The Use of Force Part 3 - Empty hands (Physical Force)

    Apparently, I was remiss. I published Tuesday's column on Facebook and never did it here. If you're following me here, I apologize. If you saw Tuesday's column on Facebook, let me know what you thought of it.

    We continue with Part 3 of the series on Force in Law enforcement: The Use of Force: Empty Hands (Physical Force)   

    One of my former C.O's put it best. "If you lay hands on someone, you better be ready to make an arrest".  

    This was long before the current fashion of placing someone in handcuffs "for your safety and mine". In my opinion, there is no potential risk or aspect of protection for a potential suspect that is alleviated by the use of restraints. If an officer feels a suspect takes action that poses a risk to officer safety that they can verbalize, that's already a criminal act. Therefore, the application of any restraint in the event that the suspect MIGHT commit an assault against the officer is not warranted.

    It is my personal opinion that once you place an individual in handcuffs, it is already tantamount to an arrest, as in "arresting freedom of movement". It has been argued that even placing a person in a police vehicle from which they cannot exit on their own can be a form of restricting the individual's freedom of movement and in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Another common tactic is to continue the use of physical restraint after the suspect is handcuffed and in custody. As I have specified, the officer must de-escalate the level of force in response to the situation. Once a suspect is handcuffed, physical and verbal control of the suspect is necessary to take the suspect into custody. If continued physical force is necessary, a take down and pin may be necessary until the suspect is manageable.

    However, there are vulnerable areas of the body that when force is applied pose a safety risk to the suspect. The neck and head are primarily considered "red zones"; areas that more than likely will cause injury to an individual if subjected to even a moderate level of force. At the time of my training, this was the case under the New Jersey curriculum. The training officers were available for our defense if we were ever held accountable for our actions in the field. They specified as long as we were in compliance with out training, we would be assisted by the academy staff. 

    The "knee pin technique", if you can call it that, as used in the Floyd arrest and his subsequent murder was not part of our training. The use of the knee pin was defended by some training personnel during the trial. I disagreed.

    The suspect was already handcuffed and lying on the ground. A handcuffed suspect is of a diminished threat, and the correct response from officers is to prevent the suspect from injuring themselves or others. The suspect cannot be allowed to lie on the ground indefinitely, and kneeling on the suspect, especially in a vulnerable area like the neck, serves no purpose in ending a situation. And in the event a suspect does pose a threat to themselves or others in that position, there are other safer methods to control and cease the behavior that pose little or no health and safety concerns.

    As to the use of physical force: The distinction of empty hands in the use of force is simply the application of force without any other type of tool or weapon. Police officers are taught the various situations when hands on restraint in the course of their duties might be necessary. These include but are not limited to:

• Insuring compliance with a lawful order or command when resistance is encountered.
• Exercise control when escorting a suspect, to prevent escape or resistance.
• To stop a physical conflict or to prevent one.
   
• To cease resistance in the effecting of an arrest

    The use of physical force in other situations may be warranted, but in any use of force situation, the force used must be reasonable, and only to the point of effecting a solution to the situation.

    I cannot stress enough the need for law enforcement and the community to meet halfway. Officers must realize that they have a responsibility to protect the public, and the public has a responsibility to cooperate with the lawful and reasonable functions of law enforcement, especially when they are subject to an investigation. The escalation to violence during an encounter with police has several preventable causes:

• A breakdown in communication: The officer is in charge, on this there is no question. It is the officer's responsibility to make clear the reasons for contact and to make continued progress toward resolution. Failure to control emotions is the primary cause of communication failure. This can happen on either side and will make clear communication virtually impossible. Both the officer and the individual have the responsibility to control their emotions and act in a reasonable and safe manner.
   
• Fear: A motor vehicle stop becomes tense even before the officer makes contact, as the driver will undoubtedly begin to feel fear over the consequences of any violation. It is important to understand that when you are stopped by a police officer, arguing, lying, or other resistance will only make the situation worse.
• The improper use of force: The officer is trained to suppress natural feelings of fear; in fact, when an officer feels this emotion, it is a signal to use extra caution and to continue with the encounter.
  
  In the event an officer does employ what could be considered unreasonable use of force, it is NEVER a good idea to resist. The officer practicing this type of behavior is not going to be interested in your interpretation of your rights, their duty, or the law. Your only alternative is to remain passive, cooperate to the best of your ability, and only protest if you feel your life or personal safety is in danger. It is also important not to anticipate this behavior if it is not being exhibited.
• Prejudicial behavior: Both law enforcement officers and the public can be guilty of this. People of color have been victimized, and understandably members of these communities have cause for suspicion when contacted by police. There is a distrust of police officers in general, and the tendency to question authority is heightened by feelings of persecution.
  
  Police officers are often prone to making assumptions about individuals based on racial and economic factors, starting with appearance. Unfortunately, since officers are in control of contact situations, it is the responsibility of the public first to make every effort not to escalate an already potentially tense situation.

    The days of police officers using routine physical force, such as the stereotypical cop using his nightstick on otherwise innocent individual to "keep the peace" is long gone, regardless of the possibility that officers will resort to unnecessary levels of force, it is still incumbent on the general public to obey the law. That is not to say an innocent person will not be challenged, but by communication, cooperation, and taking a non-confrontational stance in defending one's rights, along with the lawful actions of the officers involved, most situations can and do reach a safe and satisfactory conclusion.