The Use of Force Continuum

[Colt]

LEOs have chosen law enforcement as their career. Their decision carries with it a responsibility to learn and adhere to department policies, and to learn and follow the UoFC.

I'm not a LEO. I'm a computer guy. If I have a serious computer problem, I reboot (verbal direction), reinstall the OS (soft hands), replace the memory and power supply (hard hands), and then replace the motherboard (bang).

When the typical LEO's computer stops working, he reboots (flee), calls tech support if possible (911), then brings it to Circuit City (bang). Just like I would do if confronted with a deadly threat. I wouldn't attempt to apply the LEO's UoFC.

 

[Michael Courtney]

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.

If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

Why is it unwise for private citizens to have training and tools to use non-lethal levels of force?

If there is an intruder in my home, I may well need to force compliance with my desire that he leave immediately. Depending on the state laws and detailed circumstances, using a gun might not be wise, prudent, or legal. Without the training and tools to use a sub-lethal level of force, my only options are to call 911 and wait or to attempt fleeing with 4 small children.

Also consider situations where the private citizen cannot carry a gun and only has access to sub-lethal levels of force. Teachers, for example, do have legal permission and some level of duty to intervene when students are at risk or being harmed.

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.

Wouldn't it be better to have the training and tools available to better facilitate an escape and to prevent innocent people from being harmed if escape is impractical?

Do we really want to establish the precedent of every defensive encounter being treated like a police use of force case?

This is a legal issue, not a tactical one. No one has suggested that provate citizens should be held accountable for the use of force continuum. The question at hand is whether there is a tactical advantage in acquiring the training and tools.

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?

Certification is a question of documented ability, which is only relevant in the legal outcome. Actual ability is what is the issue in the tactical outcome.

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?

Bad tactics. But you have mistakenly pre-supposed that the only use of sub-lethal force options is to take the agressor into custody. On neutral ground where there is no need to protect innocent third parties, any force which is applied is best done with the aim of escape and evasion. Chemical, impact, or electrical options are preferrable to going hands on. (Drawing a gun to gain time and distance may not be available or legal, depending on location).

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.

Good point about the retention issues. Grappling without a retention holster is always a bad idea. Sub-lethal force should be used to gain distance and time in most mugging-type encounters. However, unlike LEO's, the armed citizen has the advantage of concealment, and should it come down to a wrestling match, the armed citizen starts off with the advantage of being the one who knows where the gun is.

The grappling scenario is also a great case for carrying a back-up gun and for having a primary gun slightly more complicated to fire than merely pulling the trigger.

Teaching a use of force continuum to private citizens and expecting them to follow it, is overly complicating self defense.

I agree that there should not be a legal expectation for private citizens to use a use of force continuum. However, there is a tactical advantage to doing so in that the private citizen who does receive the training has more options available. This is especially important in locations where guns are not allowed.

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 disagree. Private citizens gain advantage by knowing how to use impact force, chemical force, electrical force, hand-to-hand, gun retention techniques, etc.

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.

Of course, but this is a legal question. One always needs to phrase the actions one took (after the fact) in terms of the reasonable man doctrine. But this is why one simply shuts up and does not say anything until represented by a good attorney with experience in self-defense cases.

One can make use of any sub-lethal force means and only mention the relevant "reasonable man" facts in any subsequent legal proceedings.

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.

These are legal considerations, not tactical ones.

Michael Courtney

 

[Jeff White]

The use of force continuum is a legal consideration, not a tactical one

These are legal considerations, not tactical ones.

What do you think the use of force continuum is? The use of force continuum is a guideline for the legal use of force by a peace officer. It is not a street tactic. The use of force continuum was developed to give a peace officer a way to articulate his/her use of force in court.

I am not suggesting that a civilian has no need to learn HTH or the use of a chemical weapon. What I am suggesting is that a civilian not take a guideline for use of force that was developed for a peace officer performing his/her duties, and try to use it. The use of force continuum is not applicable to civilian encounters. Do you really want to see a citizen who runs a mugger off at gunpoint prosecuted because in the eyes of the prosecutor a hard empty hand technique would have been more appropriate?

