# Escalation of Force for civilians



## Deaf Smith (May 7, 2008)

1. Bearing and demeanor. Implied power due to ones presence. This is especially true if there is great disparancy in size and strength.

2. Verbal Crises Intervention. &#8220;Mantle of innocence&#8221; Use non-violent dispute resolution techniques. Many ways to talk to a person to de-escalate the situation.

3. Blocking Techniques. Purely defensive and non-aggressive. It can be hard or soft blocks, or simple escapes from non-deadly holds.

4. Grappling/Restraint Techniques. Arm locks, wrist locks, holds, etc. are less damaging. Not juged as being deadly except certian choke holds.

5. Hand techniques. Punches are usually less damaging as kicks (or knees or elbows) *unless the practitioner is known for being &#8216;deadly&#8217; with their hands.* I have personaly read of DA's calling high ranking black belts 'rambos' and 'killing machines'. Pro boxers fall in this category in many states.

6. Foot techniques. Many states consider the shod foot a deadly weapon.

7. Less-Lethal Weapons (batons, chemical spray, tasers, etc..) The clubs are only considered 'less-lethal' in the hands of those documented to be experts in using the weapons to restrain.

8. Defensive deadly force. Vast majority of defensive shootings and use of other weapons fall in this category.

9. Offensive deadly force. *Very rare for civilians*. Not rare for LEOs.

10. Pre-emptive deadly force. Example: Known terrorist planning to make an attack. *Also extreamly rare for civilians*.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 7, 2008)

Keep in mind that while we are talking escalation of force, force can also be de-escalated! Yes you don't have to jack it up to the next notch. This is what non-violent conflict resolution methods are all about.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (May 8, 2008)

I have a few minor issues with some of this...I'll post in detail later.

The one thing I'll say now is that just like LE "force continuums" we don't want to get hung-up with the notion that we have to progress through the list of options in a linear fashion (not saying you were implying anything of the sort).  We should pick the force option appropriate to the threat regardless of whether we have tried another, less damaging, option prior to that.


----------



## jks9199 (May 8, 2008)

There is no real difference between law enforcement and non-law enforcement use of force models.  LEOs may be able to justify use of force in a few situations that the general public may not, most especially preemptive use of force and use of force to effect arrest.  (Citizen's arrest authority is generally quite limited.)



Deaf Smith said:


> 1. Bearing and demeanor. Implied power due to ones presence. This is especially true if there is great disparancy in size and strength.


I personally dislike including any form of presence as a force level; if your personal presence is enough to deter an attack, than there will be no use of force.  If it's not -- it's never going to be enough.


> 2. Verbal Crises Intervention. Mantle of innocence Use non-violent dispute resolution techniques. Many ways to talk to a person to de-escalate the situation.


Verbal tactics are not limited to de-escalation and calming.  "I'm calling the cops!" or "Help!" or even just noise that's attracting attention can sometimes be enough to stop an attacker.  Verbal tactics should always accompany any use of physical force.  Yelling "stop attacking me!" or "Help! 
Call the police" supports the fact that you are defending yourself -- not attacking someone.


> 3. Blocking Techniques. Purely defensive and non-aggressive. It can be hard or soft blocks, or simple escapes from non-deadly holds.


You're drawing an artificial distinction that doesn't exist here; instead, if you're going to articulate a level below counteroffensive tactics of striking and "soft hands", come-along/pain holds, I would argue that it should be evasive tactics, like breaking holds, defensive stepping, and outright flight from the scene.  There's nothing wrong with running away!


> 4. Grappling/Restraint Techniques. Arm locks, wrist locks, holds, etc. are less damaging. Not juged as being deadly except certian choke holds.


While these belong in the civilian arsenal (Please, let's not start the whole "LEOs are civilians" thing again; it's a distraction and I'm tired of trying to work around the word.), they are only tactics a civilian should use in rare circumstances.  My job as a cop is to arrest the bad guy; that means I restrain him.  And I carry tools to do so.  Except for special circumstances (kids, drunk relatives, or sometimes patients are about all that pop to mind), a civilian isn't out to contain and restrain an attacker.  Your job is to STOP the attack and get out of there!


> 5. Hand techniques. Punches are usually less damaging as kicks (or knees or elbows) *unless the practitioner is known for being deadly with their hands.* I have personaly read of DA's calling high ranking black belts 'rambos' and 'killing machines'. Pro boxers fall in this category in many states.
> 
> 6. Foot techniques. Many states consider the shod foot a deadly weapon.


