[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mandatory Use of Force Reports (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/24/2009 12:24:47 AM EDT
| So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? |
| Is this being implemented because of complaints about a few overzealous officers, a lawsuit, or something else? Just curious. The cuffing, eh, pointing a firearm, yeah I could see filing a report, even if it's nothing but a CYA. No arrest means maybe you shouldn't have been pointing a gun at them in the first place. Gun drawn and by your side, yes, drawing down................well, nobody likes a gun pointed at them if they didn't do anything wrong and to some people, whoops, my bad [or nothing at all] doesn't cut it. Do some of the Officers on the force seem to overdo it in that area? |
|
My department just started doing them, they are all the rage with chiefs this season.
Every time we make an arrest, one is made out by the arresting officer, and any backups that did anything. Handcuff, verbal commmands, OC, tazer, (there isn't a section for dirty looks, yet). Also any use of force in non arrest situations, handcuffing, etc. so, effectively, every arrest will generate at least one use of force report. We have been told that these are placed in the officers individual file, not with the arrest report. But we know that's bullshit, they have to deliver everything under discovery, so defense attorney's will be able to access them all. Bosses like a paper trail, so they can discipline you more easily. And the chief don't give a fig if I am on the hook for a frivilous lawsuit, so long as he can stay clean. 21 months to retirement. |
|
Quoted:
––––-> Handcuffing, no ––––-> Firearm drawn, but at low ready or out of sight, no ––––-> Firearm drawn, pointed at suspect and commands given, yes About the same. If the drawing of the firearm has a visible effect on the situation, ie the BG looks down the barrel of the .40 and changes his attitude, then write the report. If it's out at the low ready or whatever retention position, just to give you that extra 1/4 second edge, and doesn't get pointed at anyone, don't worry about it. |
|
A few agencies down here have considered it, but most have refused to change their policies. We take the stance that drawing and or pointing a weapon is not force, per se. It still falls under the officer presence category, or maybe verbal commands, if given.
I guess it may work in some agencies with relatively few use of force incidents per year, but would fail miserably in larger urban agencies. Just remember, if you want a cop to stop exhibiting a certain behavior, just order him to write paper every time he does it. That is the underlying reason behind this policy, thanks to knuckleheads somewhere drawing their firearm when perhaps it may not have been such a good idea. You will see cops not drawing their firearms when they should, just to avoid paper. |
|
Handcuffing? It depends on the situation. If it is something like mistaken identity and the intent was to arrest the person on a warrant and no other force was used, an apology is in order, but not a report. If it took force to put the cuffs on, or if it was someone alleging a crime but who later recanted, or something like that, then at least a CYA report is needed.
A drawn firearm to clear a house on an alarm with an open door that turns out to be nothing? No report. Firearm drawn on traffic stop but never seen by stopped person(s?) No report. Firearm drawn and it affects the situation? Yeah, a brief report is in order. Note, I am talking about situations where there would otherwise not be a report, like a call of a burglary in progress and when you get there a guy is crawling out a back window and you draw your weapon on him, but it turns out that it is just the boyfriend or whatnot and not an actual crime. As an example, I was on patrol one day when I saw (this account will cover my observations at first, meaning what I saw, what it looked like to me,) a couple driving down the road. Their car began to swerve a bit, and there appeared to be a fight of sorts, then the woman (passenger) attempted to open her door and flee the moving vehicle. The man forcefully grabbed her and yanked her back towards him and struck her on the shoulder then slapped her face, all while weaving, then made for a parking area and pulled over as I was turning on my lights. I pulled in behind them, right as the woman opened her door and tried to flee on foot, at which point the man exited his door and chased her down and tackled her to the ground while shouting. Once he had her down (as I was running towards them,) he slapped her a couple more times while shouting. Obviously a domestic dispute, and I was running full tilt at the pair and made perfect contact as the woman was struggling to get free and the man continued to restrain her. I hit him with a good tackle and we went right off the woman and I had him face down and cuffed in seconds. Happy ending, right? Nope. the "woman" was the man's 15 year old flaming gay son who had run away from home to live with an older man. The man had recovered his son by force, and had already reported the statutory rape issue to another district, and was taking his son home when his son began striking him and then tried to escape again by jumping out the moving car. The father was trying to restrain, then recapture, his son, and was striking him with an open hand and in an attempt to retain custody of him––all perfectly legal in LA. So, yeah, in addition to a profuse and sincere apology, I wrote report on the incident. Though the father never made a complaint or sued or anything, and this despite the fact that when I tackled him to the ground his face got cut up on the gravel in the parking lot. |