Jeff

 

[GEM]

I think the issue revolves around whether the continuum is a necessary sequence of actions for the officer or the civilian.

Whether it is a necessary sequence of actions for the police is quite different than for me - a plain old dude. The continuum ranks the actions in terms of force but it doesn't imply that you have to move through them to get to one or back down to one.

I regard the Force continuum as not a necessary linear chain of event but as a set of options - it is supplemental to Skip's ADEE.

Avoid: stay away from possibly dangerous situations.
Disengage: disconnect from developing dangerous situations.
Escape: leave actively dangerous situations.
Evade: prevent dangerous situations from following you.

In that if you are in a dangerous situation - it doesn't necessary mean that you immediately move to deadly force. I've seen that claimed by some - that when you fight, it is lethal force or none at all.

Break the compelled linearity of an action sequence and then the options are reasonable to teach to civilians along with things like ADEE.

 

[atk]

Jeff,

Do you really want to see a citizen who runs a mugger off at gunpoint prosecuted because in the eyes of the prosecutor a hard empty hand technique would have been more appropriate?

(all spelling mistakes intentional)

I'm perty durn sure that we see that already. Maybe not round 'abouts where you are, but in places like MA or NYC, or CA. I can't come up with any citations, but I'm sure they exist.

I don't think that these persecutions are correct, but they happen. And educating the potential victim about how much force they should use in a given situation doesn't seem to be a bad thing.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Quote:
These are legal considerations, not tactical ones.

What do you think the use of force continuum is? The use of force continuum is a guideline for the legal use of force by a peace officer. It is not a street tactic. The use of force continuum was developed to give a peace officer a way to articulate his/her use of force in court.

The use of force continuum is a training tool used to communicate the level of force reasonable to use in response to different situations.

One wonders if you see it more as a legal tool for LEO's to cover their backsides after the fact by justifying whatever use of force they happened to use.

Do you really want to see a citizen who runs a mugger off at gunpoint prosecuted because in the eyes of the prosecutor a hard empty hand technique would have been more appropriate?

Jeff

This is a strawman fallacy. I never implied any such thing.

On the contrary, I was pointing out the usefulness of good citizens to have other options available in locations where running of the mugger by drawing a gun is not a legal option.

Michael Courtney

 

[Jeff White]

The use of force continuum is a training tool used to communicate the level of force reasonable to use in response to different situations.

That is correct.

One wonders if you see it more as a legal tool for LEO's to cover their backsides after the fact by justifying whatever use of force they happened to use.

A person's training or lack thereof is a very big issue in use of force litigation. Why don't you try the; "I read about the force continuum on an internet gun forum." defense sometime? If you want to allude that you've had training that you really didn't, you are opening that training up to examination in court. Perhaps not in criminal court, but definitely in civil court. I can see it now;

Plaintiff's attorney; "Mr Courtney, you stated that your brutal beating of my client was well within the force continuum police officers are expected to follow when they use force in arresting a suspect. I contend that any police officer in this state would be facing internal discipline if he had administered punishment on my client like you did. His attack clearly ended when you shoved him out of your way, yet you broke his jaw and inflicted cuts and lacerations requiring 31 stitches to repair.'

If you are going to claim that you acted with the sure knowledge that your use of force was within someone's guidelines, you had better be darn sure you know what those guidelines actually are and what court decisions (especially in civil suits) have held that type of use of force to be reasonable.

I think it's better to just be the ordinary citizen who defended himself.

Jeff

 

[Michael Courtney]

A person's training or lack thereof is a very big issue in use of force litigation.

Only if the prosecution finds out about it. How would they possibly know about this unless the defense makes it an issue?

Why don't you try the; "I read about the force continuum on an internet gun forum." defense sometime? If you want to allude that you've had training that you really didn't, you are opening that training up to examination in court. Perhaps not in criminal court, but definitely in civil court. I can see it now;

I said explicitly that when things get to court, the defense should stick to the reasonable man doctrine. I have _never_ suggested that a private citizen refer to the use of force continuum as a part of a criminal or civil defense.

