INTRODUCTION
From Plato and his Republic to modern-day elected officials of the American
Republic, philosophers, politicians, scholars, and citizens alike have all
participated in an ongoing debate about the best way to establish governmentsanctioned use of force in a free republic. As discussed earlier in this text, such a
massive intellectual and practical undertaking requires the reconciliation of some
very central, fundamental, and essential questions:
•
Who should rule?
•
Who should possess the power to enforce the decisions of the ruler?
•
How can those who are authorized to use force remain accountable to the
citizens?
•
How should those who are authorized to use force be educated and
trained?
Inevitably, such fundamental social questions soon lead to a discussion about the
notion of power in a free society. Within the context of a social structure, the
notion of power presents itself on many fronts: political power, financial power,
administrative power, intellectual power, legal power, and, ultimately, pure
physical power. Because pure physical power is precisely the type of power the
social contract was designed to protect free citizens against, and because it is
typically the type the police find themselves authorized to utilize, the conflict
persists.
Throughout history, one of the most fundamental and important functions of a
government is to provide and sustain a social structure in which might does not
make right. But to provide such a balance, official decisions must be made to
determine who should be allowed to possess such pure physical power and
exactly how that physical power should be applied to free citizens. Those in power
must also institute comprehensive systems of checks and balances to closely
monitor and ensure compliance. Perhaps most importantly, a great deal of
attention must be paid to the education and training of those who are officially
sanctioned by the government to apply physical force and demand compliance,
such as the military and law enforcement.
Historically, these have always been very complicated philosophical issues to
resolve. Today, these issues are no less complicated, and elected officials continue
to engage in public policy debates involving the U.S. military, civilian law
enforcement, and the use of force. Most recently, the challenge of domestic
terrorism has served to activate the entire debate.
JUDICIOUS USE OF MILITARY FORCE
In a major U.S. military action waged against international terrorism in
Afghanistan, representatives of the U.S. government engaged in incessant
debates about not only if a war was morally permitted but if it was morally
necessary—even in direct response to one of the most violent and deadly acts of
hatred and terrorism ever launched against Americans, the attacks of September
11, 2001. Moreover, once the moral questions involving the use of force were
resolved and the decision was made to respond, the debates continued to further
decide the most appropriate and humane tactics to fight the war. Following the
debates, military strategies and tactics were then authorized that were specifically
designed to allow the U.S. military to cautiously drop technologically advanced
smart bombs on the Taliban, thereby minimizing the amount of force utilized.
Moreover, as an additional sign of the national reluctance to use force, at the
same time as the bombing, international food drops for starving civilians in
Afghanistan were coordinated and implemented.
The point to be made is that, even in the practice of war, Americans’ reluctance to
use force and their collective values of peace, restraint, and justice are apparent.
In fact, these values are so intrinsic and fundamental to the American way of life
that these values passionately sustained themselves and moved to the forefront,
even during a time of war.
JUDICIOUS USE OF FORCE
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
The presence of the American values of peace, restraint, and justice is equally as
evident in the domestic uses of force, such as civilian law enforcement. For
example, in July 1998, the New York City Police Department announced its
intention to require its 40,000 uniformed members of the service to switch to the
use of hollow-point ammunition and to move away from the more traditional
fully jacketed ball ammunition. The decision to switch to the new hollow-point
bullet was proposed by the police academy firearms experts and moved forward
in the wake of significant operations research, considerable technical advice from
experts around the world, and an overall desire to utilize a bullet that was safer
for the community and the police. It was well established that the hollow-point
bullet was specifically designed to expand and actually slow down when it hits
bone and flesh, meaning it is less likely to ricochet and injure innocent
bystanders and more likely to bring about the necessary trauma to end a violent
attack as quickly as possible.
