units. We take off wedding rings because you may be housed in an area where someone is willing to bite your finger off for something shiny.
Consistently, in booking, some of the worst fights we have are with first-time offenders who feel that they aren’t “real criminals” and should be dealt with differently. They stand up for rights that not only do they not have, but for rights that we are prohibited by policy to extend.
This is often compounded by the officer’s indifference. I almost wrote “seeming indifference” but in many of the day-to-day calls, the indifference is real: going to jail may be the most traumatic experience of your life, but I’ve booked, as a corrections officer, over sixty arrests in one night. I won’t be as excited as you are, I guarantee it.
If neither cooperation nor compliance is an option, the officer must take control. This is sometimes referred to as ‘forcing compliance’ but I am trying to keep the language clear.
Most of this book is about the nuances of how an officer gains control. ‘The least force necessary to…’ In general, control is considered established when the threat is handcuffed or placed in a cell—restrained or contained, respectively. Restraints limit the threat’s means; containment limits his opportunity.
Force is never to be used for punishment. Legally and ethically, the duty of an officer is to bring the threat to the justice system for his guilt to be determined and for the courts to set punishment. Punishment is not the officer’s job.
There is another, deeper reason that experienced officers come to understand—a very practical reason why force is never to be used as punishment completely separate from theories of justice or ethics. We will discuss that insight in section 1.9, “Scaling Force.”
Force is always used on a person and that person is called the Threat. There are several good reasons for that word. First and foremost, it is a reminder that it is the person’s actions and capabilities that justify force. Not appearance, not smell, not history (though history can enter the equation). The Threat’s ability to harm, to escape, sometimes just to sit there, is what justifies force.
In order to be an “immediate threat” the Threat must have Intent, Means, and Opportunity. And, the officer must be able to explain how he knew it.
Intent simply means that the Threat wanted to do something bad. Pointing a gun indicates Intent. Yelling, “I’m gonna kill that bitch!” indicates Intent. Balling up a fist indicates Intent. Going limp or just sitting when ordered to leave indicates Intent.
Just as a homeowner can order you to leave his house, a business owner or event organizer can ask the police to order you to leave. In most jurisdictions, you must comply when an officer asks for ID. When Immigration asks to see your passport, you do not have the right to refuse. These are all lawful orders.
A citizen does not have any right to refuse a lawful order. Officers can and, in some cases, will be required to use force to ensure the order is followed.
Intent for what? To harm someone, including the officer, or a third party or for the threat to harm him- or herself. Or to break any law. Or to disobey a lawful order.
The Threat must also have Means. The officer needs to be able to explain why he reasonably believed that the Threat had what he needed to carry out his Intent. If a ninety-year-old woman struggling with a walker snarls, “I’m gonna tear your head off and shit down your neck,” the words indicate some pretty serious Intent, but she probably lacks the Means. Tearing off a head is pretty difficult.
The third piece is Opportunity. The Threat must be able to reach you with the Means. If someone who has a gun and hates your guts is on another continent, he can’t reach you. You can’t justify nuking him. This comes up quite often in jail, where a threat in a cell screams threats at the officers. Locked in a cell, he lacks Opportunity and can’t be treated as an immediate threat—and it is unprofessional to open the cell and give him the Opportunity.
In the officer’s arsenal, handcuffs are meant to eliminate or limit Means; cells limit Opportunity.
What the officer sees, the Intent, Means, and Opportunity inherent in a specific threat at a specific time, establishes a level of resistance. The level of resistance is the primary factor in the officer’s decision of what level of force to use.
In order to be compliant, a person must actually comply. If an officer lawfully orders someone to leave the premises and the person does not, the person is NOT complying. Even if he says, “Just a minute.” Even if he yells, “Don’t touch me. I am complying!” Actions matter, not words. Failure to comply is static resistance.
We had an arrestee down and he was biting, kicking, and trying to punch and scratch. The whole time he was yelling, “I’m not resisting! Police brutality!” One of the witnesses (fortunately only one) completely disregarded what she saw and reported what she heard.
Levels of force and levels of resistance have different names in different agencies. Don’t get hung up on names.
Levels of resistance are scaled as None, Verbal, Static, Active, Ominous, and Lethal.
None. A person not breaking any laws, not harming any person or thing and obeying any instructions from the officers is showing no resistance. No force, therefore, is necessary to stop the person from doing something bad or to make the person do something necessary. The person is compliant, even cooperative.
Verbal. In an incident of verbal resistance, the threat is doing what he needs to do—desisting from harm or obeying an order—but is being verbally abusive about it. It is common for low-level criminals to attempt to save face by threatening or insulting the officers. Most are experienced at getting arrested; they know our policy and can act tough with nearly complete confidence in their safety.
Some threats hope for a lawsuit in their favor. A desire for publicity will lead some to attempt to provoke officers into an unjustified use of force.
A local photographer told me she had attended classes run by a protest group specifically on how to bait officers into making a motion that would look like a strike on camera. For example, one protester would pretend to fling a cup of liquid at the officer. The cup would be empty, but when the officer’s hand flinched up to protect his face, a photographer would be waiting at an angle such that the motion would look like a strike.
In general, force is not justified against a threat only exhibiting verbal resistance. This is not true in a correctional setting. In jails and prisons, the staff is routinely outnumbered by dozens and sometimes more than a hundred to one. The laws have recognized that under these conditions and with the necessity to maintain order in a population that is far more violent than the norm, the staff cannot safely allow anyone to incite others. Verbal resistance in a correctional institution, especially when viewed as an attempt to incite other inmates to action or show or gain leadership status with the inmates can and usually will be met with force.
Static. A threat refusing to comply with lawful orders, even if doing no harm, is exhibiting static resistance. Static resistance authorizes pain-compliance techniques. (See section 1.6, “The Force Continuum.”)
As