Plaintiff's attorney; "Mr Courtney, you stated that your brutal beating of my client was well within the force continuum police officers are expected to follow when they use force in arresting a suspect.

Strawman fallacy. I would never be dumb enough to say that, and my explicit suggestion above was to shut up until you've spoken with a good defense attorney. If the best defense attorney money can buy evaluated the facts of a specific case and himself argued that the acts were well within the force continuum that police officers are expected to follow, then who am I to argue?

But regarding my own state of mind in a deadly force encounter, I would tend to stick with reasonable fear of personal injury, etc.

If you are going to claim that you acted with the sure knowledge that your use of force was within someone's guidelines, you had better be darn sure you know what those guidelines actually are and what court decisions (especially in civil suits) have held that type of use of force to be reasonable.

This is a strawman. I never suggested this.

I think it's better to just be the ordinary citizen who defended himself.

In court, I agree. Be the ordinary citizen who defended himself. But in real life, wouldn't it be better to be an honest citizen with a lot of training and tools at his disposal?

Michael Courtney

 

[BullfrogKen]

The questions we must ask ourselves are:

• Is the Armed Citizen any better served by knowing this, and in a better position to make real time decisions after having been trained in the UoF Continuum.
  
• Is even the Peace Officer better off, in his ability to make real time decisions in a fight, after having learned this subject?

I think there exists a large majority of the population who have seen this cirriculum, and even trained others in it, who have little knowledge as to its history, development, and eventual dissemination among policing agencies.

 

[Jeff White]

Strawman fallacy. I would never be dumb enough to say that, and my explicit suggestion above was to shut up until you've spoken with a good defense attorney. If the best defense attorney money can buy evaluated the facts of a specific case and himself argued that the acts were well within the force continuum that police officers are expected to follow, then who am I to argue?

But regarding my own state of mind in a deadly force encounter, I would tend to stick with reasonable fear of personal injury, etc.

You already have admitted a lot that will probably make it into court. Don't think for one minute that everything you ever posted on the internet won't be found and possibly used against you in court.

But in real life, wouldn't it be better to be an honest citizen with a lot of training and tools at his disposal?

That's fine. But you still don't grasp what the force continuum is. It's not training it's a guideline on what force is appropriate to use in what situation. Why shouldn't a civilian learn this you ask? Because I have yet to see an example force continuum that wasn't developed for law enforcement use. Most of the ones I've seen are carefully written to comply with state and federal case law on the use of force and specific department policies.

I have never seen one that was developed for a private citizen to use. A private citizen rarely encounters passive resistance of the type that requires soft empty hand control techniques and in most cases if a private citizen were to respond to passive resistance with soft empty hand control techniques that private citizen could probably be charged and convicted of battery. The greatest use of the force continuum is in making arrests, something the private citizen rarely does. When responding to an attack, the guidelines are pretty much that you can use whatever force is necessary. The private citizen responds to attacks, he doesn't arrest people or move them out of his way or otherwise make them do something they'd rather not do.

Jeff

 

[meef]

Jeff,

You're just no fun.

Walter Mitty must despise your constant practical interruptions.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

I'm perty durn sure that we see that already. Maybe not round 'abouts where you are, but in places like MA or NYC, or CA. I can't come up with any citations, but I'm sure they exist.

priceless admission

AN ARTIST'S CONCEPT
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER

 

[ctdonath]

Archangel has it right.

There is a continuum for civilians.

- Being there, or not being there, can be enough to address some problems.
Just walking away is often enough. Showing up can also cause the perp to reconsider an action, esp. against someone else.

- Verbal deterrents can work. Making your intentions clear can make a perp reconsider.

- Lightly removing contact may be enough. They touch/grab you, proper application of body mechanics can remove them. This can, again, cause them to reconsider.

- Pain compliance escalates your response, but without serious consequences. OC, Kubaton, pressure points, etc. induce involuntary reaction in the perp's body, permitting you to redirect/restrain him, and persuade him that maybe what he's doing really isn't good for his well-being - there is a price, and continuation better be worth it for him (likely isn't).

