter with an armed citizen more then they fear an encounter with the police.

My point isn't that private citizens should be legally expected to use the use of force continuum, but rather pointing out the utility of being trained in it, especially for cases where deadly force is not clearly justified or where the use of deadly force is not available because of a criminal empowerment zone (such as a school).

Michael Courtney

 

[gunsmith]

Rob Reed, did you teach in SF bay area too?

if you did I took one of your classes and was very impressed.

Someone mentioned using pepper spray on an aggressive panhandle

Thats how I learned my pepperspray skills, in San Francisco in my old neighborhood there is a daily gauntlet of very aggressive pushy smelly junkie bums and CA is already a stand your ground state.
As soon as they threatened I sprayed.
After a summer most of the local skell left me alone.

 

[Archangel]

I think that there is definitely an analogous, if not identical, UoF continuum for civilians. As tallpine said, a civilian's role is defensive, rather than offensive, but I think that the UoF continuum can be employed defensively.


Level 1 - Presence (or lack thereof). Simply walk away, or if need be run, avoiding the situation entirely.

Level 2 - Verbal commands - "Sorry, can't help you. Don't have any money." "Leave me alone!" "I'm calling the police!" etc.

Level 3 - Soft techniques - OC, light grappling escapes - not to take control of an attacker, but to prevent them from taking control of you.

Level 4 - Hard techniques - strikes or takedowns to momentarily stun an attacker, or put them on the ground, thus giving you an opportunity to escape.

Level 5 - Deadly force - Having exhausted all other options, and fearing for life and limb, the civilian may resort to deadly force in self defense.


Note that escalating to anything above level 1 assumes that simply trying to escape the situation did not work. Increasing levels of force can be used not just to take control of the situation, as police would do, but to escape from it as well.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

n neither of those cases is the person legally obligated to act. It's ridiculous to expect an untrained and unequipped person to follow a force continuum. In each case their use of force will be to escape the situation, not to take someone into custody or otherwise force compliance. You are opening a up a big legal can of worms if you are going to start expecting private citizens to follow the same guidelines and conditions on the use of force that peace officers are required to follow. There is a reason that criminals fear and encounter with an armed citizen more then they fear an encounter with the police.

Exactly right. This particular civilian does not have extensive training, a radio equipped squad car with backup weapons, body armor (that I routinely wear), a duty belt with all the implements necessary to progress along the continuum, or a duty to stick around.

My realistic choices in a threatening encounter are to surrender, flee, display a firearm in a brief attempt to deescalate the situation, or shoot. Since I often have a wife and two young children it tow, fleeing would be difficult in many cases. My continuum then becomes rather brief.

 

[TallPine]

Level 4 - Hard techniques - strikes or takedowns to momentarily stun an attacker, or put them on the ground, thus giving you an opportunity to escape.

I dunno about you, but I don't intend to get involved in a physical altercation with anybody, especially while armed. Sounds like a good way to get your gun taken away from you, or at least be charged with "mutual combat"

Distance is your friend

 

[Trebor]

Rob Reed, did you teach in SF bay area too?

if you did I took one of your classes and was very impressed.

Nope, last time I was in the City by the Bay I was 5. I need to get back there someday...

 

[roo_ster]

As others have stated, limited applicability to non-LEOs.

Even in situations where disengaging and un-azzing the AO is not an option, the UoFC is not particularly applicable.

For instance, if I am out with wife & kids, running is not an option.

If I face a credible threat, there is no way I am going to break out OC (L3), martial arts locks (L3) or go to fist city (L4), given the option (function of time/distance).

I am not there to arrest the threat and I can not run. The goal is then to make the threat run off or incapacitate the threat.

That would make it a Monty Python's King Aurthur & The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch Use of Force Continuum: "One, Two, FIVE!." Or at least, credible threat of five.

 

[atk]

In my opinion, the primary benefit to non-LEOs understanding a force continuum (formally or informally) is pretty much the same as undestanding that, in many locations, you need to use the minimum amount of force possible to end a threat, in order to minimize your exposure to the legal reprocussions. In other words, a force continuum is the same exact thing as people deciding "I'd rather run away, or use my pepper spray, than shoot someone". It's just more formal to use the force continuum concept.

