Defining the debate over the use of force

By Sean Van Leeuwen
How law enforcement should use force is a conversation worth having.  However, needlessly risking the lives of law enforcement officers with bad policies and restrictive or ill-advised tactics is a complete non-starter. 
 
As a society, we arm law enforcement because we have made the moral decision that it is permissible to use lethal force to stop armed suspects, whether they are armed with a firearm, edged weapon, are using some other dangerous weapon or force against another person.  No deputy sheriff ever comes to work with the intention of taking a human life. Deputies are trained to protect lives, their own as well as the lives of the public we serve.
 
The United States Supreme Court has defined and reaffirmed the legal standard for the use of any force, lethal or otherwise.  Since 1989 that has been the "objectively reasonable" standard from Graham v. Connor  490 U.S. 386 (1989).  which allows law enforcement to take into account the; "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."  The Supreme Court stated that when analyzing whether that force is "reasonable"  it is to be "judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
 
I previously wrote about the concerted effort by the Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF) to "reengineer" police use of force.  PERF attacked the widely known " 21 foot rule" that deals with suspects armed with edged weapons, and explicitly called on law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to  "eliminate from their policies and training all references to the '21-foot rule' regarding officers who are confronted with a subject armed with an edged weapon."  PERF proposed 30 "principles" in dealing with uses of force by law enforcement, which include ignoring the Supreme Court's standard on evaluating use of force in favor of a standard "beyond" what the top legal minds in the U.S. have endorsed.
 
PERF's "principles" have been widely criticized in law enforcement circles, especially by experts in the use of force by police. We at ALADS received many comments of support from law enforcement line staff and executives following our last blog on the subject.
 
When forced to make split-second, especially life-or-death decisions under stressful situations, deputies rely on their training and what the law allows when using force.  Ultimately, everything we do as cops is about saving lives.  Using deadly force is something all of us aspire to avoid; however, less than lethal options should not be placed in an exalted status which prevents deputies from using necessary force to stop a violent attack or creates a climate of hesitation, doubt and fear of being second-guessed in a deputy's mind so that they fail to act when appropriate. 
 
Less lethal options, be they verbal de-escalation attempts, batons, conducted energy weapons (e.g. Taser), stun bag and baton (ARWEN) rounds, pepper spray and K-9 deployments are certainly options which could be used based on a deputy's individual training and on-scene judgement before employing lethal force. We also know that each has specific deployment requirements and limitations which may make them unavailable in many situations. In some cases, even the most promising less-lethal options have been known to fail in overcoming violent subjects' resistance under field conditions .
 
"Less lethal" options can cost law enforcement officers their life when they fail or are ineffective.  We saw tragedy strike law enforcement twice in the week of February when a deputy sheriff and a police sergeant were shot and killed by suspects whom they had attempted to subdue using less lethal methods.  Seaside Police Sgt. Jason Gooding, a married father of two school-age children was killed by a suspect who refused to show his hands, then produced a concealed firearm after an assisting officer tried to subdue the suspect with a Taser.  Clearly criminal suspects are not following PERF's "principles."
 
Engaging with or grappling with any suspect, especially one armed with an edged weapon requires skills many martial artists spend years perfecting and are far beyond the ken of the average law enforcement officer.  PERF advocates a British law enforcement spontaneous knife defense system.  Attorney and former police officer Missy O'Linn explained in an excellent article in Law Officer Magazine, how PERF failed to acknowledge that in the British system, officers expect to get cut when they are left in a position of no choice but to engage the knife wielding assailant.
 
I would ask advocates of such an approach what the acceptable level or rate of injury to law enforcement officers is? What are the number of times law enforcement officers should allow a knife-wielding attacker to cut or slash members of the public before we decisively engage them? 
 
We as law enforcement need to define the conversation regarding the appropriateness of force based on two primary factors:
 
  1. Public safety.  People should be free of being assaulted and those who decide to engage in attacking others assume the risks of their conduct.
     
  2. Officer safety.  We in law enforcement assume a certain amount of risk by choosing this profession and we accept that, but there is no "acceptable injury or death rate." We will not needlessly risk our lives to protect the lives of people who aim to harm us or the people we protect and serve.
When law enforcement uses force, there needs to be a fair, unbiased review of use of force by people with expertise in all the issues presented, whether in determining if the action is in compliance with policy or in compliance with the law.  This is especially true in significant or deadly force cases. 
 
Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey wrote an excellent primer on this issue detailed in a recent op-ed .  She described what she feels her role is as a prosecutor in investigating force cases and laid out a cogent argument for not pandering to emotions or public sentiment when making evaluating a law enforcement use of force.  Lacey said in part; "Rolling the dice to see what a jury might do or filing criminal charges because a community demands someone be held accountable should never become part of any prosecutor's analysis of whether someone's conduct is criminal and can, in fact, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" and "a prosecutor's duty is to seek justice when police use force."   
 
When and how deputies use force is critically important issue for ALADS members.  The ALADS Board of Directors serves as the voice for them and we believe it's vitally important we be involved in defining the issues of importance to them, such as use of force policies.  We believe the true experts on the subject come from the men and women who work the streets, jails and courthouses and their voices need to be heard before changing or implementing new force policies and procedures.  We at ALADS have already begun offering training to our members and will be having discussions with the Sheriff regarding increasing training, body cameras and staffing, as we feel all of these are important in crafting policies to respond to violence or the threat of violence against our members or the public.
 
Watch for part two of this blog for our challenge to PERF

Sean Van Leeuwen is Vice President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. ALADS is the collective bargaining agent and represents more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County. 
Sean can be reached at   Svanleeuwen@alads.org.


# # # 
 If you have friends who would like to receive ALADS Email Blasts click here.
ALADS Facility: 2 Cupania Circle, Monterey Park, CA  91755
www.alads.org
See what's happening on our social sites!