Author:

Words Twicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10195366033641806212

Less Lethal Weapons and Use of Force

Posted by – August 2, 2009

Via Scott at Spartan Cops, I came across a study on less lethal weapons and use of force titled “Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis” by Charlie Mesloh, Mark Henych and Ross Wolf.

While the use of force (UOF) by Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) is different from UOF by citizens in terms of goals, there are also a lot of similarities. This document is well worth reading to gain further understanding of UOF issues, particularly regarding less lethal weapons. I will point out a few items from Scott’s post that are relevant to the ongoing Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) discussion here at Brillianter.

The ability to end a confrontation between officers and suspects is the measure of the effectiveness of a force level or weapon. This report lists the success rate of weapons and control techniques that were attempted at the beginning of a confrontation:
Taser – 69%
Police K9 – 69%
Chemical agents – 65%
Impact Weapons – 45%
Takedowns – 41%
Compliance Holds – 16%

The authors point out that previous research looks at the highest levels of suspect resistance and police force as the only factor of a confrontation. This study looks at the whole event and examines each point where officers used force to overcome the suspect’s resistance. It then studies the cumulative effect of all those points and finds that both officers and suspects are more likely to sustain injuries the longer the confrontations go on.

[emphasis mine]

As Mostly Genius has mentioned, stopping a confrontation in its earliest stages can be critical in avoiding serious injury or death.

The authors coin a term, “force deficit”, which describes when officers consistently use less force than may be justifiable or necessary to subdue the suspect and end the confrontation. A force deficit causes the incident to drag out longer and raise the cumulative amount of force used. They point out that decisive force early on appears to be the solution and reduces the likelihood of additional injuries caused by the subsequent applications of force.

[emphasis mine]

Using the appropriate amount of force at the earliest stages not only resolves the confrontation quickly and therefore reduces injuries on both sides, but also shields the defender from legal liability for inappropriate (excessive) use of force. As mentioned previously, the lack of alternatives to deadly force can create a situation where someone can be seriously injured or killed simply because the defender doesn’t know what else to do. Ideally, we want to avoid having to kill anyone.

The authors recommend that officers should be prepared to use decisive force when verbal techniques of de-escalation fail. When a suspect engages in active physical resistance, the authors show that immediately using a TASER, Police K9, or chemical agent is the most reasonable method to quickly end the confrontation.

[emphasis mine]

A few bloggers have stated that they have been sprayed with OC and were less than impressed with the results. I also have been sprayed and sprayed others. I have seen the gamut of reactions exhibited by people who have been sprayed, ranging from panic to indifference. Basically, I have a good idea of what to expect when I spray someone, and I think it is worth carrying.

Some things to keep in mind when using OC is that it is a very low level of force, less force than grabbing or punching someone. Also, the element of surprise is a significant factor in making it effective. Warning someone before you spray them allows them to prepare themselves both physically and psychologically. Resolute, goal oriented people, whether they are protesters passively resisting police, law enforcement or military personnel completing a training event or aggressive assailants firmly intent on committing acts of violence will not be effected by OC the same way a less committed aggressor will be. This does not mean it is worthless.

Those people who dismiss OC as worthless for self defense are missing a valuable capability. The overwhelming majority of confrontations in your lifetime will not be deadly force encounters. Carrying a firearm for defense is certainly useful, and when deadly force is called for, OC is clearly not appropriate. This is not an either/or decision, since they are on opposite sides of the force continuum and are not a substitute for each other. OC is not a deadly force tool, and a firearm obviously cannot be considered less lethal. In between these two ends of the continuum, there are numerous other force options, but deadly force, which so many people seem obsessed with, is only justifiable under a very specific set of circumstances, extreme situations where all other means of defense have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Contrast this with OC, which can be employed quite freely with little worry about liability. Determining what type of situation you are facing and choosing the appropriate course of action (OODA loop) is a matter of experience and training.

There are also some people who recommend martial arts or less lethal techniques only, as a catch all solution to all confrontations; they are also wrong. Martial arts, combatives, defensive tactics or whatever you want to call them are certainly a valuable component of a well prepared person’s self defense plan, but they fall somewhere on the lower side of the middle in terms of the force continuum. They are valuable techniques and like OC, they are more broadly useful than deadly force options like knives and firearms, but they don’t replace them, either. All of these methods have an appropriate place and they are generally poor substitutes for one another.

