Posted: 5/26/2009 5:15:39 PM EDT
|
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you.
Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. |
|
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. Taser comes out. |
| Uniform presence, non-compliance to verbal commands, bladed fighting stance, leads me as an officer to reasonably believe, that the subject has physically demonstrated an intention to physically resist. Within my departmental policy / use of force, I would be justified in the use of an intermediate weapon. |
| I hate pepper spray. Everyone usually got sprayed, it hung around in the car, and it was generally a mess. If I could spray at a distance, then it wasn't so bad. But when you are rolling around on the ground trying to get control and your partner decides to "help" you by spraying the crook, it sucks. It worked very well on the pit bulls though. |
|
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. You are going to use force because the subject stopped communicating and got into a stance? What are you going to say your justification for use of force was? Not communicating? Getting into a stance? Was it a mere encounter or was it during a call? Did you have reason to take him into custody before the communication stopped and him getting into the stance? His actions could be perceived to be a threat.......or he's just posturing. Its hard to answer your question without actually being there. Things look/sound/read differently on the internet. You didn't arrest him while talking to him, but your plan is to now arrest him because he stopped communicating and took a stance? What would you charge him with? |
|
Well..........
Between what I had back in the "Twenty Years Ago Affair" and what's available now........... Weapon that may be available, back then, night stick or mag light, use it. No issued weapon but improv weapon at near hand such as pot of coffee or bar stool, use it. If neither, HtH to put him into sickbay. Not to restrain him, but to put him into deck, break ribs, nose, arms, etc.., and take him completely out of action. A couple of things to it. First of all, he's not just disobeying the order of a police officer but a commissioned officer as well. That's already a massive jump. Secondly, I might have a decent chance of having a mag light, I MIGHT have a night stick, but there decent odds that the only weapons I'm going to have are my hands and what I can lay them on. At that point, it's pure desperation and I have only one goal which is to go thru him and take him out. There might be a fraction of a second there where I can decide after the first blow that that is enough.........but unlikely. When you're looking to throw a pot of coffee in his face or to slam his face into something hard and unyielding, you're not likely to sit back afterwards and ask him if he's had enough. These days, with what's available? Taser or spray him. _______________________________________________ (After the President has launched a limited nuclear strike at the USSR in response to their launch. "Sir, so you know, those Soviet missile went to China, not at us."––military aide "Well......we've just upped the ante, haven't we?"––The President, (w,stte), "By Dawn's Early Light") |
|
Quoted:
Go a level above whatever level of force is presented to you. Thats how I've been trained. Curious. In my use of force lesson of hand to hand it was "You are going to take what you can get." It was in response to my question about throwing head punches which have the potential for killing someone. Now perhaps we were rather informal back then (as one instructor noted, often those picked for military police are the best brawlers) or perhaps it wasn't released what capacity we were training for it or perhaps it was believed that the possibility of killing someone was low, but it might seem that when one has less in their inventory to use, the less formal the rules are. Of course, that was over 20 years ago, a time when sleeper chokes were not only legal, but were both popular in LE and sport. _____________________________________________________________________ ("Doctor, laser or not, we are going to continue on to the blood clot. If you don't have the laser, you'll use scalpes. If not those, then your teeth!"––Grant, (wtte), "Fantastic Voyage") |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. Taser comes out. +1. Taser Taser Taser.... J- |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. You are going to use force because the subject stopped communicating and got into a stance? What are you going to say your justification for use of force was? Not communicating? Getting into a stance? Was it a mere encounter or was it during a call? Did you have reason to take him into custody before the communication stopped and him getting into the stance? His actions could be perceived to be a threat.......or he's just posturing. Its hard to answer your question without actually being there. Things look/sound/read differently on the internet. You didn't arrest him while talking to him, but your plan is to now arrest him because he stopped communicating and took a stance? What would you charge him with? Good points. You are going to arrest the person. You have told him he is under arrest, he refuses your verbal commands and he takes a fighting stance. |
| Assault does not have to be verbal; the suspect is obviously offering violent resistance to a legal arrest. I would TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD and taze him. You should be able to articulate easy enough why you felt tazing him was the safest course of action for all involved. |
|
Quoted: +1.You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. Our use of force continuum stipulates oc or cs gas before hands on.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. You are going to use force because the subject stopped communicating and got into a stance? What are you going to say your justification for use of force was? Not communicating? Getting into a stance? Was it a mere encounter or was it during a call? Did you have reason to take him into custody before the communication stopped and him getting into the stance? His actions could be perceived to be a threat.......or he's just posturing. Its hard to answer your question without actually being there. Things look/sound/read differently on the internet. You didn't arrest him while talking to him, but your plan is to now arrest him because he stopped communicating and took a stance? What would you charge him with? Good points. You are going to arrest the person. You have told him he is under arrest, he refuses your verbal commands and he takes a fighting stance. Once you told him he was under arrest, his actions show that he is resisting arrest. Taser if you have it.....OC.....if you have it. Hands on if you don't have either. I wish we has tasers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. You are going to use force because the subject stopped communicating and got into a stance? What are you going to say your justification for use of force was? Not communicating? Getting into a stance? Was it a mere encounter or was it during a call? Did you have reason to take him into custody before the communication stopped and him getting into the stance? His actions could be perceived to be a threat.......or he's just posturing. Its hard to answer your question without actually being there. Things look/sound/read differently on the internet. You didn't arrest him while talking to him, but your plan is to now arrest him because he stopped communicating and took a stance? What would you charge him with? Good points. You are going to arrest the person. You have told him he is under arrest, he refuses your verbal commands and he takes a fighting stance. Once you told him he was under arrest, his actions show that he is resisting arrest. Taser if you have it.....OC.....if you have it. Hands on if you don't have either. I wish we has tasers. We's has them.......and I's uses thems. