When a major use of force incident occurs in your jurisdiction, and draws media attention, how does your chief react?
Ideally there is a swift reaction via press release (or press conference, in the case of highly visible controversy) as soon as possible after the incident. Let a few hours go by without comment from “the top” of your agency, and the media will find others to define the issues, speculate about what happened, provide juicy quotes that assume wrongdoing, and undermine the public’s confidence in your officers.
The initial press release or statement needs to provide a general overview of the facts of the incident in a way that assures the public that the incident is being investigated, that the investigation will be reviewed at the highest levels, and that the rights of suspects and officers alike will be protected in the process. The statement needs to be crafted to be truthful but must also protect the integrity of the investigation and avoid admissions of wrongdoing. What may appear to be wrongdoing at the outset is often found to be legitimate after the investigation. And regardless, it is foolish to make admissions that will further expose the agency to civil liability.
You can do much to lay the groundwork with the public that will make handling critical incidents easier. You can proactively explain police use of force to the public through your local media.
One of the finest articles I’ve ever seen that explains police use of force to the public was contained in a newspaper article written by the public information officer of a local sheriff’s department. The bulk of my article is a reprint of excerpts from that article, published in The Mountain Enterprise (www.MountainEnterprise.com) on March 14, 2008 and written by Sgt. Ed Komin, Kern County (CA) Sheriff's Department in the wake of a sudden in-custody death that drew much media attention.
Here are some key excerpts from the article (reprinted by permission of The Mountain Enterprise):
Use of force is perhaps the most complex and certainly the most controversial of all our duties. It is an area this agency takes very seriously. The training given our deputies consistently exceeds that which is required by the State of California and most other comparable agencies.
From time to time, our deputies come into contact with people who exhibit bizarre behavior. This typically occurs at a call for service. The deputy will usually get dispatched to someone acting violent, bizarre or similar. The deputy will usually not know the cause of such behavior, only that it is occurring.
When the deputy arrives at this type of call, if the situation is static, he/she is trained to contact the person who reported the incident (if possible) and gather the facts surrounding the situation. The facts to be considered include whether or not a crime was committed, if the subject in question is a danger to himself or others and if anyone is in need of medical attention. The deputy is then expected to contact the subject.
If the subject is posing an immediate threat, the deputy must take immediate steps to protect the public, the subject in question and him/herself.
If a crime was committed and/or the person is a danger to himself or others, the deputy is required to take the subject into custody. We try to do so with the least amount of force possible. In fact, all our deputies receive extensive training in the art of verbal persuasion and most are very good at generating voluntary compliance from those we arrest.
However, there are times when verbal persuasion is ineffective or not appropriate. These would include those instances when the subject repeatedly fails to comply with the deputy’s instructions despite his/her best efforts at verbal persuasion. It would be inappropriate; indeed it would be dangerous to attempt repeated verbal persuasion during an assault on an officer or others.
In these circumstances the deputy is left with no choice but to use a degree of force to protect him/herself and to take the person into custody. . . .
Once [the officer-subject factors] are evaluated the deputy is expected to choose a level of force that can reasonably be expected to accomplish the law enforcement mission.
These options include hands-on physical control techniques, oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper spray), batons, Tasers® and firearms. All these options carry a certain risk of injury, but generally speaking, the higher the risk of injury, the more effective the option will be at getting the subject to stop resisting.
Use of force is judged by the legal community, and by our agency, by a standard of “objective reasonableness.”
The question will be whether or not the deputy, armed with the facts he or she had at the time, used a degree of force that was of a type and degree that can reasonably be expected to accomplish a legitimate and legal law enforcement goal (taking a person into custody, self defense, etc.), without posing an unreasonable risk of injury to anyone concerned.
The courts and most of society have recognized that officers are frequently required to make split second life-and-death decisions in this area without the benefit of hindsight.
Officers are frequently confronted with what appears to be an irrational, violent person who has to immediately be taken into custody in a safe manner.
When a deputy confronts a subject who appears irrational and/or violent, his or her primary consideration needs to be for the safety and well-being of all persons concerned. . . .
A deputy who finds him or herself in such a situation does not have the luxury of knowing why the person is behaving in a violent manner or what the subject’s medical history might be.
The deputy has to guess whether the subject has a mental condition or if he is under the influence of dangerous drugs. Of course, others will address all these questions later. . . .
. . . (I)t should not surprise anyone that the later analysis will occasionally come up with a better force decision than the deputy did in the heat of the moment.
A reasonable and fair judgment however, needs to be based on the knowledge the deputy had at the time the force was applied. . . .
I hope you’ll agree that Sergeant Komin did a great job addressing this challenging subject. And I hope even more that you will take a look at your own agency’s efforts to educate the public about the difficult job you do, and that your chief will react effectively when the inevitable critical incident occurs.