Some people complain that carrying all these tools and learning all these techniques is a burden. Presumably, they would rather carry only handguns and knives and call it a day. They have very good and redundant deadly force capability, but ignoring the remaining five or six levels of the force continuum does not actually prepare someone for most defensive situations.

Real Community Policing

Posted by – March 24, 2009

I was having a discussion the other day with Mostly Genius regarding the controversial statements made by Brian Stratton, the Mayor of Schenectady, New York, and that led to a more general discussion of how to fix a lot of the problems regarding law enforcement in the US today. The solutions proposed by the Mayor are misguided, but in any case, they are intended only as temporary measures until they can terminate the problem officers and hire new ones. They would not make any fundamental changes to how they operate.

Other options might include outsourcing policing to private companies. Private contractors could easily fill the gaps or even replace the entire department. Some gated communities already have what amounts to a private police force, but this only works because the community is actually private property and their “police” are technically security guards. There are numerous reasons why privatizing law enforcement duties would not be a wildly popular option, one of which, as MG pointed out, is that there would be problems with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

My proposal is hardly original or new but I think it could help address several problems simultaneously. I suggest rejuvenating the office of Sheriff and revive the idea of deputizing responsible, capable citizens under Posse Comitatus. This would be the ultimate form of “community policing”. It would encourage active participation in the community, not only for deterring regular street crime, but also in an emergency like an active shooter situation or in a civil defense (natural disaster, nuclear attack, etc.) context as well. The office of Sheriff is an ancient one that predates modern policing and has many advantages. In the United States, it is an elected office, which adds to its appeal as far as accountability to the community.

I envision it as something like a vetted, trained neighborhood watch program on steroids, supervised and trained by the local Sheriff’s Office. It could organized in a similar fashion to the military reserves:

  • an initial training program
  • a small number of full time cadre
  • a much larger number of part-time, on-call members
  • mandatory monthly duty and continuing education/refresher training
  • a comprehensive annual training seminar
  • the duty (and vested interest) to respond to emergencies

This program could work really well when you consider that in any given community, there are often retired or discharged people with law enforcement, firefighter/paramedic and/or military backgrounds that already have a lot of relevant training and experience. This could create a much larger pool of people to call on in the event that an officer is sick, injured, suspended, terminated, killed in the line of duty, etc. Some of the part timers may have relevant areas of expertise and could be a great help in training academies or seminars and so forth.

In the event of an unusual emergency that is beyond the capabilities of a small number of full time deputies (active shooter, escaped convict, search and rescue, AMBER Alert, etc) a large group of trained volunteers could be quickly mobilized to address the problem. When the problem is resolved, the volunteers go back to their normal lives. This is not only more economical and more responsive to specific problems, but it also builds a sense of camaraderie and reinforces bonds of community.

The overall goals of such a program would be to reduce the burden on law enforcement, make it more accountable and encourage the citizenry to take an active interest in the safety of their own communities instead of abrogating those responsibilities to some faceless agency.

Even Barack Obama recognizes the need for a different approach:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

While I am not sure it would be a “… just as strong, just as well funded” as the military, it could be a significant improvement over the current situation in several ways. I don’t believe that merely throwing money at a problem leads to successful solutions. This idea would not require a lot of money to implement, to the contrary, I think it would make maximum use of already existing resources.

There are indications that Americans would embrace a program like this. People are already doing citizen patrols.

Against his wife’s loud protestations, the young steamfitter joined a dozen other neighborhood men and set up the Rosewood night patrol.

Armed with nothing but flashlights and cellphones, the group followed suspicious cars and even set up an impromptu sting when a neighbor left town and forgot to close his garage door. They called in police to arrest the suspects after a brief chase.

High foreclosure rates, a spike in brazen break-ins, and slashed police budgets are causing turmoil in America’s transitioning urban communities, auguring what Atlanta anticrime activist Larry Ely calls an “urban war.”

Why not organize, train and deputize them? No doubt many people, who are quite comfortable with the idea of an almighty state and a dependent, helpless citizenry squealing for the federal government to “do something!”, will decry this idea as promoting “vigilante” justice. I am sure they will invoke the images of Billy the Kid, the Lincoln County Wars and the Lattimer Massacre. I would counter by pointing out that significant numbers of innocent people are already being killed by allegedly professional SWAT teams. Many people made dire predictions of rampant duels and blood running in the streets if concealed weapons permits became commonplace and that has proven to be completely inaccurate.

