Most police today carry pepper spray, or sometimes tasers. So under what circumstances do they resort to nightsticks to subdue an unarmed but violent suspect?
Most police departments have a force continuum in place that sets out what amount of force may be used, in ascending order (meaning, from least forceful to most forceful). Most forceful is “deadly force,” i.e., deploying and firing your weapon. Least forceful is posture and communication, which frequently appear on force continuums even though they aren’t actually examples of a use of force.
The amount of force to be applied in a given situation is largely up to the officer, depending on the situation he or she is faced with and the amount of force necessary to subdue the suspect or take/regain control of the situation. IME, Tazers used to be considered “less forceful” than baton strikes because of the lesser likelihood of injuring the suspect, but as Tazering is more rigorously scrutinized, the idea that it is “better” (i.e., more effective for less injury) than baton strikes is being rethought. Whether a Tazer is higher or lower on the force continuum than a hard-strike weapon like a baton will depend on which department you’re talking to or about. Pepper spray is generally lower on the continuum than both, though more injurious chemical sprays are not necessarily.
You can find out a lot about this issue simply by Googling “use of force continuum”.
And not that you asked, but a really interesting question in the legal area of uses of force is the use of dogs. Every other type of force is static and predictable in the amount of damage it can or likely will do. Dogs are not predictable as force methods and can cause any degree of injury from none to death. They are hard to place on a force continuum except retroactively (i.e., in hindsight, it is possibly to place a dog’s action in a given situation on a UOF continuum by evaluating how much injury he did). That makes them harder to deploy (since more of the judgment of the handler/officer is required) and can make dog UOF cases harder to defend.
Well, I think it’s interesting. 
One strange aspect I have to deal with is that according to my department’s official policy, use of chemical agents is considered a lesser force than laying hands on a person.
Could it be because laying hands on a person should in theory be much more likely to escalate up the violence chain than macing somebody?
I don’t know if you’ve ever been pepper sprayed, I haven’t but I had an interesting habanero related incident that left me incapacitated (unable to see, talk or know which way is up) for a good ten minutes. However, I was fine afterwards. If you touch me and I fight back, I am not going to be fine, now am I?
The sequence surprises me a bit - with pepperspray and tasers, aren’t cops worried about the small portion of people on whom these would have dangerous medical side effects? A baton, as long as it doesn’t strike a delicate area (bashing in the head) is unlikely to have side effects, but tasering can cause epileptic seizures or stop the heart; pepper spray in the eyes can blind a person forever.
Or is that exactly why things are being reconsidered?
I have never heard of a Taser causing an epileptic seizure, nor of pepper spray blinding anyone (I’m not saying it’s impossible, though). Whether Tasers actually cause death is a matter of a great deal of debate. Pretty much every case of death involving Tasers has involved a person with lots of drugs in their system or other extenuating circumstances. I’ve been Tasered in training and I wouldn’t be afraid of doing so again. I wouldn’t want to, though - it hurts like hell!
The problem with batons is that you rarely hit exactly where you are aiming. Everyone is moving so much during a fight that people are often hit in places that aren’t intended. At this point, I believe that a baton is far more likely to cause a serious injury than either chemical sprays or Tasers. Even “hands-on” physical techniques have a fair likelyhood of hurting the subject, as well as the officer.
Also, batons simply don’t stop the fight like sprays or the Taser will. It causes pain where you’re hit, but it really doesn’t stop most people.
In my department, the use of force continuum is as follows:
[ul]
[li]Verbal commands[/li][li]Soft hands/Control Techniques (including handcuffing)[/li][li]Pepper Spray or Taser[/li][li]Physical Techniques (such as take-downs, pain compliance, etc.)[/li][li]Impact weapons (batons)[/li][li]Firearms[/li][/ul]
They use them to force me into compromising positions, of course!
(sorry, I watch too much porn.)
Cite for this?
As to the OP, Jodi, of course, nailed it in one. Each agency has their own Use of Force Continuum. The baton will generally be just below deadly force. In my agency, we have 6 levels of force, with the ‘Intermediate Weapon’ (i.e. - Asp expandabe baton) at level 5. We also carry OC pepper spray, which is a level 4 tactic. Back in the day, when we used to carry Curb 60, that was a level 5 tactic. I believe the decision to place OC at level 4 was due to the fact that pepper spray is ‘natural’, not chemical.
So when would I use a baton over pepper spray? I suppose whenever I needed to make an immediate impact (heh). Let’s say a large subject had a member of my team in a headlock during a fight. I may opt for the baton as the results should be immediate, whereas pepper spray may take a few moments to take effect - if it takes effect at all. Also, if a confontation begins and a partner breaks out his/her pepper spray, I may opt to break out the baton to keep our options open.
Or perhaps if I’m about to square off with a guy who’s twice my size, made of steel and looks coked up, I may opt for the baton right away.