Strikes are strikes.  Simply wearing a shoe will not automatically make your foot a deadly weapon; every case I've seen that has designated a shoe as a deadly weapon had significant aggravating factors, like the victim already being largely incapacitated when they were kicked or the targets.  Nor are kicks automatically considered a greater level of force.  Use the unarmed strike, whether that's a kick or punch, that's appropriate to the target and situation.  In one case, a hard push (still technically a strike) may be all that's appropriate, while in another, a punch to the throat is.  It all comes down to articulating the force you use; lethal force can come from an empty hand or a bazooka.


> 7. Less-Lethal Weapons (batons, chemical spray, tasers, etc..) The clubs are only considered 'less-lethal' in the hands of those documented to be experts in using the weapons to restrain.


There aren't a lot of really reliably effective less-than-lethal choices for civilians, or at least there haven't been until the civilian-model Taser came out.  Most stun guns require you to be too close.  Chemical sprays are not nearly 100% reliable, they're just worth a try before causing actual injury, and most impact weapons aren't practical for civilians to carry.  They're likely to prompt questions like just why exactly you felt the need to carry a baton.  That said...  they're not bad things to have available in your car.


> 8. Defensive deadly force. Vast majority of defensive shootings and use of other weapons fall in this category.
> 
> 9. Offensive deadly force. *Very rare for civilians*. Not rare for LEOs.
> 
> 10. Pre-emptive deadly force. Example: Known terrorist planning to make an attack. *Also extreamly rare for civilians*.



Deadly force is deadly force; no matter who you are, you must be able to articulate that either you or another person were in imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death.  Cops are simply in more situations where we are prepared for that possibility, like searching a house for possible burglars.  I take special exception to your idea that police can use deadly force offensively; they cannot.  Any use of deadly force must be justified as reasonable and appropriate due to the immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to someone.  



kenpotex said:


> I have a few minor issues with some of this...I'll post in detail later.
> 
> The one thing I'll say now is that just like LE "force continuums" we don't want to get hung-up with the notion that we have to progress through the list of options in a linear fashion (not saying you were implying anything of the sort).  We should pick the force option appropriate to the threat regardless of whether we have tried another, less damaging, option prior to that.



Very, very important point.  Use of force should never be a stair-step; move to the appropriate level for the threat being presented.  Don't get stuck trying to move up or down inappropriately.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 8, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> There is no real difference between law enforcement and non-law enforcement use of force models. LEOs may be able to justify use of force in a few situations that the general public may not, most especially preemptive use of force and use of force to effect arrest. (Citizen's arrest authority is generally quite limited.)


 
Tell that to a jury. The police have much wider lattitude on force issues. Even touching a LEO can be consider assault. A LEO can detain you, he can disarm you, he can cuff you without arrest. For their own safety they can do many things a civilian cannot.



jks9199 said:


> I personally dislike including any form of presence as a force level; if your personal presence is enough to deter an attack, than there will be no use of force. If it's not -- it's never going to be enough.


 
It's just a fact of life. Pettie woman in a elevator feels a sense of force by the mear presence of a man (especially if she is alone.) Same goes for eldery or anytime there is a definate disparancy of size and strength, not to mention weapons. Don't tell me people are not kind of uptight when a armed LEO enters a confined space (or soldier.)



jks9199 said:


> Verbal tactics are not limited to de-escalation and calming. "I'm calling the cops!" or "Help!" or even just noise that's attracting attention can sometimes be enough to stop an attacker. Verbal tactics should always accompany any use of physical force. Yelling "stop attacking me!" or "Help!
> Call the police" supports the fact that you are defending yourself -- not attacking someone.


 
Verbal tactics are to KEEP the level from escalting. That is why one learns to handle an argument and not escalate it by exchanging words. Many ways to do this. Verbial Judo is a very good book on this subject. It can be found on the net.



jks9199 said:


> You're drawing an artificial distinction that doesn't exist here; instead, if you're going to articulate a level below counteroffensive tactics of striking and "soft hands", come-along/pain holds, I would argue that it should be evasive tactics, like breaking holds, defensive stepping, and outright flight from the scene. There's nothing wrong with running away!


 
It could include things besides blocking but it is below stikes or injuriious techniques. But it's a level of force.



jks9199 said:


> While these belong in the civilian arsenal (Please, let's not start the whole "LEOs are civilians" thing again; it's a distraction and I'm tired of trying to work around the word.), they are only tactics a civilian should use in rare circumstances. My job as a cop is to arrest the bad guy; that means I restrain him. And I carry tools to do so. Except for special circumstances (kids, drunk relatives, or sometimes patients are about all that pop to mind), a civilian isn't out to contain and restrain an attacker. Your job is to STOP the attack and get out of there!


