• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Use of Force/Deadly Force

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
I decided that, so everyone was clear on the steps involved in police/military use of force, up to and including the usage of deadly force, I'd create a post on the matter. This is something I feel every responsible gun owner should have knowledge of. This is something that I had drilled into me while serving in a weapons specific unit in the Navy.

1. Presence (uniform/badge/weapon)
2. Verbal Commands (Stop!)
3. Soft Control
4. Hard Control
5. Deadly Force

The only difference between what I was taught and the police is that they have an extra step which includes pepper spray/stun guns before deadly force, and they combine soft and hard physical controls.

The Use-of-Force Continuum

Please, feel free to discuss, but this is not in debates.
 

Attachments

  • use-of-force-continuum.jpg
    use-of-force-continuum.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 0

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I decided that, so everyone was clear on the steps involved in police/military use of force, up to and including the usage of deadly force, I'd create a post on the matter. This is something I feel every responsible gun owner should have knowledge of. This is something that I had drilled into me while serving in a weapons specific unit in the Navy.

1. Presence (uniform/badge/weapon)
2. Verbal Commands (Stop!)
3. Soft Control
4. Hard Control
5. Deadly Force

The only difference between what I was taught and the police is that they have an extra step which includes pepper spray/stun guns before deadly force, and they combine soft and hard physical controls.

The Use-of-Force Continuum

Please, feel free to discuss, but this is not in debates.

Most encounters with the police should not get beyond number 2.
Generally, the civilian has control of the escalation through compliance.

The problem would be when the control of the escalation is not given to the civilian initially and escalation is initiated by the police without reasonable cause. There have been cases where escalation has been initiated by the police without apparent reasonable cause.

This potential for escalation by the police without reasonable cause is what has folks concerned.
 

Onoma

Active Member
Here's a few cases that may help the discussion along:

Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”

( Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621 )

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”

( Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903 )

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”

(State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.”

(State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.”

(Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.”

(Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
This potential for escalation by the police without reasonable cause is what has folks concerned.

Ignoring race for the time, police are not trained mental health professionals. Someone who has a serious mental health problem may not react properly to a police request leading to escalation and too often deadly force.

That is the rational part of the "defund" argument - add mental health professionals who can deal with issues both individual and family disputes without police needing to take the initiative (although there might be police presence).

Then there's the thread I created the other day about how police training basically ignores real "can't breathe" issues instead being taught that they really don't exist.

Finally there's the Supreme Court written "law" on qualified immunity which gives police a free pass in too many situations. People used to complain about SCOTUS writing laws from a liberal perspective. Well, to me, this is a case of them writing law from a conservative one.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Most encounters with the police should not get beyond number 2.
Generally, the civilian has control of the escalation through compliance.

The problem would be when the control of the escalation is not given to the civilian initially and escalation is initiated by the police without reasonable cause. There have been cases where escalation has been initiated by the police without apparent reasonable cause.

This potential for escalation by the police without reasonable cause is what has folks concerned.
The issue involves police provocation towards an otherwise compliant perp to intentionally notch it up another level. Starting with snide or rude vocalization to get that person upset and/or angry.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I decided that, so everyone was clear on the steps involved in police/military use of force, up to and including the usage of deadly force, I'd create a post on the matter. This is something I feel every responsible gun owner should have knowledge of. This is something that I had drilled into me while serving in a weapons specific unit in the Navy.

1. Presence (uniform/badge/weapon)
2. Verbal Commands (Stop!)
3. Soft Control
4. Hard Control
5. Deadly Force

The only difference between what I was taught and the police is that they have an extra step which includes pepper spray/stun guns before deadly force, and they combine soft and hard physical controls.

The Use-of-Force Continuum

Please, feel free to discuss, but this is not in debates.
Seems very reasonable.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
This potential for escalation by the police without reasonable cause is what has folks concerned.

Not only that, though.
Escalation should be along agreed processes, and based on adequate complimentary training.
So escalation with reasonable cause still shouldn't jump from a verbal command to Deadly Force...for example...

Or at least when it does there should be an extreme level of scrutiny on why it occurred, coupled with transparency, and a continual feedback loop to training and procedures based on findings.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I decided that, so everyone was clear on the steps involved in police/military use of force, up to and including the usage of deadly force, I'd create a post on the matter. This is something I feel every responsible gun owner should have knowledge of. This is something that I had drilled into me while serving in a weapons specific unit in the Navy.

1. Presence (uniform/badge/weapon)
2. Verbal Commands (Stop!)
3. Soft Control
4. Hard Control
5. Deadly Force

Please, feel free to discuss, but this is not in debates.

Question:-
If a 'suspected misdemeanour' was to run away from a law officer in uniform, gaining distance, and did not respond to any commands, what should happen?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I decided that, so everyone was clear on the steps involved in police/military use of force, up to and including the usage of deadly force, I'd create a post on the matter. This is something I feel every responsible gun owner should have knowledge of. This is something that I had drilled into me while serving in a weapons specific unit in the Navy.