Traditional Ball Ammunition
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Penetrates more than hollow-point bullets
• Travels completely through objects such as walls, car doors, and human
bodies
• Imparts less energy to an object due to increased penetration
• Ricochets more than hollow-point bullets
• Penetrates body armor more effectively
• Is significantly less expansive
• Is significantly less effective than hollow-point bullets
Hollow-Point Ammunition
•
•
•
• Penetrates less than ball ammunition
• Is less likely to travel completely through objects
• Imparts more energy to an object due to reduced penetration
•
•
•
•
• Ricochets less than ball ammunition
• Penetrates body armor less effectively
• Is significantly more expansive
• Is significantly more effective than ball ammunition
The policy decision to change ammunition was considered to be in the best
interest of restraint, and a fairly routine administrative decision well within the
parameters of a police commissioner. It was further believed that such a move
would illustrate that, even in the direst circumstances of a deadly confrontation,
the police were still interested in using the least amount of force necessary to
safely accomplish their mission.
Yet, in spite of significant professional, technical, scientific, and even moral
support for the change in ammunition, considerable public apprehension erupted
over the proposal, driven by unrelenting media coverage. The Civilian
Complaint Review Board of New York City was commissioned to do a
comprehensive study and to make its findings public through policy
recommendations. The American Civil Liberties Union called for public
hearings and demanded that the New York City Police Department explain such a
decision. Various community leaders immediately spoke out, based on myths and
war stories they had heard, and claimed that the police were switching to
“exploding bullets” and “armor-piercing cop killer bullets” and even accused the
police of wanting to “use a bullet with sharp metal hooks that tears through
human tissue and causes massive bleeding and damage.” Even the New York
Times published an editorial opinion claiming “the hollow-point bullets, which
expand when they enter the flesh, are banned as inhumane in warfare by the
Geneva Convention” (New York Times, 1998).
For weeks, the major print and television media in New York City were actually
engaged in a raging public debate over police bullets. It was a public debate,
however, that entirely missed the real issues in the police use of force and instead
centered on the erroneous assumption that there actually is a humane way to
shoot someone.
In the end, after vast amounts of time and resources were dedicated solely to
defending the decision to use less force, members of the New York City Police
Department very routinely began to be issued and to train with the hollow-point
bullets. It was a policy change initiated by the training division in good faith that,
in the end, turned out to be one of the most humane and restraining use of force
decisions a law enforcement agency could ever make.
There are important lessons to be learned from the U.S. military action in
Afghanistan and the New York City hollow-point bullet experience. They are but
two examples of how any decision, even a good faith decision made with the best
intentions, that involves the use of force in a free society will be subjected to
considerable public debate, substantial community emotion, and overwhelming
public and political scrutiny. Clearly, the use of force, and the power that it
represents, plays a significant role in all social relationships. Any governmentsupported use of physical force to gain compliance, coupled with the natural
reluctance of free people to accept it, creates the power struggle normally
associated with a democratic government. This struggle can have enormous
implications for social control and the public belief in restraint and justice.
CONFLICT THEORY AND FORCE
Police officers should be informed that there is an entire faction in American society that believes the dayto-day operations of formal social control agents, such as the police, are nothing more than the tools with
which those who control the ability to use force in society maintain their social advantage. Such positions
range from social anarchism (Tifft, 1979) through Marxism (Chambliss,1975; Spitzer, 1975;
Quinney, 1977) to value of diversity (Pepinsky and Jesilow, 1985). Many elected officials in America
today admit that the genesis of their beliefs about the use of force in society can be directly traced to the
writings of Karl Marx. In his political philosophy, Marx saw conflict in society as being due to a scarcity of
resources and an historical inequality in the distribution of those resources, most notably power.
For all of these reasons, it seems clear that from the time of Plato’s Republic to the American Republic,
there remains a constant and relentless struggle to balance the relationship between formal social control,
government power, and the use of force in any way, both foreign and domestic. From the time of
Plato’s Republic to today’s American Republic, it remains a constant endeavor to build a sense of
equilibrium between power, the use of force, and issues of equality and justice.