- Physical damage makes him unable to continue the assault, but is survivable. Remember: you're not out to kill him, you just want him to stop harming/threatening you. If, after breaking an arm or wrenching a knee, he will be unable to continue harm, then do so and stop there. Muggings, bar-room brawls, etc. mostly fit here.

- Lethal force. Someone is gonna die, you're just re-arranging who. Any lesser response means your attacker continues to have the opportunity, ability, and intent to kill you (you may break his leg, but he can still shoot you).

It's ridiculous to expect an untrained and unequipped person to follow a force continuum.

Regardless of your training & equipment, you WILL be legally held to a continuum.
If some guy starts shoving you around in a bar, you don't shoot him - you disengage and/or use pain compliance.
If some guy approaches your wife in a suspicious manner and your spidey-sense tingles while she's well ahead of you in the parking lot, you don't take the 50-foot shot - you catch up and inject your physical presence, or verbally tell him off.
If you hear glass break at oh-dark-thirty, and while going down the stairs to investigate you meet up with a stranger holding a crowbar, you don't politely ask him to leave - you apply Gaston's point-and-click interface.

This is why, ideally, along with my G26 I have an ASP, Benchmade, and Kubotan. Most hostile interactions are _not_ going to require lethal combat, but will call for something lesser.

All that said, I'll agree that the continuum for police and civilians (and soldiers) are different. This is why Ayoob and Cooper came up with different color codes. Police have the equipment and infrastructure and motivation to delay transition into lethal force, and have justification to go into lethal force more readily. Civilians have justification to go into lethal force sooner, but for fewer reasons.

 

[Jeff White]

ctdonath,
I like your premise, but a civilian needs to be very careful under what circumstances he goes hands on with anything more forceful then removing another's hand from yourself. What you correctly interpret as an attack will almost certainly be claimed to be mutual combat or self defense by your assailant when the police arrive. Who knows how any witnesses will describe the situation. Often when the police can't decide who the aggressor was, both parties are arrested and charged with battery.

This probably isn't going to be an issue if you are attacked in a parking lot or on the street, but a confrontation that happens in a bar is likely to result in everyone involved being charged.

It probably would be better to make sure everyone around you knew you were disengaging as you physically redirected your attacker. Loudly state that he should cease whatever he's doing and let you go while you're using whatever physical force is necessary might not be a bad idea. It's always a good idea when using pain compliance techniques to calmly tell the subject to stop fighting and the pain will stop. I spent some of the longest two and a half minutes of my life one evening holding down a suicidal EDP who had failed in his attempt to light the interior of his ex-girlfriends car on fire, and then walked into the bar where she worked, announced he was going to kill himself right there on the spot if she didn't take him back, then cut his wrists high and deep enough to do the job. The bouncer threw him out the door and called 911. We found him in the parking lot of the convenience store across the street where he announced he wasn't going to the hospital and we couldn't make him. He slipped out of the grasp of one officer and right into me. I started to take him to the ground and the fight was on. I took him down and used the pressure point under his nose to control him until EMS arrived. There we were on the ground, a crowd had gather, he's screaming "Stop hurting me, just let me die" and flopping around like a fish thrown onto the bank, blood flying everywhere.....And throughout it all I'm telling him, to be still and stop fighting and the pain will stop. No citizen complaints of excessive force, although that two and half minutes till EMS arrived felt like about 40 minutes.

Jeff

 

[Michael Courtney]

A private citizen rarely encounters passive resistance of the type that requires soft empty hand control techniques and in most cases if a private citizen were to respond to passive resistance with soft empty hand control techniques that private citizen could probably be charged and convicted of battery.

You've consistently ignored the situation where a threatening intruder in a private home refuses to leave. I would recommend pepper spray here (to avoid gun retention issues), but I doubt that the home owner would be convicted of battery with either pepper spray or soft empty hand control techniques.

