Gunfighter: A Modern Warrior's Life

Dear Mr. Hawkins

On December 4th, 2009, I wrote a post called "Tasers & The Use of Force".  The impetus behind the post was a long-continuing discussion on another blog about the use of Tasers by police departments, particularly when a Taser shooting results in a death.

In the post, I discussed the laws regarding the use of force, Supreme Court decisions, definitions of deadly force, the difference between the terms "less-lethal" and "non-lethal", and other things relevant to the subject.  My hope was to add some input from a law enforcement perspective.  What is more, I wanted to provide a little education for folks who may not have a clear view on the subject.  I wanted to present this information as just that, information... information without emotion, which is the best way to teach on a sensitive subject like this.

As you might imagine, the post generated several comments.  Some of the comments were clearly written by people didn't read the whole post, who were rather voluble on the subject.  case in point, the following comment, by a certain Mr. Hawkins.  I didn't respond to it then, but I think I will now... just because I need to.  The commenter needs to read this.  I hope that he will.

"i want it to say if one person is killed by a taser it is one to many! cops and taser international contends it is safe--for who? the cops or the person who refuses to take comands from the police? tasers is a firearm! i do not see how a taser is a soft technique.
that is 50,000 volts going through a persons body when they use only 2,450 volts in a electric chair for executions! i think there needs to be more restraints on the use of deasdly force with tasers. you can't say that woops we killed one and it was not suppose to happen --sorry! it doesn't work that way. one death is one to many. what was life like before the taser? mmm..."

 

Dear Mr. Hawkins,

I agree that one accidental death is one too many... but accidental death happens all of the time through happenstance as well the mysterious "act of God" that we struggle to understand.  The fact that accidental deaths happen in law enforcement shouldn't be a shock, as it should be expected in an arena where weapons are regularly used.

As for Taser International's assertion that Tasers are safe, I would have to agree.  Please remember that "Safe" means lots of different things, but in this instance, Tasers ARE safe.  Safe for the users and relatively safe for the person it is used on.  Whether the person is a trainee, or a non-compliant subject is immaterial.

Tasers, sir, are NOT firearms, and cannot be classified as such since they don't meet in criteria listed in the definition of firearm, to wit: 

According to 18 USC (United States Code) Section 921, the following are included within the definition

-- any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be

converted to expel a projectile by the action of any explosive;

-- the frame or receiver of any weapon described above;

-- any firearm muffler or firearm silencer;

-- any destructive device, which includes:

(a) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas

(1). Bomb;

(2). Grenade,

(3). Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,

(4). Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter

ounce,

(5). Mine, or

(6). Similar device

(b) any weapon which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by

the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of

more than one-half inch in diameter

(c) any combination or parts either designed or intended for use in converting any

device into any destructive device described in the two immediately preceding examples,

and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

As for Tasers not being "soft" technique, I beg to differ.  Once again, I ask you to read the definition.  Soft Techniques are described as having "Minimal chance of injury eg; "come along" holds, Pressure points, electronic defense modules, chemical agents."   Tasers fit that description quite well, as most people who have this device used against them have no lasting effects.  I realize that you don't THINK that it is a soft technique, sir, but in this intance you are wrong.

OK, now let me address your comments about more restraints on deadly force with Tasers.... I don't know how much I can say here other than to repeat the fact that Tasers are not deadly force weapons.  Remember, deadly force is described as any use of force that is LIKELY to cause death or serious physical injury.  Tasers simply don't fill that niche.

Now, let's talk a little about your last statement... well, question, really.  You asked what life was like before the era of the Taser.  Well, here is my answer, and I hope you dig it.  Before the advent of Tasers, pepper spray, and other less-lethal weaponf, if an officer needed a weapon, he either had to use a baton or his sidearm to subdue a suspect.  I don't know how old you are, sir, but I'll tell you one thing, I know enough about weapons to know that I would rather be Tasered that struck, full power, with a steel baton.

Yes, steel batons.  You see, in pre-Taser America, if force requirements didn't warrant deadly force, your baton was it.  Do you think it was better or more humane to beat someone with a baton (which almost always causes broken bones)?  You do realize, of course, that probably more suspects have died as the result of being struck with batons than have died in Taser incidents... right?  You realize, of course, how often Tasers get used in America, right?  I am certain that in the next 36 to 48 hours, at least a hundred non-compliant or violent offenders will be Tasered across the country, and most of them will have no other effects beyond momentary pain and/or immobilization.

