Escalation of Force

[csmkersh]

Jeff,

In 1996, when I took my first CCW training there was a very brief force continuum taught. Our training POI was laid out by TxDPS.

1. Peer to peer verbal non-violent resolution.
2. No. 1 failing, and person armed with cutting or impact weapon, fire center mass if they entered the 21 foot zone - Tueller Rule.
3. If they're armed with a firearm, fire center mass until threat ended

Others:

No warning shots. That's use of deadly force and an indication that you really didn't believe DF was needed. Threat of DF is legal here. It's just not clear that brandishing is allowed. Will depend on the officer's report and DA's actions.

If you are in an incident, make a report ASAP. If you don't the do-bads may and it's their word that will now carry the most weight.


​

 

[Erik]

"Erik,
I think the "new" format is just a new way of saying the same thing that was said in the force continuum. I was always taught and taught others to use the ladder model, that each level of force was like a rung on the ladder and that you chose the appropriate rung for the force that was being used against you.

I see the whole circle thing as just a repackaged way of teaching that."

I understand what you are saying, and how you, and most LEOs have been trained; I've been trained that way myself over the years. But the reality is that everyone in the industry knows folks on both sides of the badge who were injured to greater extents than they had to be while following the continuums, perhaps best thought of in these instances as "the progression" of force, from step to step.

Soon, people began adapting the continuums. Some began engaging in clever symantics trying to get around it. Some found themselves in criminal and civil court. And some... some began asking if the continuums made sense, if they were necessary, and if other options were available which would better serve the purpose of the continuums.

And the answer was yes.

But it is incorrect to paint it as mere repackaging of training, which has been done to varying degrees for decades, in that it farther reaching than that. The difference goes beyond symantics, effecting policy and legal interpretations.

Under the old models officers are required to justify not only the choice that they made, but why they chose to "skip" other choices afforded to them by policy and training. Not being able to do that particularly well has been the problematic for more than one officer and agency.

The new model requires officers to justify only the choice they made. That is a significant difference.

That difference is beginning to effect decisions across the board, from the street to review boards, to prosecutor's offices to judges chambers, and from the courtroom to the jury rooms should things get that far. All the while fewer people are getting hurt on both sides of the badge.

 

[Old Guy]

Security Officer

The use of force lethal/less lethal is a little more simple when working in a field that only mandates Firearms for the force bit!

One of my locations is a Diamond Store, the mandate for the company involvement in this location is quite clear, protect yourself at all times (me first is a given, without me protection ends right there) and Staff and any Customers in the store, and the Staff at all go home time to their POV.

When we took on this Client, Gang Bangers were a serious threat, up to and including driving around the Staff in the parking lot on closing, Mr. SO with Mr. Glock has caused a drop in that activity, the adding to the Family of Mr. 870, has brought all posturing to zero.

The rules of this game are simple, we will protect our people against threats "we" see as lethal threats, that is our only function.

Shouting out of the window of a passing car is not a threat, mind you that has not happened either. Quite a few smile and wave.

 

[W.E.G.]

originally posted by Pink Floyd -- "Us and Them" -- 03/17/1973
"I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short,
sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off
lightly, 'cos I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once!
It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners
don't cost nothing do they, eh?"

 

[B.D. Turner]

Use of force should have been covered in your CCW class.

 

[Slademark]

DEfuse
DEescalate
DEpart

Only after those options have been removed should any escalation take place on your part. The option to use less than lethal force always remains. If some drunk joker walks up and slaps you, you don't HAVE to shoot him.

You can put him on the ground and. To have an escalation place seems to me to be a problem. As legal carriers, we have a higher responsibility that the common citizen that does not carry. We have taken it upon ourselves and (hopefully) been trained on what is and what is not acceptable.

If unsure, take another training class. I have! I don't claim to know or even remember everything, so I want to make sure I know what is legal in my state. Saying "I know... you can kick my ass... I'm a wuss" and walking away is not the manly thing to do, but it is the right thing to do unless the use of deadly force is needed. And it should always be your LAST option.

I think often that people think of their weapon as their go-to choice, when it should actually be down the list a ways. If you find yourself in dangerous situations on a regular basis like some folks here seem to be, I'd recommend hanging out with different people at different places.

 

[Hook686]

Well said slademark.