Force Continuum

[cosermann]

A lot of what one sees on this seems to come from/is directed to the LEO community. The principle of escalating reasonable force is sound, of course, but because of it's LEO emphasis/perspective it seems like the details/specifics don't work so well for the typical LTCH holder who may not have specialized physical training, be authorized to lay his hands on people, be carrying various tools spanning the continuum, etc.

Has anyone thought about this and developed a "simplified" continuum for the typical person?

I'm thinking something like:

1. Physical presence/verbal (confidence/bearing/body movement/posture/attitude/de-escalation/avoidance/commands/etc.).
2. Less than lethal (sprays, charged electrical devices, soft hand techniques, etc).
3. Hard hands/impact weapons.
4. Lethal force.

The thing that seems out of whack to me about some of the continuums one sees is the use of soft hand techniques before the use of chemical sprays. For the average person, that makes no sense to me. I'd prefer to go level 1. Then a spray or something to maintain distance. Going hands on, either hard or soft (unless forced to), is a really bad idea if you're carrying, imo.

What do y'all think?

 

[youngda9]

"soft hand techniques", LOL

I think #1 should be avoidance. #2 should be de-escilation to allow room for #1(avoidance).

 

[Denny347]

The continuum is not actually set in stone...it only serves as a guide. This is close to what we use.

 

[cosermann]

Denny, that's from a LEO perspective correct?

Kind of illustrates what I was saying. I wonder if that green level really makes sense for the average Joe.

Maybe a collapsed blue/yellow/red system (using your example)?

 

[Denny347]

"soft hand techniques", LOL

I think #1 should be avoidance. #2 should be de-escilation to allow room for #1(avoidance).

Nevermind...I'm not a thorough reader...sorry.

 

[Denny347]

Denny, that's from a LEO perspective correct?

Yeah, I just realized that he is trying to apply this to the average citizen. There is no real baseline for that. I can appreciate the concept. I think it falls on to "what a reasonable person in the same situation do".

 

[ATM]

My confident attitude alone is quite overwhelming.

It is considered lethal force in most states.

 

[Denny347]

1. Physical presence/verbal (confidence/bearing/body movement/posture/attitude/de-escalation/avoidance/commands/etc.).
2. Less than lethal (sprays, charged electrical devices, soft hand techniques, etc).
3. Hard hands/impact weapons.
4. Lethal force.
What do y'all think?

Looks good. Not saying that following this will keep you out of trouble but it is a start. Unless you have SOME training, going hands on is not a great option unless you have to so I agree with the order.

 

[dross]

My confident attitude alone is quite overwhelming.

It is considered lethal force in most states.

We should start a club.

 

[cosermann]

Thanks for the thoughts so far Denny. Yeah, the idea here is thinking through what might make a good "reasonable" force architecture for the average person.

There are some non-linear models out there as well that have some merit I think (see link below), but again, for the average guy I think maybe they're too complex.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/The%20Force%20Continuum%20Conundrum.pdf

 

[TriggerWork]

Question: In regards to verbal warnings and ready position (non-lethal and lethal), would that be acceptable under your #1 commands?

Obviously warnings would only be warranted if the situation allows the time and distance to recover from aggressors immediate violent response. But at what point is HOG or ready position considered reasonable response?

 

[jbombelli]

The continuum is not actually set in stone...it only serves as a guide. This is close to what we use.

The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

You should change your name to Barbossa.

 

[GuyRelford]

I think the OP makes a lot of sense, but it is hard to put together a continuum, because Indiana courts have held that the determination of what force is reasonable in a self-defense situation involves both objective and subjective elements - the latter being somewhat different for every person and every circumstance. Here are a couple quotes from Indiana decisions that illustrate the point:

“A defendant’s belief of apparent danger does not require the danger to be actual danger, but the belief must be in good faith. . . . The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity, and the amount of force necessary to be employed to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. . . . Focusing on the ‘standpoint of the defendant’ means at least two things: (1) the trier of fact must consider the circumstances only as they appeared to the defendant, and (2) the defendant’s own account of the event, although not required to be believed, is critically relevant testimony.”