Look, being stunned with a Taser is unpleasant... it is designed to be unpleasant.  People who get Tased, in general, aren't just a bunch of people standing on the corner, peacebly minding their own business.  Sometimes unintended things happen, but that's just the way the world works.

Tasers & The Use of Force

If you have never been to my blog before, welcome!

Let me give you a little relevant background information about myself: I am a Trainer for a law enforcement agency, and have been doing this for thirteen years. My primary focus is combat firearms and the Use of Force.

I live and work in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

In the past several months, the use of TASER weapons by law enforcement officers nation-wide, has come under the microscope of many Americans.  The proliferation of websites (none of which I will grace with additional exposure) that spend their time ranting against cops is just one such societal indicator of the concern that is felt by so many citizens.

Today, I am taking part in a day of action... or a blog blast on the issue of TASER use in America.  This say is sponsored by my friend Wayne, from The Electronic Village.

Considering what I do for a living, It probably won't surprise any of you that I fully support the use of TASERs as an effective tool in law enforcement.  A TASER, properly employed, tends to result in less harm to a non-compliant suspect, and in increased protection for law enforcement personnel as well as the general public... but more about that later.

When discussing the use of these weapons, we use the term TASER which has become common even thought the term TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (Tom Swift being a fictional hero of the inventor of the device).  Later, the name TASER became the brand name for the manufacturer of the most commonly used version of this class of weapons.   Where I work, the term we use for this sort of product is a bit more usage-specific.  We call them "Electronic Defense Modules".  Well, no matter what you call them, the effect is the same, which brings us to our discussion of where TASERs fall in the so-called force continuum, and it's application.

Before we even get to the heart of all of this, we need to have at least some grounding in when, why, and how police officers are supposed to use force while on duty, and there is no other way to get at that than to have a discussion on the law. 

The law. 

Let me state, right from the beginning.  I am not a lawyer.  I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of the law.  What I am doing here, is giving you an overview of some legal aspects of the use of force by police officers.  Nothing that I say here should be construed as some sort of legal consultation.  Nor am I acting in my official capacity as a lawman... I am merely having a discussion with some friends on a subject that I know something about.

How's that for a disclaimer?

Oh.  Wait, there's more:  Nothing included in this post should suggest that I am speaking on behalf of any U.S. governmental agency or organization, or that my opinions reflect those of any agency, organization, or official.

Are we clear? Ok, let's get down.

It breaks down like this: The use of force by police officers in the U.S. is governed by two particular Supreme Court cases. Those cases are Graham v. Connor (use of force in general), and Tennessee v. Garner (the use of deadly force by police). These decisions are at the heart of all discussions on whether or not a particular instance of the use of force was lawful. Please note that lawful doesn't necessarily coincide with "authorized".

In the case of Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of force by an officer, upon a "seized, free citizen" will be based on the standard of "objective reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court stated that "based on a totality of circumstances the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the facts that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."

The reasonableness of the officer's decision will be based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used. What was determined or discovered after force was used cannot be used to justify or condemn the use of force.

Please understand something, right from the start, no law in this country requires that a cop has to be right when he or she uses force on whatever level. That's right, we don't have to be right. We only need to be "Reasonable". That's the law, friends. Was a particular use of force reasonable for the officer given the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the incident?  That's it.

Let's talk for a little while about some of the things that will drive an officer's decisions on the use of force. These things include, but are not limited to the severity of the crime; was the suspect an immediate threat; was the suspect actively resisting arrest, or evading arrest by flight? Those are some of the things that might drive the decision of whether or not to use force.

Some factors that may drive an officer's decision on how much force to use are listed here:

Use of alcohol or drugs

Mental or Psychiatric History

Size, weight, age, condition of the officer and/or suspect

Availability to weapons

Officer to suspect ratio

History of violence

Previous use of force resulting in injury

Duration of the action

Presence of bystanders

These things (and more) are what an officer has to make decisions about when deciding what level of force/she may have to apply.  I could talk about each one of these things individually, but that would take more time than I have to type them.  Having said that, if you should need further explanation on any of those factors, please ask me either by comment or email, and I will explain more fully.

OK, now would be a good time to talk about the early application of force.  There are times when an an officer may, and indeed should, use force early on in a confrontation.  The early application of force generally results in less force used by officers, fewer injuries to the officer AND suspect.  The early application of force should happen when a suspect becomes non-compliant, or gives any pre-assault indicators, such as assuming a fighting stance.

