There go those violent cops again...

"A person who is not inwardly prepared for the use of violence against him is always weaker than the person committing the violence." 

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago chp 1, 'Arrest'

If you've been paying attention to the news, the new buzz word around policing and the law enforcement profession is "police violence".  Even the United Nations is getting in on the discussion surrounding use of force in the US, with a heavy focus on the death of Keenan Anderson in Los Angeles, and murder of Tyre Nichols in Memphis.

Notice the terms I used.

Keenan Anderson was involved in a traffic crash, fled on foot, attempted to enter another vehicle, and was initially compliant with responding officers.  After a short while he suddenly gets up and runs off, and around this same time officers made the determination that he was at fault for the accident.  I watched the BWC footage and I could easily articulate the aspects of gross intoxication (body movements, speech, actions, etc.), so I'd imagine the officers on scene could as well.  After struggling with officers, not following verbal commands, and resisting, a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was used, aka a taser.

Over 4 hours later Mr. Anderson died of cardiac arrest (last reported at the time of my authoring this) and I have not been able to find a complete toxicology report but there was cannabinoids and cocaine metabolites in his system, but to what degree has not been stated.  Whether that contributed (IMO it did) to his altered mental state or not, or to what degree, hasn't been released yet.  It only shows there was at least some impairment during the crash and interaction with police.

However when it is compared to the murder of George Floyd or Tyre Nichols as another example of police violence, those doing the comparison are being disingenuous to the deaths of those men as actual victims of "police violence".

Mr. Nichols was a modern day Rodney King that ended tragically.  What took place is unwarranted and unjustified violence and it will hopefully land several individuals in jail for extended periods of time.

Mr. Anderson, at least at this time I feel, is an issue of police using a CEW to subdue a combative individual who is refusing to submit to arrest (or at minimum lawful detention).  Not a murder with a taser (that somehow killed him hours upon hours later).

While both situations left families reeling from the loss of a loved one, one is an example of "police violence" and the other is an example of a use of force.  I know what some reading are thinking, it is the "yes, but" statement that is rolling around in your head right now.

"Yes, but the use of force is a violent act."

And I'll agree, but that is why most (if not all) departments in the US work on a force continuum.  What that means is as the level of resistance displayed or presented by someone that is getting arrested increases, the level of force can increase as well.

HOWEVER....

As that level of resistance decreases, the level of force MUST decrease as well.

That means there is a proportional aspect to a cop being able to use force.  If someone is just refusing to listen, that doesn't mean a cop can skin that smoke wagon and go to work.  Even the act of running away has it's limitations based on the crime committed, circumstances known at the time the suspect fled, and other factors (think of the murder of Scott Walker several years ago).

That proportional aspect, or ratio, doesn't mean the cops are limited to what is presented.  SCOTUS case law allows for cops to use a degree of force higher, but it must be proportional AND the cop must be able to articulate the force.  Meaning if someone is blading their stance, balling their fists, and verbally threatening to punch me, I don't need to wait to see them swing. 

I can articulate striking them first.

This is also why we read about "unarmed" individuals being killed by cops, and many times it is with replica guns, items that look like a weapon, or in tragic cases like Stephon Clark people are killed for pointing a cell phone like a firearm and walking towards officers. (There is full video out there)

Some might be reading this and expecting me to say something simple like "well, don't resist!"

And in theory that's a simple and true fix to the situation, but it also isn't that simple either.  There is an individual's fear of incarceration (or returning to it), or just the simple fear of being caught.

I'll throw this out here, and probably flesh it out at another time, but I feel there is fear that is propagated by social media, the mainstream media, and talking heads that the police are prone to violence and quick to pull a trigger.  Ask any cop that has done a mediocre amount of proactive work and we ALL have stories of people acting strange simply because they think we are going to kill them.  While it might sound funny, it also means we are dealing with someone exhibiting out-of-the-norm nervous behaviors that can get any cop that is observant enough down a mental path of "oh shit, this is about to go sideways".  Which once again sets up the entire situation for failure.

But I digress...

Cops have, and I feel should always have, the monopoly on violence in an encounter.  For the most part (more on that shortly) we are better trained, equipped, and incentivised to utilize force (violence) in a lawful manner.  Violent criminals have no code, no potential higher legal ramifications, or fiscal incentive to use force lawfully; which is why I feel police should maintain that hold on it.