1. Presence (uniform/badge/weapon)
2. Verbal Commands (Stop!)
3. Soft Control
4. Hard Control
5. Deadly Force

The only difference between what I was taught and the police is that they have an extra step which includes pepper spray/stun guns before deadly force, and they combine soft and hard physical controls.

The Use-of-Force Continuum

Please, feel free to discuss, but this is not in debates.
I'd include "polite request" between 1 and 2.
An authority figure suddenly barking commands at you is offputting in the extreme and likely to leave one flummoxed and paralyzed, leading to a use of force-- hopefully merely being violently thrown to the ground and kneeled on -- but sometimes shot or tazed, then arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Its standard operating procedure.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The issue involves police provocation towards an otherwise compliant perp to intentionally notch it up another level. Starting with snide or rude vocalization to get that person upset and/or angry.

Are you referring to a specific issue or just a general comment?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Ignoring race for the time, police are not trained mental health professionals. Someone who has a serious mental health problem may not react properly to a police request leading to escalation and too often deadly force.

That is the rational part of the "defund" argument - add mental health professionals who can deal with issues both individual and family disputes without police needing to take the initiative (although there might be police presence).

Or provide training on health care issues to the police.
Then there's the thread I created the other day about how police training basically ignores real "can't breathe" issues instead being taught that they really don't exist.
Again, better training for the police.

Finally there's the Supreme Court written "law" on qualified immunity which gives police a free pass in too many situations. People used to complain about SCOTUS writing laws from a liberal perspective. Well, to me, this is a case of them writing law from a conservative one.

There a Bill introduced by a Libertarian I think co-authored by a Democrat to end qualified immunity. Looks like we could use more Libertarians in office. We'll see how that goes.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Some police seemingly enjoy pushing people's buttons, so its a specific issue. Particularly on how interactions escalate during an encounter.

There may be a culture among the police I think is going to be difficult to deal with. Politician should have oversight and be forced to deal with this. They have to be willing to take on the police unions.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
White supremacists and militias have infiltrated police across US, report says
White supremacist groups have infiltrated US law enforcement agencies in every region of the country over the last two decades, according to a new report about the ties between police and far-right vigilante groups.

....US law enforcement officials have been tied to racist militant activities in more than a dozen states since 2000, and hundreds of police officers have been caught posting racist and bigoted social media content.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Question:-
If a 'suspected misdemeanour' was to run away from a law officer in uniform, gaining distance, and did not respond to any commands, what should happen?

Depends on the preceding altercation that lead to this point, the nature of the stop itself (misdemeanor is vague), is the suspect armed, why are they running, etc. My guess would be foot pursuit based on this limited info given though.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Depends on the preceding altercation that lead to this point, the nature of the stop itself (misdemeanor is vague), is the suspect armed, why are they running, etc. My guess would be foot pursuit based on this limited info given though.

OK. Where I live any minor crime is classed as a misdemeanor, and that, together with 'no risk for the officer' must point to 'no need to kill'.

But in a few incidents in a very few weeks law officers have just shot 'em down. And these aren't the first times either.

And in the midst of demonstrations and marches, which have been used as cover for crimes by a few (we had that in the UK not long ago) officers just keep shooting folks in the back, etc.

It is literally a 'bloody mess'.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
All the victims of police killings seem to have been suspected of less important crimes.... misdemeanours.

Where I live, in 2005 all citizens without warrants were stopped/banned from detaining or arresting any crimes other than serious ones (indictable offences).

All 'arrestable offences' were redacted and I can only think of one petty offence which slipped through the net because of its great age.

And even if the offence is more serious (Indictable) there is NO NEED for arrest or detention if the suspect's identity is known.

So when we see folks being murdered because they were under suspicion....... it looks a bit like some third world scenario.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
OK. Where I live any minor crime is classed as a misdemeanor, and that, together with 'no risk for the officer' must point to 'no need to kill'.

But in a few incidents in a very few weeks law officers have just shot 'em down. And these aren't the first times either.

And in the midst of demonstrations and marches, which have been used as cover for crimes by a few (we had that in the UK not long ago) officers just keep shooting folks in the back, etc.

It is literally a 'bloody mess'.

I'm not disagreeing with this assessment. Point of my post was to inform on what is taught and what "should" be followed.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm not disagreeing with this assessment. Point of my post was to inform on what is taught and what "should" be followed.
Yes. I get that.
Both our countries could review how we select, induct, field train, supervise, review training, counsel for trauma and inspect for individual problems.

We have made horrible mistakes in the UK in the past, but because long guns are closely controlled and handguns banned our police are probably much more confident when engaging with people 'at distance'. All our police are expected to wear body armour when on duty.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
FMRI, or at least CT, should be a standard screening practice for admission to the police academy. Applicants can tailor their answers to screening surveys easily enough, but it's hard to hide an enlarged amygdala, for example.
 
Top