At any rate, the bottom line is: as long as the force used to compel compliance was reasonable under the circumstances.
I don’t have a cite ready - it was mentioned in passing in a TV report on self-defense weapons, and the dangers associated with it, that one person got sprayed in the eyes and got blind, and the sprayer was accused for bodily harm because of that outcome. It may vary with the concentration and content of the spray, though.
Hmmm. Well, many LE types who carry OC, carry the liquid, pressurized, straight stream variety, as opposed to the fog or foam types. There is a possibility of damaging someone’s eyeball if you spray them directly in the eye at very close range. So I suppose that permanently blinding someone is possible, but it’s extremely unlikely. And if by some chance you did blind someone, it would most likely be one eye only, as the eyelids would close quite rapidly upon being sprayed.
It’s always struck me as odd that reasonable force varies with the relative size of the individuals in question.
Does that mean I could be a 60-year-old female cop who weighs 94 lbs and has a bum knee and claim that any use of force incident required her department’s “level 6” response because any assailant this side of an 8-year-old girl can take her out?
I’m a big, scary-looking guy. I also suck in fights. If I have to use force against a burglar, I’m always concerned I might get hit with charges that I went too far as far as weapons choice, because I’d almost always have 200 lbs on anyone who would consider breaking in. Most guys with a break-in will respond with the most deadly weapon in the residence in-hand, but I’m concerned that if I whip out my scimitar on an unarmed burglar who advances on myself or a resident of my home, I could wind up in some trouble myself. Same thing if I used a handgun…
Revise sentence to:
Does that mean I could be a 60-year-old female cop who weighs 94 lbs and has a bum knee can claim that any use of force incident required her department’s “level 6” response because any assailant this side of an 8-year-old girl can take her out?
Where I work, deadly force (level 6) may only be employed when 3 elements are met:
- There is a weapon, capable of causing serious bodily injury, maiming or death;
- There is opportunity to use said weapon; and
- The subject has displayed actions that they intend to use said weapon to cause serious bodily injury, maiming or death.
Your example, while a good one, doesn’t give enough information. But if those 3 elements are met, then deadly force is justified. If someone is unarmed, that doesn’t automatically take level 6 off the table. A person can be the weapon. A large, strong man could easily choke or beat an LE officer to death given the right circumstances; obviously deadly force would be warranted if the officer is about to blackout from a deadly choke hold he cannot break.
No amount of written guidance can cover every conceivable use of force situation; there exists a broad policy within which to work. After a use of force situation, the actions of the LEO will be scrutinized to determine whether the officer acted in accordance with policy and training.
Wouldn’t it have to? No snark intended, but I’m not sure why you would find this odd. Yes, a smaller officer may have to use more force to subdue a large assailant than a larger officer might have to use. That’s because the smaller officer may lack the strength or size or reach to as effectively apply a lower level of force. IOW, if a 6 foot tall 200 lb. officer smacks someone with a baton, there almost always will be more force and probably more effect than if a 5 foot tall 100 lb. officer does it. And in those circumstances, the smaller officer applying the same level of force is much more likely to get hurt. One of the reasons tools like Tazers and sprays are used is that they can be effectively and uniformly applied by an officer without regard to the officer’s size or physical characteristics. Is a female officer more likely to Taze you without tryng to wrestle with you first? I couldn’t say for sure, by I imagine – probably.
This doesn’t mean that female officers get to jump to deadly force right away without trying other less forceful alternatives first. It also doesn’t amount to an argument against hiring woman. Studies have consistently shown that female officers excel male officers in conflict avoidance and situation de-escalation. It is true that in an escalating UOF situation, a woman may well be at a physical disadvantage (as compared to a male in the same situation), but, statistically, female officers are less likely to find themselves in UOF situations in the first place.
No snark perceived!
I realize my feelings on this matter are at odds with real life, so no offense to any indviduals, police departments, legislators or Supreme Court justices is intended.
It just seems odd that a suspect gets shot by one officer in one domain but in another domain winds up bruised and handcuffed by a more competent officer.
I’ve got thousands of odd expectations that get run over by the mass transit bus of reality from time to time, so it doesn’t bother me too greatly.
No, not at all.
These are not your average pet-type dogs. These are experienced police dogs, who go thru extensive training before being placed in use. A major part of the training is to teach the dogs to limit their use of force. The dogs are trained to stop a suspect. If the suspect ceases attempts to escape and just lies still, the dogs will just hold them, without further attacking. (And this is not natural for dogs, they have to be trained to do this.)
Police dogs do not ‘go for the throat’; they are trained to seize an arm or a leg and hold on, to immobilize the suspect until other officers arrive. In fact, even when the suspect beats on them, the dogs do not retaliate by attacking the suspect – they just take the beating and hold on to the arm or leg. That’s what they they are trained to do.
Contrary to your statements, the handler of a well-trained police dog can very resonably and accurately predict the reactions of his dog.