Brand v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

See also:

"More recently, our Supreme Court has clarified that the phrase 'reasonably believes,' as used in the Indiana self-defense statute, requires both subjective belief that force was necessary . . . and that such actual belief was one that a reasonable person would have under the circumstances. . . . Thus, both objective and subjective standards are implicated."

Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

Since so much depends on what was in a particular person't head at the time, and whether that person's beliiefs are reasonable under the circumstances, defining a generaly applicable continuum is very difficult. For example, a very small woman might be justified in going directly to deadly force in a self-defense situation where you or I might not even be justified in using less-than-lethal force - depending on the circumstances.

Having said all that, I respect the OP's effort!!

Guy

 

[LP1]

The continuum of force seems to run counter to the Tueller Principle (assailant can inflict lethal injury within 21 feet). If the assailant is close enough for you to use hands / pepper spray / etc. for defense, then he is close enough to kill you, especially if those methods fail.

Where does that leave those of us who are too old or slow to use non-lethal methods? Dead?

 

[U.S. Patriot]

1. Verbal Commands
2. Pressure points, strikes, take down etc.
3. Pepper Spray
4. Baton
5. Deadly force

That was our use of force continuum when I was in the Coast Guard. If you show up on scene to a non compliant individual. You do not immediately grab your pepper spray. A lot of it has to do with legal issues. As an officer, if you do not follow procedure, I guarantee you no one will back you. We where always told, follow procedure, and you'll have your back covered. Which is not always the case.

As an average individual, situations tend to be different. If a 300lb. guy walks up and threatens to beat your face in. Unless you can brawl, are you going to go hands on? I sure the hell am not. I'm going to try and avoid the situation, and as a last result use deadly force, if I feel my life is in immediate threat. I look at it this way. Do what you have to do to go home safetly. Deal with the aftermath later. I would rather go to court, then wind up in ER or a caket.

 

[cosermann]

Appreciate all the discussion so far. Sort of sounds like we're tending to drift toward a 3-tier model for the average Joe to think about. Maybe it's something like:

1. Presence/Verbal/Avoidance/etc.
2. Less than lethal that enables one to maintain some distance (chemical sprays, Taser?, etc.).
3. 'Hard' weapons up to and including deadly force (hands on might go here if forced into it).

I think most of us would agree that "mixing it up" with anyone while carrying a firearm can go downhill so very quickly that it's to be avoided if at all possible. Additionally, most people have no training in "hands on", and it isn't in their job description (like LEOs). So, going hands on as a matter of "procedure" seems like such a poor/risky idea for anyone carrying under a LTCH I don't think it should be anywhere but at the highest level.

Given GunLawyer's comments on the subjectivity of all this, much has to do with your own perception of conditions at the time. It's not so simple as if A, then B; if C, then D etc.

Thoughts?

 

[jdhaines]

I like the way it was described in a recent Mercop class I took. Awareness, Avoidance, Aggression. Try to be aware enough to see things coming. When something occurs do everything you can to avoid it, and if that doesn't work then overwhelming aggression.

Granted there are tool / level of force issues within that overwhelming aggression but the idea is when it's time to fight, it's time to fight to win.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I like the way it was described in a recent Mercop class I took. Awareness, Avoidance, Aggression. Try to be aware enough to see things coming. When something occurs do everything you can to avoid it, and if that doesn't work then overwhelming aggression.

Granted there are tool / level of force issues within that overwhelming aggression but the idea is when it's time to fight, it's time to fight to win.

Agreed, your mind is your best weapon. If something does not feel right, or you are in an uncofortable situation. Best thing you can do is walk away, before something does happen. One reason I'm not a big bar fan. You always get some drunk jerk that wants to get in a fight. I left a bar one night, even though my friends where staying. I had this feeling it was time to go. Shortly after I left, a big fight broke out. Did I want to leave my friends, no, but I'm sure glad I left. Always be aware of your suroundings, most of the time, you can get yourself out of a bad situation before it arises.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

I went to a seminar on use of force by civilians. It was put on by a man who had spent over thirty years in both military and law enforcement. The seminar was offered to martial artists, so I'll preface all the comments by saying that the target audience was a group of people who could already defend themselves pretty well. The topic was more concerned with the legality of use of force.