This premise is essential to the education and training of police officers in the use of force because, more
often than not, all of these issues will come to a head because of a split-second decision made by a twentyfive-year-old police officer working alone on some street corner at 3 A.M. Moreover, when the public
scrutiny of such a shooting begins, it will almost always come knocking on the door of the police academy
first, to determine exactly how that individual was educated and trained to make such a determination.
There is tremendous public concern and relentless governmental and civilian oversight in a free society
about the issues of power, the use of force, and the equal application of these principles.There should
be! The authority to use force in the line of duty is one of the most controversial components of police
work, and it probably always will be. Justifiable use of force by the police always initiates great public
interest. Questionable use of force by a police officer can have tragic consequences for all the individuals
involved as well as a community, a city, and a nation.
Therefore, police departments must act quickly and decisively to take proactive measures to prevent such
situations from occurring and to effectively defend against them when they do occur. Only through the
judicious use of force will the community’s confidence in a police department be sustained. Only then will
the necessary bond between the police and the community they serve be strong. Community concerns over
questionable police shootings in St. Petersburg, Florida; Miami, Florida; New York City; Cincinnati, Ohio;
and most every other major city at one time or another can attest to this.
TRAINING IN THE APPLICATION OF FORCE
Due to the social complexity involved in the police use of force, resolving a simple street dispute, one of
the core functions of a police officer, runs the potential of becoming a cultural, social, and political issue.
For example, a uniformed police officer called to the scene of a public disturbance becomes a visible
representation of the government. Depending on the actions of the combatants, an officer may decide to
mediate the dispute at the scene and take no further formal action. Conversely, an officer may decide to
classify that dispute as an assault or disorderly conduct and arrest the individuals involved. To simply
assume that the relative power and influence of the individuals involved in the dispute are not a factor in
such a determination would be an oversimplification. Power and the use of force and the implications these
issues have for the perception of fairness and justice in a society are impossible to overstate. They are,
therefore, absolutely critical to the education and training of a young police officer.
In fact, the Community Relations Service of the U.S. Department of Justice maintains that “Training can
have a significant impact on all aspects of police service delivery and is of critical importance in the control
of police-community violence.”
Teaching Policy Guidelines
The reality persists that, in a free society, the sometimes-abstract notions of
power and government are only as fair and judicious as the individual police
officer who applies them in his or her dayto-day interactions. Over the years,
various administrative, policy, procedural, legal, and educational strategies have
been employed in an attempt to manage the use of force by police officers. Police
departments publish administrative policies and procedures, legal opinions,
training memorandums, and other forms of written directives specifically
directed toward controlling the use of force. Exactly how restrictive they are,
however, is a product of the philosophy of the local chief of police and the
community the police serve.
Guidance on the parameters involved in the police use of force can be found at
many levels. On the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the
issue of the police use of force and ruled that the shooting of unarmed, fleeing
felons actually violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
(Tennessee v. Garner, 1985).
A U.S. Supreme Court decision has also made it much less difficult for a citizen to
file a lawsuit and ultimately collect damages as a result of a police use of force
action (Monell v. Department of Social Services, 1979). Yet, many law
enforcement agencies continue to allow the use of force to apprehend a fleeing
felon who is armed with a deadly weapon and has committed a serious crime. In
fact, only four state legislatures took action to change their respective use of force
statutes in the five-year period that followed the Tennessee v. Garner ruling (Fyfe
and Walker, 1990).
Additionally, some of the more progressive departments, particularly big-city
police departments, train their members to much more restrictive standards in
the use of deadly force. More restrictive standards that are strongly governed by
state law, and even further constrained by the stipulations of the Standards of the
Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation, elaborate both department
policy and extensive education and training curriculums.
In New York State, Article 35.05 of the New York State Penal Law states that
force is justifiable and is not criminal when these situations exist:
•
•
• When force is required or authorized by law or by judicial decree or is
performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of the public servant’s
official duties or functions
• When it is necessary in time of emergency to avoid imminent public or
private injury and it clearly outweighs the criminal conduct involved
New York City police officers, for example, are trained in the requirements of
Article 35 of the New York State Penal Code. But, they are also held accountable
to, and trained in, the more restrictive departmental policy. In this regard, the
New York City Police Department policy clearly states:
•
• The minimum amount of force will be used that is consistent with the
accomplishment of a lawful mission. Firearms are to be used as a last resort,
and then only to protect life.