However a use of force report, which many departments are requiring, can document something as mundane as handcuffing a suspect up to and including deadly force.  When the Chicago police officer encountered an armed Adam Toledo in the alley and discharged his weapon, there was a use of force completed.  Some places when you handcuff a subject for an arrest, they require the same report to be completed.  I don't feel every arrest encounter should warrant the completion of a use of force report.  Like with Officer Stillman, it was brought up in the news that he had TWELVE reported uses of force prior to the fatal encounter in the alley with Toledo.

[COLLECTIVE GASP]

It was never clarified what force was previously used, but if it was anything like my record, it was probably 12 force reports done over several hundred arrests.

AKA...a small percentage of encounters ended in a reportable use of force.

However, they both show up the same and both would fall under the use of "police violence".  While I agree shooting someone is in and of itself an act of violence, I fail to see where handcuffing meets that same level of "violence", let alone a lawful use of deadly force.  

Either way, the use of violence, and an officer's preparedness to use it, gives the upper hand to the officer so that when a threat of any kind is presented, that reactionary gap is (hopefully) decreased and an officer can utilize force in a manner consistent with law and department policy to protect themselves, civilians, other officers, and yes even the subject presenting the threat.  Hence my use of the quote by Solzhenitsyn.

Authors Jack Hoban and Bruce Gourlie in their book The Ethical Protector: Police Ethics, Tactics, and Techniques talk in depth (for such a short read) about the whole protector picture of an officer, but highlight the use of force as something that should be used ethically.

What happened with Mr. Nichols does not fall within that category, however what happened with Mr. Anderson I feel does.  Once the fight was over and the officers had control of Mr. Anderson, the force use stopped.  There was no violence wrought on Mr. Anderson like there was on Mr. Nichols.  That is a part of being an ethical officer, we have an obligation to protect the lives of those we are arresting. 

(Mind you we don't need to respect the act that led to the interaction....don't get it twisted!)

During the protests of 2020 there was an individual arrested for spitting in the face of an officer.  A video went viral and many claimed the arrest was violent and excessive, and I made a series of tweets about it.  What many failed to observe is the officer utilized something called "violence of action".  That simply means that when taking action the force should be quick, concise, and overwhelming.  When an officer is able to articulate a subject is about to flee, pull a gun, or attempt to fight prior to the action by the subject being taken, that allows an officer to act.  When they act they should do so immediately, quickly, and in a manner that (essentially) shocks the subject and allows for a quick arrest or detention.

Many academies teach to get inside someone's head in regards to a situation where force is being used, to disrupt the subject's thinking and allow an officer to more easily control and arrest a subject.  Essentially what you are doing is disrupting their OODA loop, a theory brought forth by Air Force Colonel John Boyd.  The more cycles through Observe, Orient, Decide, Act an individual can make, the further in front of their opponent they can safely be.  When that cycle is hijacked or disrupted (a quick, decisive act) the better chance of a favorable outcome for their opponent.

If I think I need to use force, I want to get into someone's brain space faster than they realize so by the time they do realize what's happening, they are in cuffs and the situation is under control.  Again, it's protecting myself AND them.

 

While many academies teach and train these theories and such, very few incorporate them together as a unit (if at all, or done poorly).  Hoban and Gourlie pointed this out and I tend to agree, new officers know the law, policy, and use of force continuum, but very few know how to put them all together in a scenario.  Let alone articulate it on paper or how to properly escalate/de-escalate force use in a given situation.

Back to our spitting protester...

The video might appear bad, and many thought it was, but you can tell the woman was completely taken by surprise, overwhelmed, and placed into custody without further incident.  So the officer's use of "police violence" disrupted her OODA loop, stopped the assault on the officer, and safely placed her into custody.

I said it years ago, police use of force never looks pretty and I don't think it ever will.  While I don't think we, under the current set of national circumstances (emboldened criminals and easy-to-point-fingers exempt rank members and DAs), will be able to reduce the total number of officer use of force situations, having a better understanding of what "police violence" really and truly is, and what it isn't, is a start.  Being able to point to a situation and say it's bad as a profession, or as a citizen, while pointing to situations where force was used appropriately, will foster better dialogue and hopefully a better understanding.  Knowing what is lawful, illegal, or (as I've heard stated) the lawful but awful situations will bring clarity and lower tempers when something that is bad does happen (and we all know it unfortunately will).

Who knows, maybe one day when I go to arrest someone I'll be able to toss them my cuffs and they'll just put them on for me and we will all be hunky-dory.  

But for now I'm going to try to stay as up to date on my case law, department policies, and training on "police violence" as I can so I can try to protect my life, my partner's life, those around me, and yes, even the criminal that is about to take a ride to jail.