You are also ignoring the common role of bouncers in drinking establishments. They use empty hand control techniques all the time in response to people who refuse to leave when asked, and they are rarely convicted of battery when the use of force was reasonable. My family owned and operated a lounge in New Orleans for many years. No bouncer was ever charged with a crime for the forceful removal of a drunk from the premesis.

Michael Courtney

 

[Archangel]

It probably would be better to make sure everyone around you knew you were disengaging as you physically redirected your attacker. Loudly state that he should cease whatever he's doing and let you go while you're using whatever physical force is necessary might not be a bad idea.

Absolutely. As I see it, the continuum for civilians is not a matter of progressing from one level to the next, but of adding a level to all the previous levels.

Meaning, first you try to leave. Then you start issuing verbal commands while continuing trying to leave. Then you use soft techniques to ward off or escape his attacks, while continuing verbal commands and trying to leave. Etc.


Also, if I can articulate all of the less-lethal things that I tried to do to escape (or articulate why it wasn't possible to take those measures) before resorting to lethal force, wouldn't that only help my defense that I had no other choice but to shoot my attacker? I can use the continuum as a framework for describing my actions without saying "level 3 of the force continuum."

 

[Dorryn]

Im really pleased that during riot-control training in the Marine Corps, we had to do a combat course directly after being sprayed in the face from a distance of two feet, eyes open, with pepper spray. I have also been a willing "subject" of "electronic" non-lethal devices. I feel much more confident in my understanding of how these "less-lethal" devices function and perform, and subsequently feel confident explaining to others that these are not at all guaranteed solutions, and in fact may do little to deter an aggressor.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Meaning, first you try to leave. Then you start issuing verbal commands while continuing trying to leave. Then you use soft techniques to ward off or escape his attacks, while continuing verbal commands and trying to leave. Etc.

This thread is amusing. I carry a pistol and a knife, which is two more weapons than I carried a year ago. My last hand-to-hand was 20 years ago in the Army. Some of you would call me ill-equipped without mace and a baton to add to my already bulging pockets.

If I bumble into a threatening situation I will attempt to bumble my way out. If I am attacked my sole focus will be on getting my gun out to end the situation, first warning, if a knife or firearm is not present, then firing if the attack continues. Lots of people get killed at someone else's hands every year. I will not risk getting my head bashed in by some thug by trying to finesse the situation with less than overwhelming force. I think a lot of people have an unrealistic idea of how quick, messy, and violent an encounter can be, with little time to think. Real life isn't a Bruce Lee movie. I mean, if you saw it coming, presumably you wouldn't be there as you would have been smart enough to leave ahead of the violence. You can have your complicated, graduated response plan. I will act simply and within my capabilities to defend my life and that of my loved ones.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

So what if we were to say that it's good for non-LEO citizens to learn about less lethal techniques and what reasonable use of force is, but not necessarily trained to automatically use the Use of Force Continuum?

Being skilled in less lethal techniques and knowing what is reasonable use of force could be good in preventing law suits because one doesn't put their attacker in a wheel chair for life if not necessary. They can avoid being accused of using unreasonably excessive force. Lawyers are expensive and if one can avoid a situation that calls for extensive use of one, then that's great.

At the same time, when police use the Use of Force Continuum, they have the necessary backup to help themselves out, since they're arresting someone not necessarily using escape and evade when alone. Being a non-LEO citizen trained to automatically use the Force Continuum could cost one's life because one may not have a partner as backup, and all the equipment.

I'm just trying to discover my opinions on all of this. Feel free anyone to correct this view where you think it should be

 

[roo_ster]

Elmer Fudd brought up a good point. Uniformed police wear a bat-belt on which to hang their many & varied tools of the trade: handgun, reloads, cuff, OC spray, radio, baton, light, etc.

Heck, I start to feel loaded down if I have more than a pistol & reload on my belt. Ain't no way I am going to tote any more. Add wallet, cell phone, keys, and a hankie, and all my storage space is spoken for.

I think folks are trying to ram a square peg down a round hole on this topic. We have different missions and different expectations. Tools & guidelines appropriate to sworn officers have a limited applicability to the average CCW-ing citizen.