• Firing of warning shots is prohibited.
• Discharging a firearm to summon assistance is prohibited.
• Discharging a firearm from or at a moving vehicle is prohibited, unless the
occupants are using deadly physical force against an officer or another vehicle.
• Discharging a firearm at dogs or other animals is prohibited unless there is
no other reasonable means to eliminate the threat.
• Firearms shall not be cocked, double action at all times.
•
• Deadly physical force shall not be used against another unless officers must
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
protect themselves or another from imminent death or serious physical injury.
• Some warning (such as a verbal command, “Police! Don’t Move!”) must be
given, where feasible.
• Deadly physical force shall not be used against a fleeing felon who presents
no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to others.
• Deadly physical force shall not be used in defense of property.
• Deadly physical force shall not be used when doing so will endanger innocent
persons.
These are all typical examples found in New York City departmental policy
statements that are much more restrictive than federal or state law, and they
must be comprehensively covered in the police academy training curriculum.
This is the case because regardless of case law, state statutes, or policy directives,
police officer behavior, especially behavior resulting from a split-second decision
about the use of force, is instinctive. Instinctive behavior is best controlled
through the repetition of training and a firm understanding of tactical awareness,
not through written directives.
It is also important to note that the legal precedent exists to expect that the
training provided to police officers effectively integrates all departmental
responsibilities, even those that may be mandated under directives or policies
other than the deadly force policy, such as the vehicle pursuit policy (Alpert and
Fridell, 1992). To best provide such a comprehensive and integrated approach to
use of force training, the following topics should be included in a core
curriculum:
BASIC FIREARMS CURRICULUM
Roll Call Inspection
Basic Firearms Safety
Compliance Continuum
Shooting Fundamentals
Malfunction Clearing Drills
Department Policy on Use of Force
Live Fire Range Exercises
Live Fire (Approximately 500 Rounds)
Shooting from Cover/Concealment
Cleaning and Maintaining Firearms
Introduction to Long Guns
Firearms Qualifications
Total = Approximately 80 Hours of Instruction
Officer Safety and Survival
Mass Reflexive Response
Dog Encounters
Off-Duty Incidents
I.D. of Plainclothes Officers
Tactical Reloading
Firearms Simulator
Exertion Course
Postshooting Tactics
Weapon Retention
Unintentional Discharges
Judgment Exercises
Teaching the Compliance Continuum
Most people think they know about the police use of force because they see it
every day on television and in the movies. On television, police officers fight with
suspects, engage in wild high-speed vehicle pursuits, and get involved in shootouts on a daily basis. The popular media, however, never has to follow through
and show the significant implications for all involved.
In the real world, however, preparing a new police officer for the potential use of
force is a much more important and intricate process. In regard to the use of
force, especially deadly force, the education and training of police officers must
be based on a progressive and comprehensive continuum of use of force options.
The training to gain compliance from a suspect must begin with police presence
and run the full spectrum of force options available, depending on the level of
threat a police officer is faced with. Critically related issues, such as the effective
use of verbal commands, the principles of cover and concealment or isolation and
containment, and the tactical advantage, must be integrated into all aspects of
use of force training.
In short, through their training, police officers must “prepare for the worst and
hope for the best.” Due to the complex issues surrounding the use of force and
firearms, both the conceptual aspects of education and the perceptual
components of training are unequivocally necessary. The essentially intellectual
lessons of placing the use of force in a proper social context and knowing when to
use force are important. Naturally, the hands-on repetition of the
actual marksmanship involved in how to use force is equally required.
Accordingly, most comprehensive police curriculums begin with a detailed
discussion of the compliance continuum and the progression of force options.