 
*I did just that once*, restrain a purse snatcher, in the Virgin Islands, on my honeymoon many years ago. Also in college I held a burgler at gunpoint for the police. It's a level of force, that does not mean one can, or must, jump one level. Escalation can be in minutes to fractions of a second. It's not a checkoff list one keeps around them.



jks9199 said:


> Strikes are strikes. Simply wearing a shoe will not automatically make your foot a deadly weapon; every case I've seen that has designated a shoe as a deadly weapon had significant aggravating factors, like the victim already being largely incapacitated when they were kicked or the targets. Nor are kicks automatically considered a greater level of force. Use the unarmed strike, whether that's a kick or punch, that's appropriate to the target and situation. In one case, a hard push (still technically a strike) may be all that's appropriate, while in another, a punch to the throat is. It all comes down to articulating the force you use; lethal force can come from an empty hand or a bazooka.


 
Not in the court of law. Juries do distinuish between them. It's call excessive force. A punch to the solar plexus is not the same as an elbow to the side of the head, the DA's will point that out to the jury. Different techniques will be considered for their abilty to cause grave harm or death. And yes, in many states, the court cases have decided that the shod foot is a deadly weapon.



jks9199 said:


> There aren't a lot of really reliably effective less-than-lethal choices for civilians, or at least there haven't been until the civilian-model Taser came out. Most stun guns require you to be too close. Chemical sprays are not nearly 100% reliable, they're just worth a try before causing actual injury, and most impact weapons aren't practical for civilians to carry. They're likely to prompt questions like just why exactly you felt the need to carry a baton. That said... they're not bad things to have available in your car.


 
You use them if you have them and can get to them in time. They are used many times by LEOs with varying results. Civilians should, if carrying a deadly weapon, have some form of less-than-lethal weapon available for when lethal force is to much, but running away is not a real good option (like elderly people, or those with mobiltiy problems.)



jks9199 said:


> Deadly force is deadly force; no matter who you are, you must be able to articulate that either you or another person were in imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death. Cops are simply in more situations where we are prepared for that possibility, like searching a house for possible burglars. I take special exception to your idea that police can use deadly force offensively; they cannot. Any use of deadly force must be justified as reasonable and appropriate due to the immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to someone.


 
LEO Sharpshooters use it. Stakeout squads use it. Entry teams use it. Sure it has to be justified. Police snipers justify it when the conversation just drys up.




jks9199 said:


> Very, very important point. Use of force should never be a stair-step; move to the appropriate level for the threat being presented. Don't get stuck trying to move up or down inappropriately.


 
The continium of force is not a checkoff list. As I said, it can happen over a period of minutes, or fractions of a second. But one must be aware there is a continium of force.

This list comes from LFI, Lethal Force Institute (Ayoob.) I use it in teaching CHL classes.

Deaf


----------



## Imminent (May 8, 2008)

There are a couple of points specifically to your reply post jks9199 and more to the opening post that are troublesome.  First the clod foot is considered a lethal weapon in some states.  When we do LEO/Corrections training in Mass. for example we talk about shin blocks when we demonstrate any kicking becasue the law there recognizes any contact with the foot if the person is wearing a shoe as use of criminal because a shod foot is considered a weapon just as if it were a gun/blunt weapon or knife.  The points from the opening post that worry me is this insistence on defining response to criminal violence in terms of social escalation through reasoned application.  It is simply erroneous to assume that in criminal violence you can ramp up, that is simply a formula to become a victim.  The moment that the attack begins you should act as if it is going to result in terminal threat action and if the assailant suffers enough debilitating trauma as to render them incapable of being a threat before that stage is reached, then don't go there.  The baggage that comes with use of force paradigms is fine in theory and over coffee, the reality is if it makes it into court and you have been charged things will have happened so fast on the street that you can easily pull the continuum out and point to how you tried to avoid but the assailants intention and commitment to put you in imminent physical threat (real or implied) forced your action.  Iti s like people who train to submit and release, they will do that when under pressure because they revert to social programming in an asocial setting because they can't distinguish the difference.  The court will see the difference between the elbow to head and the strike to the solar plexus becasue they are told to by the prosecutor, don't rely on their ignorance or physiology and kinetics, show them how a well intentioned punch to the solar plexus terminated someone by hitting 4 inches high and setting the heart into arrythmia or the elbow to the head was aimed at the brachial plexus and was deflected to the skull by his body motion, the stuff inthe court room is just the art fo the sell.  To instruct someone in SD to react with the continuum in mind is to set them up for grabbing first in line tickets to their own victimization.  Make them aware of the theory and then throw it out and teach them to get to go home, better tried by twelve than carried by six.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 8, 2008)

Imminent,

That is why I pointed out the continumn is not some form of checklist. You can go from 'bearing and demeanor' to 'defensive deadly force' in a heart beat if it's a remediated murder plot, or it can start out as an argument and take minutes for it to escalate just to a fistfight.

