We've all heard of excessive force...

[RationalBiker]

In light of a few discussion on here lately regarding the use of force / self defense, I thought some folks might find this interesting.

There was an incident in a neighboring jurisdiction that a local resident caught on camera. I don't know the full details of the story, but the video provides an interesting look into a use of force event that many police officers I have talked to are viewing as "Insufficient Force". Yes, that's right, not enough force. Now, that term may not be exactly correct because the suspect is eventually brought under control, but this physical altercation took considerably longer most struggles and the officer is placed in a couple seriously disadvantageous positions which could have cost him serious injury or his life had the suspect really wanted to hurt him.

From what I have been told, the arrest was for a warrant, but I do not know what the warrant was for. The news also mentioned that the suspect was known for involvement in illegal narcotics. The media also reported that the officer's radio was malfunctioning.

Anyway, here's the video.

The video uses Windows Media Player. In some cases you may hear the audio and in others not. For those that don't hear it, most of it consists of laughing and of cheering on the suspect in jovial manner. Note that for whatever reason, no one comes to the assistance of the officer.

Edited July 15, 2006 by RationalCop

[Qwertz]

The video starts with the suspect on the ground. How did the cop only manage to get one cuff on him? It looks to me like the cop was aware of the camera and didn't want to cause a media frenzy by using a normal amount of force that might be perceived as excessive.

[OT: How soon before we start seeing feature length movies shot entirely on camera phones? <Advil> <Advil>]

-Q

[RationalBiker]

The video starts with the suspect on the ground. How did the cop only manage to get one cuff on him?

Not sure about that. I know that from my experience, I want to go to ground with the suspect rather than stand up toe to toe. The officer never seems to use any of the grappling, joint locking or controling type manuevers you would typically want to while placing handcuffs on a resisting suspect. I also don't know how long they may have struggled prior to the event being recorded. It appears both of them were pretty well exhausted by the end.

I agree that the thought of excessive force accusations were probably at the forefront of his mind. That can be very dangerous and can cause an officer to hold back too much on the force continuum.

I suspect this video will be the subject of numerous training sessions.

[aequalsa]

I agree that the thought of excessive force accusations were probably at the forefront of his mind. That can be very dangerous and can cause an officer to hold back too much on the force continuum.

It looked to me like the officer was both trying to use very little force and was not very proficient in grappling.

Rationalcop, how much training in grappling fighting do police usually recieve? I would think it would be a fairly integral part of the job.

[RationalBiker]

Rationalcop, how much training in grappling fighting do police usually recieve? I would think it would be a fairly integral part of the job.

Well, on our department a fair amount of the defensive tactics portion of the academy is dedicated to wristlocks, armbars, and control holds of that nature. The do some groundfighting (but usually only to the extent that one person is trying to apply a technique to another person who is offering "passive resistance"), not as much as they probably should, and have couple of instructors who pretty proficient at Brazilian Ju-Jitsu. There is also the T3 restraint manuever used for handcuffing resisting or combative subjects. That basically consists of placing your knee between the shoulder blades over the T3 vertebrae. As long as you don't drop or slam your knee down on them, it leads to a pretty restrictive control technique, painful as all get out, but no damage. They spend a small amount of time doing "Red Man" fighting. The "Red Man" is a big padded suit the instructor puts on so that the recruits can beat on them with rolled paper batons pretty much at full force. They also have to be able to take the Red Man down to the ground I believe.

We also do some baton training and use pepper spray. Yes, everyone get's gassed. It sucks.

The problems are twofold however. First, our defensive tactics are not so much a comprehensive system as they are a "if this, do that". That said, the reasonably intelligent and athletic folks can integrate the techniques more smoothly into more general principles. Second, once you get out of the academy, that is about it for defensive tactics training until once in a blue moon unless the individual officer takes the effort to continue some form of practice or training on their own. Some do, some don't.

In the past police departments had a tendency to be loaded with the "Type A" (aggressive, take charge, etc.) personality type people, but in recent years more officers have come on the force that have the more passive "Type B" personality. This is in part because municipalities appear to have changed hiring practices (most likely due to law suits and to change the public image of police) in an attempt to get the more passive type of individual. In particular, many of the older police officers and administrators "blame" a testing procedure called the B-PAD. Now personally, I think it's a good thing to try to weed out the neanderthal "club 'em in the head" types to a great extent. However, it may be that some newer officers swing too far to the non-aggressive side.

I can see how the B-PAD can be a good tool if you have good evaluators (as with any testing process I suppose) reviewing the test subject's actions. But, it is unnatural to try to communicate with a video screen playing a scenario, particularly since it does not interact or give feedback to the applicant based on his/her behavior.

[aequalsa]

In the past police departments had a tendency to be loaded with the "Type A" (aggressive, take charge, etc.) personality type people, but in recent years more officers have come on the force that have the more passive "Type B" personality. This is in part because municipalities appear to have changed hiring practices (most likely due to law suits and to change the public image of police) in an attempt to get the more passive type of individual. In particular, many of the older police officers and administrators "blame" a testing procedure called the B-PAD. Now personally, I think it's a good thing to try to weed out the neanderthal "club 'em in the head" types to a great extent. However, it may be that some newer officers swing too far to the non-aggressive side.

That's interesting. I wonder if there will be a rise in job related injuries as a result of this chanmge. Unless they can find people more in that golden mean. There's a lot to be said for being able to raise your voice and speak in a commanding tone when necessary. Also in fighting, when it comes to that, you have to have that 'forward' mindset to some extent to make most techniques effective.

It surprises me that grappling isn't emphasized more. I would think you would spend a good deal more time doing that(drunks, domestic violence,etc) then say shooting at the more violent criminals.

[Lathanar]

Reno 911 comes to mind.

[RationalBiker]

It surprises me that grappling isn't emphasized more. I would think you would spend a good deal more time doing that(drunks, domestic violence,etc) then say shooting at the more violent criminals.

Oh, we quite definitely spend more time grappling than shooting in terms of dealing with suspects. (my personal style is to grapple and/or spray as opposed to striking techniques in most instances)

However the view of liability from above seems to be inverse to that. We spend more time shooting and qualifying with firearms than in grappling training by far.

[konerko14]

If those police officers at that department were given Taser guns, that incident would have been over in seconds- and without any innocent people getting put at risk for danger.

[Inspector]

If those police officers at that department were given Taser guns, that incident would have been over in seconds- and without any innocent people getting put at risk for danger.

I was thinking the same thing.