The compliance continuum simply provides for a discussion of six
progressive steps to gain compliance. These steps include professional presence,
verbal communication, unarmed open-hand or hand-to-hand tactics, nonimpact
weapons, impact weapons, and finally, as a last resort, deadly physical force.
Interestingly enough, teaching the use of force this way also teaches young
officers that the level of force utilized by a police officer is dictated by the actions
of the citizen, not the officer. This is a critically important distinction often lost in
public debate about the police use of force. Police officers are actually taught that
they are allowed to react to the threat they are confronted with byresponding
with the appropriate level of force. This approach to training is a great
complement to the fundamental premise of American police officer training, not
to mention the bravery and skill of the officers who must implement it in the face
of physical danger.
The first step that an officer is taught in order to gain compliance with a lawful
request is to utilize their professional presence. In most cases, this is
convincing enough for citizens to comply. If a police officer arrives on the scene
of a public disturbance and projects a sense of competency and confidence
through personal demeanor, most people in a proper state of mind will not
challenge the commands of the officer. The vast majority of community members
bring with them an understanding of the legal authority a uniformed police
officer represents, and most also understand that a request made by a police
officer can be forcibly enforced, if necessary.
The overwhelming majority of citizen interactions can be effectively resolved by
professional presence and effective communication by an officer. In some cases,
however, the individuals involved in a dispute are emotionally involved and
angry. In such situations, the mere presence of a uniformed police officer may not
immediately bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
In such cases, police officers are instructed and taught to utilize effective verbal
commands. As discussed in Chapter Six on the behavioral sciences, effective
communication skills are critical to an officer’s ability to be effective.
Recently the Christopher Commission in Los Angeles looked at police recruit
academy training, field training, and in-service training and agreed. In its report,
the Christopher Commission stated, “In each phase of training, additional
emphasis is needed on the use of verbal skills rather than physical force to
control potentially volatile situations and on the development of human
relationship skills to better serve Los Angeles’s increasingly diverse population”
(Christopher Commission Report, 1991).
Clear and compelling verbal commands have proven to be effective for everything
from a police–citizen encounter on a street corner to a potentially explosive
hostage situation. Effective communication takes time, but time will almost
always work to the advantage of a peaceful resolution. Clear verbal commands
requesting compliance, along with an occasional appeal to reason, can convince
emotionally disturbed individuals to comply with the police. In this regard, police
officers must be taught to explain to suspects, whenever possible, what will
happen to them when and if they surrender. Time and time again, experienced
police officers have realized that communicating with people and allowing them a
way out of a confrontation that also allows them to retain their dignity can diffuse
a potentially violent situation. This is especially true in a street situation where
the police confront a suspect in front of other people.
In some cases, however, professional presence and verbal commands will not be
enough to gain compliance from a highly emotional suspect. From a police
officer’s and a community’s perspective, these are potentially very dangerous
encounters. Any time a police officer has to use force, the social balance and
peace are shattered, and society as a whole loses something. Therefore,
experienced police officers are often reluctant to get to the point where they have
to actually put their hands on a suspect. As discussed in Chapter Seven on
physical training and tactics, because police officers carry firearms, any physical
encounter is dangerous. All police officers carry guns, and any hand-to-hand
struggle puts them in an extremely complicated situation because they have to
defend themselves and also defend against a suspect taking their weapon and
using it against them. To make matters worse, officers never know precisely
whom they are dealing with in a street encounter and could conceivably run into
a highly trained fighter. No good can come from this, and experienced officers
know that.
Police officers are trained to actually put their hands on a suspect only when it is
immediately necessary for safety reasons or when they are reasonably sure that
their strength and skills are sufficient to handle the possible responses. Realizing
the inherent danger involved with any hand-to-hand confrontation, and as a
result of much thought and research into the matter of nonimpact weapons for
American police, most officers are armed with effective alternatives to force.
The most popular nonimpact weapon available to American law enforcement
is oleoresin capsicum cayenne pepper spray (O.C. spray). O.C. spray can
be used when physical force is required to protect the officer, another person, or
even the suspect but only when there is no threat of immediate physical danger.