Remember... "force" can mean different things, so let's pause for a moment to talk about them.  Where I work, there are five separate levels of force, and the are:

Officer Presence - The ability to effect or change behavior based on presence/appearance alone.

Verbal Commands - Firm, clear, concise directions

Soft Techniques - Minimal chance of injury eg; "come along" holds, Pressure points, electronic defense modules, chemical agents.

Hard Techniques -Greater chance of injury, eg; Strikes, kicks, blows, throws, take-downs, & impact weapons

Deadly Force - Any force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

As you can see, electronic defense modules, or TASERs, for our purposes, fall under soft techniques, because when properly used, they generally result in minimal (if any) injury.

Now, having discussed the levels of force, let's talk about what so many people refer to as the "Force Continuum".  That term usually refers to some sort of matrix that shows what an officer's reaction should be to certain behaviors by a suspect.  There are many variations of the continuum and I have added an illustration here to give you an example of what they look like:

The diagram that you see above, used to be in common use in federal law enforcement, but is now a relic.  It is a relic because it gave students that notion that each step in the "pyramid" had to be exhausted before an officer could move to the next level of force.  That notion couldn't be further from the truth. 

Now, this is where the discussion frequently gets ugly, and strays from the factual into the realm of perspective and strong opinion.  There are people who believe TASERs to be weapons of torture, used by police officers as punishment... as a "torture" device, based on the fact that it's use causes extreme pain.  I disagree vehemently with this assertion. 

When using TASERs (a soft technique), cops are no more using them as a torture devices than they would use an expandable steel baton (a hard technique) to strike someone.  It's that simple.  Yes, simple.

Let's move a little further and talk a little more about deadly force, since the number of TASER-related deaths are at the heart of the wider discussion on TASERs and their use.  Many of the folks involved in this discussion want TASERs banned.  Many want TASERs to re-classified as "near deadly force" weapons.  I say that these things are unnecessary because TASERs rarely kill.  Yes, I know, any unintended death is a bad thing, but generally speaking, TASERs rarely result in the death of a suspect.

Let's talk a little more about what deadly force is... and ins't

Deadly Force

• The use of any force that is likely to cause death or

serious physical injury.

 

Serious Physical Injury

• A substantial risk of death

• Extreme/protracted physical pain 

Protracted and obvious disfigurement

• Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily

member, organ, or mental faculty

You see, when force is used and it unexpectedly results in death, the force level hasn't necessarily changed.  For instance, if I were to get in a fistfight with a subject, and a punch in to his face caused a sudden stroke which killed him, I haven't used deadly force... I have used a hard technique that resulted in unexpected death.  An unexpected death isn't deadly force just because someone died.

The point that I am trying to make with all of this is that all sorts of weapons can kill.  All sorts of empty hand techniques can kill, weapons designated as "less lethal" (not NON-lethal) can kill... but it is important to remember what deadly force is:  Force which is LIKELY to cause death or serious physical injury.  TASERs don't fit that description.

TASERs aren't the devil.  Cops that use them aren't the devil, either.  If fewer people entered into public disturbances or violent confrontations, TASERs wouldn't be used as much, subsequently reducing the number of TASER-related deaths, nation-wide.  

TASERs save lives.  Sometimes they take lives, too.  It's sad, but there it is.

I regularly give our officers and agents a presentation on the Use of Force... it is an annual requirement where I work.  The presentation is about ninety minutes... I hope that the shortened version tat you see here helps in some small way.  If you have questions, contact me via comments or email.

 

Can't Taze This!

It's not like we didn't hear enough about this before... but you have to admit, this video is some seriously funny stuff. Enjoy your weekend, folks. GF

What I do

When I started this blog, last year, I said that I was going to talk about firearms, but not exclusively. In the intervening time, I have said relatively little about them. Today will be different.

I had a conversation, recently, with someone that regularly reads my blog, and she asked me: "just what is that you do?" So I told her. Perhaps this is a good time to tell the rest of you.

Most of you know that I am a tactical firearms instructor for a government agency. Some of you know what that means and some don't, so let me explain:

I teach people how to fight with guns.

I also teach new people HOW to shoot, but that is secondary... maybe even tertiary to the main thrust of my job.

There is a world of difference between teaching someone how to safely operate a firearm and teaching a regular, decent person how to kill someone with a handgun... up close and personal.