Also, I believe that the primary benefit to formalizing the discussion of the force continuum is the exact same benefit as gained when formalizing the discussion of levels of alertness. It creates clear definitions and guidelines, and allows you to make the most educated decision possible.

It lets you see an attack, and decide what's the most appropriate response, within a common set of definitions. [No, I don't mean that you consider the continuum consciously, just as you don't consider alertness levels consciously]. We all agree that use of a gun is more force than use of a voice, so if someone's yelling, and you shoot, you've used way too much force. Why is this a bad thing to make clear to civilians?

Even better, the continuum can be sorted for a given state. For example, in MA, I seem to recall that pepper spray is considered lethal force, so an individual can learn the continuum appropriate to MA, and respond to an individual trying to beat them with verbal commands, and by making space before moving up to chemicals or blunt trauma.


Also, in regards to comments that it's only applicable to people who are trying to engage rather than to disengage: why? What makes it so different that, when you're engaging, it's good to know that use of pepper spray will be less to cause serious injury or death than use of a gun? Why is this more applicable when engaging than when disengaging?

 

[Archangel]

Level 4 - Hard techniques - strikes or takedowns to momentarily stun an attacker, or put them on the ground, thus giving you an opportunity to escape.

I dunno about you, but I don't intend to get involved in a physical altercation with anybody, especially while armed. Sounds like a good way to get your gun taken away from you, or at least be charged with "mutual combat"

Distance is your friend

I don't disagree with you, but we don't always get to make that choice.

I'm not suggesting wading into the thick of things, fists flying. If levels 1-3 have failed to get me out of dodge and an attacker gets ahold of me, I can't just run away dragging 250 lbs of Bubba with me. I need to somehow get out of his grasp first. It's still all about creating distance, but when you start at 0 the first few inches are a little trickier.

Yeah, I know, we're not supposed to let them get that close. But it can and does happen.

Also, note that I live in Maryland, so I don't get to carry a gun. For me, level 5 is a knife. That does change things a bit.

 

[Jeff White]

The use of force continuum was developed to give peace officers guidelines on the use of force when accomplishing their official duties. A peace officer uses force (even if it's only presence) on a daily basis. A private citizen has no need to force compliance with anyone. All a private citizen needs to know about the force continuum is that you can generally respond with as much force as is necessary to escape the situation.

Do we really want to establish the precedent of every defensive encounter being treated like a police use of force case? How many private citizens out there who carry OC or other intermediate force options are certified in their use? How often do you re certify?

If a mugger accosts you and asks for your wallet but displays no weapon,is about your size and age and doesn't infer he has a weapon, are you going to go hands on first?

If so, what is the retention level of your CCW holster? Go to Wal-Mart or another discount store and buy a cheap airsoft copy of your carry gun. Put it in your holster then go to the gym or dojo and go hands on. See for yourself what kind of problems you create by trying to follow the force continuum without proper training and equipment.

Teaching a use of force continuum to private citizens and expecting them to follow it, is overly complicating self defense. The only use of force continuum a private citizen needs to know is the reasonable man doctrine. That states that if a reasonable man, knowing what you knew about the situation at the time you took action would find that your actions were justified, then you should be ok legally with your use of force.

I can see big problems and a lot of openings for a plaintiff's lawyer to win over jury if you got up on the stand and stated that your use of force was within the guidelines of the force continuum but you couldn't articulate hwere and how you were trained on the force continuum, what polices authorized you to make that use of force decision.

Documentation of training and adherence to department policy on the use of force is what protects police officers in court. A private citizen has no formal training, nor does he have formal policies that have been found to be best practices in court to protect him during problem two. I really don't think we want to go that way in civilian use of force cases.

Jeff

 

[atk]

Jeff,


Thanks for your post. It's obviously well considered. While I think you're right that there are a lot more considerations that need to be taken into account, I also think that those considerations should be addressed in a good concealed carry class - maybe not thoroughly discussed in all classes, but they should be brought up.