The point is for the student to realise there are distinct levels of force and understand them.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (May 9, 2008)

Between jks's posts, and DS's replies, most of my questions/issues were addressed.

I guess my only real problem with the above list is that, to me, it seems that if we use such a coninuum, we're over-analyzing. For example, drawing distinctions between upper and lower body techniques, and between bare-foot and shod-foot kicking. I can see where these distinctions might be relevant if the laws in your area actually establish such a hierarchy of techniques. Otherwise, I think it makes things too complicated.

I'm also not crazy about the distinctions between the different types of deadly force. While I "get" what you're saying, once again, I think the distinctions are unecessary for our purpose here. 
For example, when you say that LEOs use deadly force "offensively," my question is: "do they really?" In the case of a sharpshooter/sniper dropping the hammer on someone, he is doing it because that person poses a serious threat, maybe not to him, but to someone else (another officer or a hostage, etc.). 
My point here is that his use of force is still in response to an articulable imminent deadly threat to another. On a fundemental level, it doesn't matter that he's a LEO, his use of force is no different that if I (not a LEO) was to use deadly force to protect a third party. Just a scenario...let's say that I walked into a gas station and saw a man sitting astride a woman and stabbing her with a knife, I draw my pistol and pop him in the head...he was not a threat to me at that instant in time but my use of deadly force was still defensive in nature because of the threat he posed to her.
Let's look at another one...I'm confronted by a man who says: "I'm going to kill you." He then proceeds to grab for something in his waistband (or whatever) at which time I respond with deadly force. I would imagine this might be the type of situation that you would classify as "preemptive" deadly force. However, I still see this as defensive in nature as my analysis of the totality of circumstances led me to believe that my life was in jeapordy and I acted to stop the threat.
Really, the only time that true "offensive" or "preemptive" deadly-force is used (at least the way I think of it) is when a person uses that level of force against someone who neither poses a risk to the actor, or to anyone else (which of course would make said use of force criminal).

The other issue I have is the the idea of the use of controlling/restraining force by private citizens. Unlike people employed in LE and security fields, the average person does not have a duty to restrain or apprehend someone. There are obviously exceptions; for example, the drunk uncle at the wedding, or the guy at the bar who takes a swing at you but is so drunk that his actions don't justify an axe-hand to the throat. In these situations controlling force should be used to de-escalate. In situations like the first example (a relative or friend), you may choose to use only "soft" control techniques such as a "come-along"/escort etc. In the second type of situation, the proper response might be to use a "harder" control or distraction technique like an angle-kick to the thigh, a brachial-stun, or a shot of OC.

The above examples notwithstanding, the general rule of thumb should be to focus on safely disengaging and leaving the area (survival and escape). If you are faced with a threat and are not duty bound to control or apprehend the person, your response should be to use the level of force necessary to stop the threat so that you can create your opportunity to leave.  

I guess I just don't personally feel that a such a complicated force-coninuum is necessary or even particularly advatageous when training private citizens.  

good discussion...


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2008)

I think that the list is a good base for people to build from.  Just like a self defense technique gives us a base or platform to build from, this list does the same.  We should be be bound by the list or by the technique, because as its been said, things can change.  We could attempt to talk the situation down, but may only be able to do so for 3 sec. and we have to jump to something else.

This is why I personally like to assess the situation and build a response from there.


----------



## chinto (May 13, 2008)

in a self defense situation the law says that if a cop is justified in using deadly force so would a civilian.  I if on a jury will hold the cops to  a much higher standard then any civilian as the cops are supposed to bring them in alive for trial.
either way if you do have to employ deadly force you will face a judge and jury most likely to show you had grounds that were justified.

as to black belts being held some how to a different standard under the law... they are not like a professional boxer or other licensed prize fighter.  at least in most states a licenced prize fighter agrees if he fights out side the ring .. the burden of proof that he was attacked and was not guilty of felony assault or in my state as i understand it aggravated assault to attempted murder  ( regardless of injury to the other party.. except of course if they die then its an automatic murder charge.. no manslaughter.)  but most juries consider any black belt some kind of expert in unarmed combat and so tend to be harder on them then some one who is not a black belt..


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 13, 2008)

chinto,

LEO's don't have to back off or retreat (as in most states civiians have to do.) In fact, LEO's are supposed to stick there nose into trouble. You aer supposed to obey LEO commands, no one else has to obey civilian commands.

Also if you are escaping custody, here in Texas LEOs can use lethal force to apprehend you if need be. Civilians don't have that as the crime is not one being in commishion (like a robbery or murder.)

LEO's are also immune from many a lawsuit a civian would be open to. 

Add to that in courts LEO's words tend to carry much more weight than civilians!

World of difference between LEO's and civilians.

Deaf


----------