Initial firearms training involves the following subjects:

Nomenclature (the parts of the gun)
Assembly/disassembly
Maintenance (cleaning, servicing)
The cycle of operations
Safety
Marksmanship
Safety
Legitimate use of deadly force
Safety

These things are vitally important, don't get me wrong... but I usually get my hands on the people AFTER they already have this training.

What I do is take that basic training and take the operator forward and train them on what that gun is really for.

Unfortunately, many people in law enforcement are under the impression that their pistol is some sort of magic talisman that will ward off vampires or evil spirits. Too many officers and agents believe in their hearts that they will never have to use a gun in combat and are psychologically unprepared to do so. Too many of those people are dead now. I get rid of all such notions right away.

In my combat classes, I start with a lecture in the history of firearms, with an emphasis on fighting with handguns. I let the people know that gunfighting is the original American martial art. It is an art that is on an equal footing with the great Asian martial arts. It is a stylized system of personal combat. One which is easy to learn at the outset, but requires years of discipline to be really good at. I ask my combat shooters to regularly re-dedicate themselves to their own training, which they have to have the self-discipline to continue.

One of the most important aspects of training to fight with a gun starts in your own head, with the decision making process. The first thing that you need to do before you start training is to decide whether or not you can kill someone. This isn't an abstract question. You need to decide... right now, if you can or cannot kill. Never mind the statistics that say you will almost certainly never have to do it. Statistics never ran into an ex-convict that they put in jail five years ago, while they are in a restaurant. You have to know, and be OK with the idea that you might have to use this weapon, and the likely result is the sometimes gruesome death of another human being.

That decision being made, we move into subjects such as reactive shooting, elements of the draw, combat sighting, contact shots, drug and armor drills, shooting on the move, use of cover, shooting while down or disabled (wounded), shooting in reduced light (with & without a flashlight), post-shooting techniques, etc... but most important is how to effectively shoot someone.

It can be difficult to turn your average 24 year old into a meat eating predator, but it is rewarding when you come up with a finished product that has decided to really fight for his/her own life, and is capable and confident in his/her own ability to do so with successful results.

I ask myself every day, if I can kill or not. When that day comes that I answer "I'm not sure" I'll find something else to do.

How Many Bullets?

By now, most of you have heard about the recent tragedy in New York City in which a man was fatally shot by members of the NYCPD.

While neither the public or the NYCPD have all of the facts about the incident yet, the howling rush to judgement has begun.

I'll wait awhile before discussing why the shooting was or wasn't justified until the facts are in, but I would like to talk a few minutes to talk about what we are hearing in the news regarding this particular incident.

We are being bombarded with television images of grieving loved ones and a parade of "community leaders" (not to mention that media whore, Al Sharpton) saying that the number of shots fired was excessive. Even New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg has said it seems excessive (thanks for politicizing the case, Mike, you ass!).

From what I can gather, the officers involved in the shooting fired approximately 50 rounds. The two suspects that survived the shooting were hit a total of 14 times. The first was hit 11 times and the other, three times.

While 50 shots seems like an awful lot, please understand that although that number may seem excessive, the number itself doesn't determine whether or not excessive force was used.

In terms of the Use of Deadly Force, and use of Excessive Force, by police officers, there are two pieces of Supreme Court case law that determine when the use of deadly force is justified and how much force is justified in any given circumstance. The relevant case for this situation is Graham v. Connor (1989).

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the use of force by an officer upon a “seized, free citizen” will be based on the standards of what is “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court stated that “based on a totality of circumstances the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the facts that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”

Since the facts of the case are not in yet, we cannot determine what is or isn't excessive. What we are hearing now are the cries of grief, sadness, anger, and other emotions that, while justified or not, don't make any difference about whether or not these officers were justified in shooting or whether or not the number of shots was excessive.

Please note that the fact that these men turned out not to be armed doesn't enter in to the reasonableness of the use of force at all.

This puts me in mind of the Amadou Diallo case from about 10 years ago. Diallo was an African immigrant that was killed by four NYCPD officers, who had fired 42 shots at the man that they believed was reaching for a gun. Diallo was hit 19 times. The officers were indicted under similar circumstances of community outrage. They were tried and acquitted, based mostly on case law from Graham v. Connor.

Diallo's death, much like this one, was a terrible tragedy, and one that could have benn avoided, but it doesn't mean that the cops were guilty of a crime.

My gut tells me these officers acted appropriately... time will tell as facts are revealed.

GF