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are verbally communicating with a subject. The subject does not comply with commands. Subject blades off and goes into a fighting stance. Assuming subject is the same size as you. Hands on or go to intermediate weapon? I say intermediate weapon. You are going to use force because the subject stopped communicating and got into a stance? What are you going to say your justification for use of force was? Not communicating? Getting into a stance? Was it a mere encounter or was it during a call? Did you have reason to take him into custody before the communication stopped and him getting into the stance? His actions could be perceived to be a threat.......or he's just posturing. Its hard to answer your question without actually being there. Things look/sound/read differently on the internet. You didn't arrest him while talking to him, but your plan is to now arrest him because he stopped communicating and took a stance? What would you charge him with? At this point you have done nothiing but "square off" with him at a superior level of force by displaying in a ready to use stance your OC, Tazer or night-stick/ASP. If he gets froggy at this point as far as I'm concerned it's off to the races. As a Supervisor I would be concerned if one of my men did not take a action to demonstrate the ability to use force with this suspect. The last thing I want is a hand to hand action. |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:Once you told him he was under arrest, his actions show that he is resisting arrest. Taser if you have it.....OC.....if you have it. Hands on if you don't have either. I wish we has tasers.
Probably as good a place as any. What does one step up mean when the only thing you have is one step up? What does it mean when potentially, the full range is available in that one step but potentially, just as you might convince him to stop the nonsense, you could kill him as well? We never had, in HtH, the one step up in my branch of military police. It was utilizing force to take him out of action, with whatever one had, period. Now, granted, we may have been operating at a fault there since while we were trained on firearms, trained even to combat, they were not issued day to day. They were for "if the balloon goes up". Which comes down to HtH. It was to break bones, it was to put him into sickbay, be it the ER or the morgue. And it is was all in one application, HtH or unarmed combat. So what does one step up mean when one can kill someone in an (un)lucky second with that one step? _____________________________________________________________ ("Assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon? Where does that come from?"––Off. Danko "He's a state champion in martial arts. He has trained military in unarmed combat. His hands are no different than that of a prize boxer."––Lt. Ryker, (wtte), "The Rookies") |
|
Quoted:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:Once you told him he was under arrest, his actions show that he is resisting arrest. Taser if you have it.....OC.....if you have it. Hands on if you don't have either. I wish we has tasers.
Probably as good a place as any. What does one step up mean when the only thing you have is one step up? What does it mean when potentially, the full range is available in that one step but potentially, just as you might convince him to stop the nonsense, you could kill him as well? We never had, in HtH, the one step up in my branch of military police. It was utilizing force to take him out of action, with whatever one had, period. Now, granted, we may have been operating at a fault there since while we were trained on firearms, trained even to combat, they were not issued day to day. They were for "if the balloon goes up". Which comes down to HtH. It was to break bones, it was to put him into sickbay, be it the ER or the morgue. And it is was all in one application, HtH or unarmed combat. So what does one step up mean when one can kill someone in an (un)lucky second with that one step? _____________________________________________________________ ("Assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon? Where does that come from?"––Off. Danko "He's a state champion in martial arts. He has trained military in unarmed combat. His hands are no different than that of a prize boxer."––Lt. Ryker, (wtte), "The Rookies") The person is refusing verbal commands, he shows a combat stance, he is by defenition resisting arrest, I see no need for HtH if you have other means to bring compliance that in studies prove less chances of injury to the subject and officer. |
|
Quoted:The person is refusing verbal commands, he shows a combat stance, he is by defenition resisting arrest, I see no need for HtH if you have other means to bring compliance that in studies prove less chances of injury to the subject and officer.
Agreed, but you missed the point I was asking. What if you don't have other means? No taser, no spray, no gun. You might or might not have a mag light and/or a baton, but for the purpose of the question, let's say you have neither. Then what is one step up in use of force when you can just as easily put him in the ER as you might in the morgue with HtH? Where a hit to the head could do it and if you want to take him out before giving him a chance to show how much he knows, head hits can come real quick. ___________________________________________ ("Okay, Munz, it's just me, you, this drawer, and your balls."––bad cop, (w,stte), "Dragnet") |
|
Quoted:
Mag Lite! 
I kid, I kid: Taser or Pepper time..... I actually used one once as an impact weapon. IA signed off on it as being a good "sticking". I thought they were going to give me some shit (CALEA accredited agency) but they were very receptive. As for Bama's question....Intermediate weapon. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mag Lite!
I kid, I kid: Taser or Pepper time..... I actually used one once as an impact weapon. IA signed off on it as being a good "sticking". I thought they were going to give me some shit (CALEA accredited agency) but they were very receptive. As for Bama's question....Intermediate weapon. We are trained to use our Maglites as impact weapons - if necessary. We are issued ASPs. Brian |