One of the things that was discussed was a use of force continuum as well as four levels of threat.

Use of Force Continuum

1. Avoidance
2. Escape
3. Restrain
4. Counter Attack
5. Incapacitate
6. Kill

Levels of threat

• Nuisance 1,2
• Serious 1,2,4
• Major 4,5,6
• Deadly 6

The numbers next to the levels of threat correspond to the appropriate responses from the Use of Force continuum. In this case, specific weapons aren't discussed because it applies to a much broader group of people. If you develop a continuum that says an incapacitating weapon is the next logical step then you've limited that to only people that carry pepper spray, a taser, etc. If you just say "incapacitate the attacker" that allows each person to use what they have on them at that time. If you've got pepper spray, great. If not, try a punch to the throat. As far as weapons go, ranged weapons are better than close weapons. Pepper spray > a contact taser. If you have to get close enough to touch someone they are also close enough to touch you.

The idea I'm getting at is that the level of threat determines the level of response. It is always best to avoid a fight. If you can't avoid it escape it. Run away. You may think that's cowardly, but I would rather run and know I'll live than take my chances against someone who might have a knife and 4 buddies on the football team.

If you've been paying attention you'll notice that number 3 (restrain) is never recommended as an appropriate response to a threat. If you haven't been paying attention-- WAKE UP!! Restraint is almost always a bad idea for a civilian, especially as a way to end a fight. A lot of martial artists learn joint locks and other fancy techniques which are cool, but will almost never work on the street. Have you ever seen a cop trying to cuff a man who DID NOT want to be cuffed? It is extremely difficult to keep someone restrained against their will. Furthermore, even if you do manage to restrain someone, you'll have to let them up sometime. And they will not be happy about it. Police can use restraint because they have backup that will help put the bad guy in handcuffs before they haul him away.

It is important to learn the full use of force continuum so that you may also learn when each response is appropriate. If you leave parts of it out, that allows for the "what if" questions to pop up. Address the existence of restraint and then learn the time and place for it (almost never).

Appreciate all the discussion so far. Sort of sounds like we're tending to drift toward a 3-tier model for the average Joe to think about. Maybe it's something like:

1. Presence/Verbal/Avoidance/etc.
2. Less than lethal that enables one to maintain some distance (chemical sprays, Taser?, etc.).
3. 'Hard' weapons up to and including deadly force (hands on might go here if forced into it).

Given GunLawyer's comments on the subjectivity of all this, much has to do with your own perception of conditions at the time. It's not so simple as if A, then B; if C, then D etc.

Thoughts?

Thoughts:

I think the three tiered model that you've presented is flawed (no offense). The use of force continuum should focus on the intended result of your action instead of the tool you use to achieve the desired result. I agree that it is a bad idea to get into a hand-to-hand fight while you're armed, but I also think if you're going to carry a weapon it is your responsibility to train with that weapon. That would include learning how to fight while armed, but without drawing your weapon.

I also agree that everything is subjective. You know what they say: no plan of action survives first contact with the enemy.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

The continuum of force seems to run counter to the Tueller Principle (assailant can inflict lethal injury within 21 feet). If the assailant is close enough for you to use hands / pepper spray / etc. for defense, then he is close enough to kill you, especially if those methods fail.

Where does that leave those of us who are too old or slow to use non-lethal methods? Dead?

It is important to address each situation independently on a case-by-case basis. There are two things to consider, the level of threat represented by your (would be) attacker, and any disparity of force. If someone is yelling at you and verbally threatening you, you aren't legally allowed to engage them. Essentially, every action you take must be done because of something the other person did. "I punched him because he tried to punch me. I broke his arm because he had three friends and I was alone. I shot him dead because he pulled a knife". A disparity of force occurs when your attacker has more going for him than you do. This includes size, age, sex, friends, and weapons. Someone who is older or slower than their assailant is not necessarily too old or slow for non-lethal methods. You are only justified in using lethal force when you fear serious bodily injury or death. The best case scenario is to avoid a fight altogether.