Obviously, there could be nepotism, corruption and incompetence in a program like this, but I don’t think that those problems would be any worse than in any currently existing situations, and actually, they would probably be less frequent. Widespread, active citizen involvement in the program makes it more likely that a whistleblower could draw attention to problems within the office. Also, I think that active involvement by local citizens makes it less likely that deputies will kick down the wrong door when serving a warrant, unlike what we see today with SWAT teams frequently raiding the wrong home (and often killing innocent people in the process). After all, many of them could be your friends and neighbors.

(HT: Walls of the City )

Beware of fraud

Posted by – December 18, 2008

Sororities say they were duped by man posing as self-defense instructor

A few thoughts on women’s self defense

Posted by – December 6, 2008

This article, Simple Self Defense Tips for Women, was written from a Canadian perspective, but it’s a one stop shop for a lot of standard self defense misinformation.

Do not panic, think, be aware and strike hard, it might be the only chance you have of saving your life.

Keeping a cool head during a crisis is always a desirable thing, yet many people have extreme difficulty doing that. Panic can be avoided by having a well rehearsed plan.

Typically during confrontations you are not thinking straight, and your imagination will not usually be fast enough to invent weapons. This is why intended objects should be carried at all times.

The best way to prevent confrontation is to avoid it all together.

Awareness is very important in Self Defense, and by being aware of the environment around you many threats on the streets can be avoided.

The best thing to do if you see or sense something that is not right is to change the route you are taking or enter someplace that will make you feel safe. If you cannot change routes, then go to the opposite side of the street and prepare to defend yourself or run if you need to.

This is just the standard disclaimer. I think everyone can agree that staying alert and not looking for trouble is a good idea. The “intended objects” term is amusing. What the author really means is “weapons”.

Be cautious of what you wear when you are walking in the street, do not bring any attention to yourself.

Certainly, revealing clothing will get you attention, some of it unwanted, though this will make little difference as to whether you are targeted. It will make a lot more difference as to whether you can escape effectively, because some women’s fashion does not lend itself to either running or fighting. How far and fast can you run in heels? Barefoot? Long hair looks nice but tactically speaking it is a liability. About the only positive thing about women’s fashion from a self defense perspective is that tight clothing can be difficult to grasp. Unfortunately, tight clothing also makes it difficult to move in the full range of motion and makes it harder to conceal a firearm (for those that are fortunate enough to live in the US).

Walk with confidence and carry yourself like you are not afraid. You will be less likely to be bothered with.

Pretending you have confidence when you really do not is False Confidence; it is essentially bluffing. What happens when someone calls your bluff? The biggest psychological hurdles many women face in this regard are overcoming a lack of assertiveness and a reluctance to using violence to defend themselves. Once they make up their mind that they refuse to be a victim and are comfortable with the concept of using violence in self-defense, all the other things will fall into place but until then, they are simply going through the motions.

Most aggressors will back down if you maintain eye contact with them and maintain yourself in the proper manner.

Staring someone down only works if you are perceived as having a credible threat of violence to back it up. If your bluff is called you had better have something to fall back on. All this advice about awareness and assertive body language is fine and good, but at the heart of the matter is actual fighting. If your alertness, assertiveness and conservative dress have all failed, if your bluff has been called and there is nowhere to run, you will have to fight.

Everything around you that you can pick up can be a potential weapon. There is only one rule if you are attacked, that is that you must survive. Any person being attacked will do whatever necessary to protect him or herself. This will require you to do anything you have to including screaming, scratching, biting (which is not recommended due to the diseases that can be spread), hit or kick, attack with a common object, do all that is needed to end the threat or to have sufficient time to getaway.

Striking the attacker with stones, knives, pencils, iron sticks, crochet or knitting needles, etc, anything you have available to you. Maybe using your cell phone will work as well. Sprays: Any aerosol cans, hair spray, spray paint, pepper sprays, mace, tear gas etc.

Knives are excellent weapons, although depending on the jurisdiction, there can be a lot of laws regulating their carry. More on that in a moment. I am not sure what the author means by “iron sticks” but I will assume they mean a yawara/Kubotan. I like the Kubotan, but it’s not something that most people intuitively know how to use. It is much more useful if you have some training and some skill. Pencils do not make very good weapons (they break far too easily) but a sturdy pen can be used in a manner similar to a Kubotan. Using your cell phone as a weapon is not something I recommend. Smashing your tiny cell phone on some man’s head is a dubious tactic, and it is quite likely to destroy your most available means to call for help. Chemical irritants are useful, but I don’t recommend anything but OC (pepper) spray. I’m not sure how many women are in the habit of carrying spray paint, but I am going to guess that it’s almost none. Hair spray is unlikely to do much to stop an attacker and like many of these suggestions, is only useful as a distraction tactic; something that you do to create an opening for something else that is more effective. Chemical sprays should not be viewed as fight ending devices and like any other tool, you are better off getting some training rather than trying to figure it out during an attack.