|
Quoted:
A few agencies down here have considered it, but most have refused to change their policies. We take the stance that drawing and or pointing a weapon is not force, per se. It still falls under the officer presence category, or maybe verbal commands, if given. I guess it may work in some agencies with relatively few use of force incidents per year, but would fail miserably in larger urban agencies. Just remember, if you want a cop to stop exhibiting a certain behavior, just order him to write paper every time he does it. That is the underlying reason behind this policy, thanks to knuckleheads somewhere drawing their firearm when perhaps it may not have been such a good idea. You will see cops not drawing their firearms when they should, just to avoid paper. Not really––-a quick report when the weapon is seen and affects the outcome works here. Note, I am only talking about times that there is no other report––––if you draw your weapon while arresting an armed robber, you are already writing a report anyway, and the fact that you pointed a weapon at the perp. is going to be covered in that report anyway. |
|
Unless there is injury to the victim, I don't see the point. If I had to write a report every time I broke leather.... jeez. What a waste of time. I believe we have it specifically in our policy that normal complaint of injury from handcuffing will not be sustained, unless there is proof that it was done incorrectly or with the intent to cause injury.
I think I'd give the chief what he wants - bury him in paperwork. Doc |
|
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing.
Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. |
|
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. |
|
Quoted:
So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? My old job did, it was horrible. Paperwork on top of paperwork, really slowed everything down. All the paperwork and BS along with it made everyone not want to work. |
|
Quoted:
So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? We had the handcuff one for awhile. Cops quit cuffing people on felony car stops, unless they were sure it was actually the suspect. So, a lot of people weren't being cuffed that should have been. Now, if there is an injury or complaint of injury from the cuffs, sure a report should be done. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. Ours are incorporated into our incident reports, so there is no extra form. And it's check the box stuff, so it's not a burden. And nobody trusts their officers more than I do. And I assure you, nobody here hesitates to use that force which is necessary to get the job done. |
|
Quoted:
––––-> Handcuffing, no ––––-> Firearm drawn, but at low ready or out of sight, no ––––-> Firearm drawn, pointed at suspect and commands given, yes Same here. Also all shootings go to shooting review board. I shot a deer after it had been hit by a car, two reports to write and review by the shooting board. ETA: UoF report for tasing, OC or baton use. |
|
Quoted:
Is this being implemented because of complaints about a few overzealous officers, a lawsuit, or something else? Just curious. The cuffing, eh, pointing a firearm, yeah I could see filing a report, even if it's nothing but a CYA. No arrest means maybe you shouldn't have been pointing a gun at them in the first place. Gun drawn and by your side, yes, drawing down................well, nobody likes a gun pointed at them if they didn't do anything wrong and to some people, whoops, my bad [or nothing at all] doesn't cut it. Do some of the Officers on the force seem to overdo it in that area? The guy who goes under the seat diving for his wallet or insurance papers, leather will be cleared. I also disagree on your point of no arrest means you shouldn't have pulled your gun. Every situation is different. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. Case in point. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5646869322100258929# |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. Case in point. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5646869322100258929# Excellent example. It couldn't be clearer. IIRC the officer had just been reprimanded for use of force.... pulling his gun out. Correct me if I am wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this being implemented because of complaints about a few overzealous officers, a lawsuit, or something else? Just curious. The cuffing, eh, pointing a firearm, yeah I could see filing a report, even if it's nothing but a CYA. No arrest means maybe you shouldn't have been pointing a gun at them in the first place. Gun drawn and by your side, yes, drawing down................well, nobody likes a gun pointed at them if they didn't do anything wrong and to some people, whoops, my bad [or nothing at all] doesn't cut it. Do some of the Officers on the force seem to overdo it in that area? The guy who goes under the seat diving for his wallet or insurance papers, leather will be cleared. I also disagree on your point of no arrest means you shouldn't have pulled your gun. Every situation is different. Drawing your weapon/holding at your side or low ready and pointing it directly at a person are two different things in most people mind. Reaching under your seat is sheer stupidity without first telling the officer what you are doing, what is there and asking them if it's OK to retrieve your info. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. Case in point. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5646869322100258929# Excellent example. It couldn't be clearer. IIRC the officer had just been reprimanded for use of force.... pulling his gun out. Correct me if I am wrong. You are correct. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this being implemented because of complaints about a few overzealous officers, a lawsuit, or something else? Just curious. The cuffing, eh, pointing a firearm, yeah I could see filing a report, even if it's nothing but a CYA. No arrest means maybe you shouldn't have been pointing a gun at them in the first place. Gun drawn and by your side, yes, drawing down................well, nobody likes a gun pointed at them if they didn't do anything wrong and to some people, whoops, my bad [or nothing at all] doesn't cut it. Do some of the Officers on the force seem to overdo it in that area? The guy who goes under the seat diving for his wallet or insurance papers, leather will be cleared. I also disagree on your point of no arrest means you shouldn't have pulled your gun. Every situation is different. Drawing your weapon/holding at your side or low ready and pointing it directly at a person are two different things in most people mind. Reaching under your seat is sheer stupidity without first telling the officer what you are doing, what is there and asking them if it's OK to retrieve your info. Our course it is, but to say pointing your weapon at someone and there not being an arrest is a stretch to say the weapon should not have been pointed. You go with what you know and what you see. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. Case in point. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5646869322100258929# Excellent example. It couldn't be clearer. IIRC the officer had just been reprimanded for use of force.... pulling his gun out. Correct me if I am wrong. Pull out all of the emotional videos you want, it won't change simple reality. Deputy Dinkheller (RIP  ) had a lot more issues going on than you are acknowledging. That was a guy that was simply not prepared for the cold hard reality that he ran into that day.
Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that your assertion holds water. Dinkheller got reprimanded or disciplined for drawing his weapon on some previous call. Is that a reporting problem? Are you suggesting he should conceal whatever action he chose to take from his supervisors? That probably wouldn't be a very good career move. What you are blaming on reporting, is actually a leadership problem. The agency leadership and training staff where Dinkheller worked created that problem, not their reporting requirements. |
|
Quoted:
Pull out all of the emotional videos you want, it won't change simple reality. Deputy Dinkheller (RIP ) had a lot more issues going on than you are acknowledging. That was a guy that was simply not prepared for the cold hard reality that he ran into that day.
Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that your assertion holds water. Dinkheller got reprimanded or disciplined for drawing his weapon on some previous call. Is that a reporting problem? Are you suggesting he should conceal whatever action he chose to take from his supervisors? That probably wouldn't be a very good career move. What you are blaming on reporting, is actually a leadership problem. The agency leadership and training staff where Dinkheller worked created that problem, not their reporting requirements. I think it does go to reporting/leadership. Most any other officer would have cleared leather in the video and sent rounds down range. It has never to my knowledge been published publically to what happend in the previous incident nor what he was told if it happend again. Was this a man facing a mortgage payment? Who was hoping his worst fears had not happened upon him that day? No one is saying an officer should conceal what they do on the street but with a mandatory reporting comes great scrunity, MMQB. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pull out all of the emotional videos you want, it won't change simple reality. Deputy Dinkheller (RIP ) had a lot more issues going on than you are acknowledging. That was a guy that was simply not prepared for the cold hard reality that he ran into that day.
Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that your assertion holds water. Dinkheller got reprimanded or disciplined for drawing his weapon on some previous call. Is that a reporting problem? Are you suggesting he should conceal whatever action he chose to take from his supervisors? That probably wouldn't be a very good career move. What you are blaming on reporting, is actually a leadership problem. The agency leadership and training staff where Dinkheller worked created that problem, not their reporting requirements. I think it does go to reporting/leadership. Most any other officer would have cleared leather in the video and sent rounds down range. It has never to my knowledge been published publically to what happend in the previous incident nor what he was told if it happend again. Was this a man facing a mortgage payment? Who was hoping his worst fears had not happened upon him that day? No one is saying an officer should conceal what they do on the street but with a mandatory reporting comes great scrunity, MMQB. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to speak ill of the dead. But I didn't bring up the Dinkheller case, and MMQBing is the best way to learn from such a case. However, in the interest in staying on topic, I'll stick to the reporting issue. Mandatory UoF reporting is just reporting. It's just information. Information that can be used by UoF trainers to identify trends, refine techniques, and better prepare officers for the street. It can also help an agency defend against claims that they are 'heavy-handed'. It can be used as an early warning indicator of an officers' tendency to use too much force. In those cases, the agency can take steps early to correct it and save an officers career rather than just 'weed them out' as a previous poster suggested. Its just information, factual information. By itself it does no harm nor any good. Its what the bosses do with that information that matters. And some of you seem to think I'm blind to the fact that the information can be misused. I'm not. But in those cases, mandatory reporting isn't the problem, poor leadership is. ETA: Merry Christmas to all my fellow brothers and sisters in the emergency services fields, and may your New Year be a happy and prosperous one. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to play the devil's advocaate here and provide a different perspective. Use of Force reports can certainly be a pain in the ass, no question. However, in a supportive department, there is no quicker way to shut down claims of agency-wide overzealousness in using force than to be able to produce documentation that shows over the course of a year you made 10,000 arrests and only 250 resulted in using more force than handcuffing. Of course, in an agency led by vindictive micro-managers, their use could be altogether different. YMMV and all that. Making officers fill out use of force reports for pointing their weapon at suspects has led to officers being reluctant to point their weapon on the street. This slows the officers OODA loop even more. Making officers fill out reports for handcuffing someone will make an officer think twice about securing someone that might potentially become a problem for the officer. Bottom line is that you do not want to make an officer think about anything more than his safety when he is on the street. Let the officers do their job. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have hired them. If there are a few bad seeds, weed them out and move on. Ours are incorporated into our incident reports, so there is no extra form. And it's check the box stuff, so it's not a burden. And nobody trusts their officers more than I do. And I assure you, nobody here hesitates to use that force which is necessary to get the job done. That is assuming there actually needs to be a report. Check boxes are fine and I don't have a problem with them on an arrest report or incident report when I'm hooking someone up. What about the guy I point my gun at and find out he's the store owner of the alarm call I'm on? What about the guy we felony stop, point our gun at, and put in cuffs because he matches the description and drives a car that matches the description from a robbery?..... There are NO incident reports for these every day occurances but even if it's a check box system I would have to generate a report for these examples. I'll pass on your system. |
|
Quoted:
<snip> Information that can be used by UoF trainers to identify trends, refine techniques, and better prepare officers for the street. It can also help an agency defend against claims that they are 'heavy-handed'. It can be used as an early warning indicator of an officers' tendency to use too much force. In those cases, the agency can take steps early to correct it and save an officers career rather than just 'weed them out' as a previous poster suggested. <snip> Use of force issues need to be looked at on a case by case scenerio. Compling data form a year of traffic stops or contacts is about 5% of the whole story. The grunt on the street who targets auto thefts, dope, and actively hunts down wanted felons will have terribly inflated use of force stats compared to the traffic enforcement ticket writer. Use of force issues can be seen by working with the officers through training and on the street. It's not hard to identify and it's not hard to retrain (generally). Look at the officer, not what a computer stat tells you. Documenting hand cuffing people, and pointing your gun at people on EVERY incident is detrimental to the mindset of the officer on the street. End of story. Garage-Logician : I'm not coming after you for your feelings on this. Use of force is very near and dear to me as a trainer and the nature of my assignment. I see too many guys I work with afraid to use the correct amount of force and they often say they are afraid of "getting in trouble." That statement troubles me and I do everything I can to get guys away from that mindset. Documentation of EVERYTHING hampers that effort. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Information that can be used by UoF trainers to identify trends, refine techniques, and better prepare officers for the street. It can also help an agency defend against claims that they are 'heavy-handed'. It can be used as an early warning indicator of an officers' tendency to use too much force. In those cases, the agency can take steps early to correct it and save an officers career rather than just 'weed them out' as a previous poster suggested. <snip> Use of force issues need to be looked at on a case by case scenerio. Compling data form a year of traffic stops or contacts is about 5% of the whole story. So how do we look at them if they are not documented? The grunt on the street who targets auto thefts, dope, and actively hunts down wanted felons will have terribly inflated use of force stats compared to the traffic enforcement ticket writer. Agreed. And any boss looking at the data should take that into account. Use of force issues can be seen by working with the officers through training and on the street. It's not hard to identify and it's not hard to retrain (generally). I work for a relatively small agency. But even here, my guys handle a large number of calls every year without my presence being required. I both train and supervise. If I'm not there to see it, how do I evaluate it? Look at the officer, not what a computer stat tells you. I have never felt the need to consult the stat sheet. I trust my officers. When they screw the pooch, they come and tell me because they know I'm fair. Documenting hand cuffing people, and pointing your gun at people on EVERY incident is detrimental to the mindset of the officer on the street. End of story. Referring back to your prior post...the incident reports triggers the mandatory reporting. Take a business owner at gunpoint on an alarm? No incident report is required, so no UoF section either. Garage-Logician : I'm not coming after you for your feelings on this. Use of force is very near and dear to me as a trainer and the nature of my assignment. I see too many guys I work with afraid to use the correct amount of force and they often say they are afraid of "getting in trouble." That statement troubles me and I do everything I can to get guys away from that mindset. Documentation of EVERYTHING hampers that effort. Not to worry Hoss, I enjoy a spirited discussion. Between professionals, I would never take it personally. UoF is also very near and dear to me. I've been instructing for 14 years, SWAT for 11, and supervising for 4. Making sure me and my crew get home each night is priority #1. I just contend that it is not the documentation you fear, it's how it's used by your bosses. And one more thing....Balaclavas are perfectly OK for patrol use in colder climates. And it's still f'ing snowing here. It could stop at any time now... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Information that can be used by UoF trainers to identify trends, refine techniques, and better prepare officers for the street. It can also help an agency defend against claims that they are 'heavy-handed'. It can be used as an early warning indicator of an officers' tendency to use too much force. In those cases, the agency can take steps early to correct it and save an officers career rather than just 'weed them out' as a previous poster suggested. <snip> Use of force issues need to be looked at on a case by case scenerio. Compling data form a year of traffic stops or contacts is about 5% of the whole story. So how do we look at them if they are not documented? True use of force is and should be documented. Pointing your gun at someone and placing your handcuffs on someone should not be documented EVERY time. The grunt on the street who targets auto thefts, dope, and actively hunts down wanted felons will have terribly inflated use of force stats compared to the traffic enforcement ticket writer. Agreed. And any boss looking at the data should take that into account. Carry On 
Use of force issues can be seen by working with the officers through training and on the street. It's not hard to identify and it's not hard to retrain (generally). I work for a relatively small agency. But even here, my guys handle a large number of calls every year without my presence being required. I both train and supervise. If I'm not there to see it, how do I evaluate it? You don't need to be there on every call. Your guys don't want you there on every call. It doesn't take long for good supervisors to figure out their crew and their style of work. You will be there enough. You will watch enough dash cams. You will hear enough through your senior guys and / or other officers you trust. Look at the officer, not what a computer stat tells you. I have never felt the need to consult the stat sheet. I trust my officers. When they screw the pooch, they come and tell me because they know I'm fair. If you don't even look at the stat sheet, then why even keep it? Back to my original point, it is not needed. Documenting hand cuffing people, and pointing your gun at people on EVERY incident is detrimental to the mindset of the officer on the street. End of story. Referring back to your prior post...the incident reports triggers the mandatory reporting. Take a business owner at gunpoint on an alarm? No incident report is required, so no UoF section either. Then your system is the same as most places. I believe the OP was talking about documenting every "use of force" Including those that do not require an incident / arrest report. Garage-Logician : I'm not coming after you for your feelings on this. Use of force is very near and dear to me as a trainer and the nature of my assignment. I see too many guys I work with afraid to use the correct amount of force and they often say they are afraid of "getting in trouble." That statement troubles me and I do everything I can to get guys away from that mindset. Documentation of EVERYTHING hampers that effort. Not to worry Hoss, I enjoy a spirited discussion. Between professionals, I would never take it personally. UoF is also very near and dear to me. I've been instructing for 14 years, SWAT for 11, and supervising for 4. Making sure me and my crew get home each night is priority #1. I just contend that it is not the documentation you fear, it's how it's used by your bosses. Agreed. The way documentation is often used is that it is misused. Documentation is almost always instituted by brass which is usually always out to cover their ass. There is way too much documentation in law enforcement these days and this is a dangerous example that gets inside grunts heads. Stay safe brother, keep warm, and take care of your troops. And one more thing....Balaclavas are perfectly OK for patrol use in colder climates. And it's still f'ing snowing here. It could stop at any time now.. No argument here. This Texas boy spends plenty of time out of the car and I wear my UA balaclava when it's in the 20's!  |
|
Quoted:
Only if I use actual force. Voice commands, pointing guns, tasers, OC cans, fingers, etc., at people do not warrant a UOF report. If I cuff a cooperative suspect, also no report. If I deploy a baton and don't actually make contact with anyone, no report. You don't (or your policy doesn't) consider pointing a gun at someone use of force? I think they would call it "assault with a deadly weapon" if I did it. It's just a little bit different than pointing a finger. |
|
I believe the only time I required one beyond the normal police report was when I was personally involved in the incident. Ie, me as a commissioned officer getting into fisticuffs with an enlisted. Now, up to that moment, I believed that it was extremely bad mojo for such to happen but I found that in military police, that's just accepted as part of the job. Anyhow, I required the patrol officers with me to write their reports and all were submitted to the legal officer (ie, "DA"). It might have also been because the suspect in question was rather a complex one, USN wise.
But.......a thing or two. Back then, all we had, day to day, were night sticks (batons or PR-24's) and hand to hand. We had cuffs, of course, but then I would not have considered such a use of force. In either case, they were more for taking the fight out of the person than "come alongs". My people were trained as such, command knew that, and in the times that such had to be used, I don't think there was ever a question of when we had to do such. I told my people that they were to do what was necessary to ensure their safety.......and anyone who I did not believe in to use such force I would not have out in the field, if at all. _______________________________________________________ ("He says some woman did this to him but I don't believe it. It looks like a commando worked him over."––detective talking about the perp's injuries that Nikita gave him, (w,stte), LFN "Voices") |
|
Quoted:
UOF report is only required at the level of 'physical force' and above. Constructive authority (weapon pointing at someone), or physical contact does not require a report. That's how it is here, and how it should be. Any bit of paperwork required to when drawing your weapon may lead to a hesitation which is not acceptable. |
|
The grunt on the street who targets auto thefts, dope, and actively hunts down wanted felons will have terribly inflated use of force stats compared to the traffic enforcement ticket writer .
Agreed. And any boss looking at the data should take that into account.
Unfortunately a jury won't take that into account. Any bit of paperwork required to when drawing your weapon may lead to a hesitation which is not acceptable.
+1.Even my assbackwards department doesn't have UOF reports. I see too many guys I work with afraid to use the correct amount of force and they often say they are afraid of "getting in trouble."
Same here. Not only are they afraid that they'll get a civilian complaint or possibly departmental discipline but also the fact that alot or even a few of either one in their folder will be detrimental to advancement or transfer. 3 civilian complaints gets you put into a monitoring program which is a disastrous thing to have on your record when your trying to get transferrred or advance.(ask me how I know  )
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only if I use actual force. Voice commands, pointing guns, tasers, OC cans, fingers, etc., at people do not warrant a UOF report. If I cuff a cooperative suspect, also no report. If I deploy a baton and don't actually make contact with anyone, no report. You don't (or your policy doesn't) consider pointing a gun at someone use of force? I think they would call it "assault with a deadly weapon" if I did it. It's just a little bit different than pointing a finger. GD is the other way
It by all means is a use of force. The first level of any force is typically presence. What you are mixing up is what is a REPORTABLE use of force. Pointing a gun should never be a reportable use of force. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only if I use actual force. Voice commands, pointing guns, tasers, OC cans, fingers, etc., at people do not warrant a UOF report. If I cuff a cooperative suspect, also no report. If I deploy a baton and don't actually make contact with anyone, no report. You don't (or your policy doesn't) consider pointing a gun at someone use of force? I think they would call it "assault with a deadly weapon" if I did it. It's just a little bit different than pointing a finger. I try not to point guns at people at random, therefore avoiding the charge of assault. Presence, voice commands and pointing weapons are also technically force, but I only have to report stuff that may get people hurt.