O.C. spray, when used properly, can be sprayed at the eyes of a suspect to distract
him or her long enough for police to move in.
O.C. spray does, however, have its limitations. It is not 100 percent effective
against everybody, and it does require certain tactical considerations to be
effective. Factors such as the physical area involved in the scene and even the
wind direction should be considered in the use of O.C. spray. It has also been
shown to be effective against dangerous dogs and other animals to deter an attack
or to prevent injury.
Finally, many police departments also provide their officers with access to
additional force options such as electronic stun devices, high-pressure water fire
extinguishers, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and capture nets. All are
appropriate alternatives to the use of physical force in the right situations, and all
are extensively utilized to avoid physical confrontations with the public.
As the force progression moves up in response to the actions of a suspect, impact
weapons are an option to gain control of a person and a scene. The most popular
of the impact weapons is the straight baton. The straight baton is carried by
police officers on patrol and is an important option available to them. A great
deal of training is provided to officers before they are qualified to carry the baton
because the baton is capable of causing deadly physical force. But, like most
police weapons, the baton is specifically designed for less lethal force.
The final and most serious step in the compliance continuum is the use of deadly
physical force. Deadly physical force in a free society, no matter what the method,
is only to be used as a last resort when an officer or another person is in
immediate danger of serious physical injury or death and any other reasonable
means to stop the aggressor will not work. Preparing for such an eventuality
requires many components of training, and the circumstances must be
comprehensive and compelling.
Teaching Officer Safety and Survival
As police officers learn the actual skills of firearms marksmanship, they should
also be taught the basic tactical considerations often associated with police
gunfights because most actual police gun-fights are not especially reflective of the
skills normally learned by target practice. Police gunfights occur very quickly,
they are over in approximately two seconds, they occur in very close quarters, and
they rarely involve the skills of aiming through the barrel sights and slowly
squeezing the trigger. More often, they are exceptionally quick and close, and the
officer’s behavior is purely instinctive. That is why the repetition experienced
during target shooting remains critical but must be associated with
effective tactical awareness.
Police officers must master the basic lessons of tactical awareness by learning to
communicate with their partner before they arrive on a scene and agreeing to a
tactical plan. Regular partners who work together every day often get very
comfortable with their respective roles in tactical plans, but officers who are
working together for the first time should take the time to discuss tactical
considerations.
For example, officers should be taught to discuss and agree in advance on these
important tactical considerations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
• How they will park the radio car at the scene so it provides the best possible
cover and concealment
• Who will give the verbal commands at the scene (if both officers shout
commands at a suspect, it can get confusing and contradictory)
• What possible cover and concealment items are available in a particular
sector
• What the officers will do if there are multiple suspects, and what they will do
if the suspects flee in different directions when they approach
• Who will call for backup if it’s needed
• Whether there are any circumstances when two partners will split up in
pursuit of multiple fleeing suspects
•
•
•
•
•
• What type of firearm each officer carries and how to work out safety and
other important factors
• What type of long gun is in the trunk of the radio car, and where the extra
ammunition is
• What code word can be utilized if one officer spots a gun and wants to warn
another officer without yelling “He’s got a gun”
• Whether there have been other calls for service at the same location, and
what the call history of that location is
• Whether there are any active warrants or a protection order in effect for
violent behavior for someone living at that location
Training police officers to establish and communicate such a tactical plan with
their partners in advance can provide significant tactical advantages and
ultimately serve to de-escalate some law enforcement encounters. These tactical
advantages will then serve to control the initial decisions made at a scene and can
ultimately limit the escalation of force in any given situation by leaving as many
options open as possible.
Tactical awareness and preventive tactics specifically designed to minimize the
use of force by the police can be applied to many situations normally encountered
by the police. For example, tactical awareness has often been applied to the area
of high-speed vehicle pursuits. High-speed vehicle pursuits, by their very nature,
present a multitude of legal, procedural, tactical, officer safety, and even
philosophical dilemmas for the police. Perhaps the essence of this problem lies in
the realization that the pursuit of wanted suspects unlawfully fleeing from the
police is a very emotional issue to police officers. Many police officers consider a
fleeing suspect to be not only a violation of the law but also an insult to them
personally and to the profession.