Unfortunately, due to the awareness of violence, people take it upon themselves to carry illegal self-defense weapons. This is not a good idea and can definitely ward off attackers, but they can bring a lot of legal difficulties for the user. In many states, the use of a firearm even in a perceived use of self-defense can land you three years in jail if you are convicted of aggravated assault. There are many effective, perfectly legal weapons which still produce the same results, should be carried instead.

The statement that there are plenty of other weapons that produce the same result as firearms is misleading. There simply aren’t any that are in the same league. If there were, they would be illegal too. The only possible exception are knives. Knives can create a lot of trauma very quickly, but they are still not in the same category as firearms (and like other deadly weapons, there are laws regulating them as well). That said, I think knives are an excellent choice for self defense and the laws regulating them tend to be far less draconian than the laws regulating firearms. In addition, although using knives as defensive weapons is fairly intuitive, there are martial arts disciplines that specialize in knife training (in particular, the Filipino martial arts – FMA) if you choose to pursue it. As always, it is your responsibility to become familiar with your local laws.

The ugly truth is that effective weapons tend to be regulated out of the reach of ordinary citizens, forcing them to improvise poor substitutes while criminals enjoy the option of arming themselves however they see fit. Often, this is simply accepted as “being for the good of society” but nothing could be further from the the truth. Disarming citizens has precisely the opposite effect. It simply makes life easier for criminal predators.

If you stop and look at what is in your bag or purse you will find that unconsciously you have been carrying many potential weapons. For example, if you have an accessible belt it may be used like a whip with the buckle. Or maybe you can stun them by throwing coins in their face. Articles of clothing are known to be used as choking items. Let’s not forget the bag itself can be used to strike the attacker.

Belt buckles can be viable improvised weapons, but how many women have ever trained to use their belts this way? Not only that, but many women’s belts are merely fashion accessories, and are not constructed in a way that makes them suitable as a weapon. Throwing coins in someone’s face is merely a distraction, it is not a weapon. Articles of clothing can certainly be used to choke, in fact some martial arts specialize in that (Judo and it’s derivatives). However, that takes some dedicated training and is not something you can learn from an article or figure out in the middle of an attack. Hitting someone with your purse is not likely to accomplish a great deal, unless you are in the habit of carrying a brick in your purse. The problem with most of these suggestions is that they are assuming that there is going to be physical parity between a woman and a male attacker.

Being quick and efficient in using weapons is very important; so when you are in danger, do not be uncertain about using them.

Being decisive is important, but using improvised weapons is not quick and efficient, it is an act of desperation. Real weapons are quick and efficient. That is the whole point of having a weapon: it’s faster and easier than using your bare hands, hitting someone with your cell phone or throwing coins.

Hit quickly, and if doable, attack weak points by using a lot of power, for instance, the groin, effective against both men and women.

The groin strike is not the Achilles Heel that it is portrayed to be. Along with eye gouges and biting, this makes up the Holy Trinity of “self defense” moves that are endlessly touted as being fight stoppers. The truth is that they are mostly softening techniques, a way to create an opening in order to escape or use other, more decisive techniques. They frequently don’t work because most women do not practice these techniques on dynamic, resisting training partners and don’t understand their application or their shortcomings. Many novices think they can escape a chokehold by using one of these three easy techniques, until they actually try it and realize that it’s not quite as simple as they first imagined. The popularity of these techniques is in their perceived simplicity; the notion that one doesn’t need to spend hours, weeks, months or years in training is appealing to many people.

The key component that is missing in all of the advice in the article is training. A woman is far better off learning proper (modern) weapons use and serious, full contact martial arts than relying on untested advice. Unless you practice these techniques and rehearse self defense scenarios, it is not likely that you will fare very well. There is an old saying about functioning under extreme stress: you will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

Remember, do not panic, think, be aware and strike hard.

The best way to avoid panic is to have real confidence that comes with sound training and preparation, not false confidence based on wishful thinking and hoping against bad odds.

This might be the only chance you have of saving your life.

Then why not arm yourself with a proper weapon and some training instead of relying on knitting needles, hair spray and bad advice?