|
|
Quoted:
My department just started doing them, they are all the rage with chiefs this season. Bosses like a paper trail, so they can discipline you more easily. And the chief don't give a fig if I am on the hook for a frivilous lawsuit, so long as he can stay clean. QFT. How very, very true that is. |
|
Quoted:
So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? According to GOs, yes, exactly what you described. |
|
Thank you all for the input....to clarify, we already do a "Mandatory Review" for any physical strikes used, or baton, OC, shootings (even deer) and Taser (even if its just a laser display). What the chief is wanting to do is add to this any handcuffing with no arrest (like the examples given of felony car stops where they are not actually the bad guys, and alarms with business owners). If it is something that will generate a normal report, then the UOF is not nessicary. I've also heard that this is "all the rage" with chiefs nationwide this year....
Is anyone else also having issues with their chief thinking the officers look to "militarisitc"??? Our chief is now taking away our 5.11 cargo pocket unniform pants and nylon duty gear, forcing everyone to go back to basket weave leather. (Except of course K9, because somehow they need more utiltiy when doing a track than the assisting/cover officers who are with them....I hate how things are becoming more about a "feel good image" than comfort for the job. I personally don't think the public gives two shits what we wear as long as we do our jobs, take their reports and catch the bad guys....where are all the chief's getting this silly message? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this being implemented because of complaints about a few overzealous officers, a lawsuit, or something else? Just curious. The cuffing, eh, pointing a firearm, yeah I could see filing a report, even if it's nothing but a CYA. No arrest means maybe you shouldn't have been pointing a gun at them in the first place. Gun drawn and by your side, yes, drawing down................well, nobody likes a gun pointed at them if they didn't do anything wrong and to some people, whoops, my bad [or nothing at all] doesn't cut it. Do some of the Officers on the force seem to overdo it in that area? The guy who goes under the seat diving for his wallet or insurance papers, leather will be cleared. I also disagree on your point of no arrest means you shouldn't have pulled your gun. Every situation is different. Drawing your weapon/holding at your side or low ready and pointing it directly at a person are two different things in most people mind. Reaching under your seat is sheer stupidity without first telling the officer what you are doing, what is there and asking them if it's OK to retrieve your info. Dispatch gets a 911 call from our local trailer park, girl is screaming that her baby daddy is trying to break in and dispatch can hear what sounds like a door being kicked in. We get there and take two black males to the ground at gun point. There is no sign of forced entry and the two guys are very cooperative, one is the child's father. Turns out the girl just didn't want to talk to the child's father about custody/money issues and decided calling 911 would be the easiest way to get rid of the guy. We sent him home w/o anything more than an FI card. Based on your earlier statement I should never have drawn my gun because I didn't arrest the guy....... Brian |
|
Quoted:
So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? I have one better... I once worked in an inst. where when we transfered inmates to seg. and DID NOT handcuff.. We had to file a "None use of Force report. These would be cases where an inmate is taken to seg for perhaps a medical or administrative reason. You know... 'Not for fighting or some other form of misbehaviour That's right... Fill out a report stating that you didn't use handcuffs. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? I have one better... I once worked in an inst. where when we transfered inmates to seg. and DID NOT handcuff.. We had to file a "None use of Force report. These would be cases where an inmate is taken to seg for perhaps a medical or administrative reason. You know... 'Not for fighting or some other form of misbehaviour That's right... Fill out a report stating that you didn't use handcuffs. WOW
|
|
Quoted: So our new chief is wanting to implement new mandotory use of force reports for when we handcuff people, but don't end up arresting them, and also whenever we point our guns at someone, regardless of outcome. This issue is causing quite a stir among the rank and file. Anybody else have to do this type of mandatory review? My old department has been doing that to its officers for years. The result is decreased production by officers afraid of disciplinary action. The city will track individual officers and "flag" officers for potential abuse. All it really does is show who is very active in proactive enforcement and who's a lazy POS! The city uses the decreased initiated stops to its advantage "spinning" the result to the public as a decrease in crime because fewer stops translate to fewer arrests. |