But the issue of police vehicle pursuits is also an emotional issue for the
community because high-speed police pursuits, by their very nature, are
dangerous. The decision to become involved in a high-speed vehicle pursuit is
potentially a deadly force decision. Clearly, the risk of serious injury to the
officers involved, the suspects involved, and even innocent citizens in the path of
a pursuit makes it such.
On the one hand, the police officers have a sworn obligation to apprehend
criminals. However, criminals do not always want to peacefully surrender to the
police and go to jail. On the other hand, citizens have a reasonable expectation to
be safe in the streets and in their private vehicles—safe from criminals as well as
safe from police officers who may be recklessly pursuing criminals.
As the overall practice of the police engaging in vehicle pursuits has gained more
and more legal notoriety by classifying vehicles as potential deadly force
instruments, training has once again emerged as the primary target of inquiry
(O’Keefe, 1990; Alpert and Fridell, 1992). Effective policy guidance and
proactive tactical awareness training in this area are absolutely essential. In fact,
results of current police litigation stress that courts look not only to the existence
of training but also to its sufficiency. The findings in cases such as City
of Canton v. Harris (1989) demonstrate that the management of police pursuit
risks requires detailed analysis of the essential elements of the pursuit. Due to
such developments, police academies are now well advised to teach the
appropriate mandates governing police vehicle pursuits under the title of “deadly
force training.”
Teaching Marksmanship
There is no replacement or shortcut to the necessity of teaching proper police
marksmanship! The mechanics of how to safely handle, point, fire, and maintain
a firearm remain essential. Although the actual instructional method of standing
on the line at the firing range and slowly squeezing off rounds is somewhat
artificial and not related to most actual gunfights on the street, it is still effective
in teaching proper marksmanship. At some point, police recruits must practice at
a live fire range. Their hands-on instruction should cover such topics as the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Firearms safety
• Shooting fundamentals
• Ammunition
• Nomenclature
• Clearing of pistol malfunctions, the use of sights and target acquisition, and
proper breathing techniques
• Unintentional discharges
• Live fire exercises with revolvers, pistols, and assorted long guns
• General firearms proficiency
• Firearms clearing drills
• Actual firearms qualification
Many small police departments around the country might struggle with such
requirements. Live fire exercises can be time-consuming, very expensive,
logistically awkward, and potentially dangerous, and they require facilities not
immediately available to every law enforcement agency in the country. But they
are absolutely mandatory and should receive a training commitment of at least
ten firearms range days involving hundreds of rounds fired by each and every
recruit. Simply lecturing a recruit on the practical application of using a firearm
will no more produce a police officer than lecturing a young person on the
application of ballet dancing will produce a professional ballet dancer. It just
doesn’t work that way.
Teaching Firearms Judgment
While teaching the mechanics of firearms marksmanship has essentially remained the same over the years,
teaching the related judgment issues of when to use force has advanced rapidly. It is in teaching judgment
in firearms training that significant contributions to the use of force issue can be realized. Noteworthy
progress in controlling the police use of force can be, and has been, made through this aspect of law
enforcement training.
Progressive police agencies are currently utilizing laser-guided scenario-based technology to teach
judgment, paint ball weapons to illustrate principles of cover and concealment, actual tactical villages to
demonstrate principles of tactical awareness, and scenario-based debriefings to discuss actual police
shootings. Such advancements in technology and instructional methodologies have facilitated significant
progress in the area of law enforcement use of force training. These changes in training, more than any
other strategy of controlling the use of force, offer an opportunity for real progress. Negative press
clippings, increased exposure to civil and/or criminal liability, additional departmental policy statements,
community outrage, and even U.S. Supreme Court decisions simply do not help the problem. However,
building a more comprehensive training experience that utilizes emerging technology and re-creates actual
street conditions designed to prepare law enforcement officers to “prepare for the worst and hope for the
best” will. Education and training, not written directives that police officers rarely even read, change
instinctive police behavior.
Teaching Logic versus Emotion
Another effective strategy for teaching the effective use of force to police officers is to discuss the
difference between logic and emotion. Human beings in general, and especially police officers, make their
best decisions when their mind is clear and they are working from a logical perspective. However, when an
individual becomes personally involved in a high-stress situation and emotions run high, these emotions
can sometimes cloud judgment and hinder a person from making sound choices. Emotions can work to
hinder the judgment process, and they are almost always involved in a police use of force decision. Imagine
the emotions involved when an individual pulls out a loaded firearm and points it at a police officer or
another person. Imagine the emotions involved when police officers are involved in a high-speed vehicle
pursuit for a sustained period of time and finally get their hands on a fleeing suspect. Imaging how bad it
looks for an individual officer, as well as an entire police department, when an emotional overreaction is
captured on videotape and played on the evening news.
Behavior that may seem appropriate at the time to an emotionally charged person appears as a blatant
overreaction in retrospect when the emotions go away. This is especially true for a police officer. Since
emotions will almost always run high in a use of force situation, it is important that officers are made aware
of this limitation through the training process and learn to factor it into their decision-making process.
While emotions can never be completely removed from a police officer’s reactions, recognizing them can
be an important step toward controlling them and not allowing them to become a factor in the decisionmaking process. Weeks later, when a grand jury reviews the facts of a case and emotions are factored out of
the equation, emotional decisions can appear as over-reactions and, thus, unjustified use of force.
Teaching Knowledge Integration
Once again, it is important to acknowledge that police science is an applied discipline. Therefore, at some
point, it is necessary to utilize an instructional methodology that requires the student officers to
demonstrate the ability to integrate their use of force knowledge and apply it to the street. Training police
officers in a tactical house or a tactical village is an excellent way to meet this requirement. However, any
type of location where actual interdisciplinary scenarios can be provided, the physical and emotional
realities of patrol can be replicated, and the student officers’ reactions can be assessed in use of force
situations will do. Some small police departments simply utilize an isolated street corner in the community,
secure the perimeters, and run such role plays at that location. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.)
Academy, the Houston Police Department, and the New York City Police Department have tactical villages
that are excellent for such a purpose.
In any case, it is valuable for the student officers to actually have an opportunity to apply classroom
learning to everything from receiving an actual call for service through using the various tactical plans and
marksmanship learned for the use of force. During the role plays, it is fairly easy to re-create the stress
normally associated with taking police action, and how the student officers handle the stress can be
evaluated in the important area of knowledge integration. Repetition of the scenarios will be required and
mistakes will be made, so plenty of time should be allocated for interdisciplinary debriefings.
CONCLUSION
According to research conducted by the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund, more than 12,500 law enforcement officers have been killed in
the line of duty in the history of the United States (Clark, 1992). The F.B.I.
reports that 3,280 law enforcement officers were killed between 1973 and 1994,
including 1,945 who were killed feloniously (F.B.I., 1971–1994, 1992). The
threat to officers is real, and the training director has no more important
responsibility than to provide for officer safety and survival through effective
education and training.
There is a great deal a professional law enforcement agency can do to
administratively manage the use of force in its agency, but the cornerstone of
keeping the officers safe will always reside in the way they are educated and
trained. Effective recruitment and selection, excellent and comprehensive
education and training, the use of force monitoring programs and early warning
systems, and strict investigation and accountability can all collectively contribute
to the management of the use of force issue in American policing. But no matter
how these factors are listed, the cornerstone of officer safety and survival is
excellent education and training.
By utilizing the most current instructional materials, methods, and technology,
police officers can indeed be restrained yet be decisive and safe in the application
of force. With so much at stake, it simply must be realized that there are no
shortcuts to a professional firearms educational process and no excuse for a
police academy to not provide such a service.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment