Cutting Edge Training

"One should include a course of familiarization with pain...You have to practice hurting.  There is no question about it...You have to practice being hazed.  You have to learn to take a bunch of junk and accept it with a sense of humor."

--Admiral James Stockbridge
Medal of Honor recipient
POW in Viet Nam for 7.5 years

Pain.  Pain lets us know something is "wrong," so we'll stop and not be injured any further, allowing us to take care of the injury and heal.  Pain isn't real.  When you think that your foot "hurts," it is, in reality, simply your brain interpreting nervous impulses sent by reception centers in your foot as pain.  But pain "feels" real. So real, that most most people will do anything--ANYTHING--to avoid pain.  Many, or perhaps even most of our population will go so far to avoid pain that they will never do anything more physical than walk to there car.  This, however, ensures that they will be in constant, low-level chronic pain for their entire life--have you ever known an out-of-shape, overweight person who was not in pain?

You are in the warrior profession.  Cop or military, yours is a world of violence within the law against those who employ violence beyond all rules.  The context of police and military fights may be different, but the reality is that, at its core, each is a profession that lawfully delivers violence against other humans.

Pain.  Where there is violence, there is pain.  Often, pain is experienced by all combatants, although the losers suffer far more—unless they die quickly.

Every professional is prepared for his (or her) particular profession by passing through basic training.  For the police, it is the academy.  For the military, it is Boot Camp.  Once out of basic training, advanced training continues for the duration of his or her professional career.

Notice that I said, “Every professional is prepared.”  That top-down approach--Command requiring you to pass a program of instruction--means that you are simply within the lowest common denominator of your profession upon graduation:  somewhere between below average to almost average.  From this point on, you must prepare yourself for your profession if you are going to be able to survive all but the lowest levels of violence directed at you.

If you are targeted by a predator or the enemy, the violence inflicted upon you will create pain.  Now most of us in this warrior class have heard of great warriors who fought through tremendous pain to accomplish their mission, to save their buddies, their partners, or their teammates, to save those who could not protect themselves—and some came back alive.  The Medal of Honor.  The Medal of Valor.  These are the highest awards possible to those who overcome all odds.  There are few in warrior profession who do not have a belief that he or she will be able to fight through the overwhelming pain and do what is required if called upon to do so, even at the cost of their lives.

Pain. 

• Can you prepare for it?  I believe you can.
• Is it possible to avoid pain in training and then master it while injured during combat to overcome the odds and save your life and the lives of others?  I think anything is possible of a human being, and that miracles happen.  I also think this is unlikely.  Avoiding pain is natural, and when this natural inclination becomes the habit, that habit becomes a barrier that may become bigger than the pain itself.  As is said, a man does not rise to the occasion, but sinks to his lowest level of consistent training.  If you train to avoid pain, then your training may stop you from dealing with pain in order to save your life.
• Or is pain about your attitude in life and in training, something you steel yourself against by testing how far you can go, and each time going a bit farther than you thought you could?  I believe an acceptance that you are finite, that your life may be done at any moment and you won't live forever is one of the keys to dealing with pain.  I believe you temper your mind to tolerate that which others cannot.  It permits you to remain effective even though your body’s nerves are screaming at you.  By convincing yourself that it is “only pain.”
  

 I just finished teaching a “Tactical Duty Knife” class to a diverse group of deputies, police officers, and corrections officers.  This was a typical class of police officers where a few worked intensely, most worked hard, and a few worked enough to get by.

One aspect of this class is learning where and how to use the knife.  We do this by employing a Benchmade “Trainer” training knife (these are the only training knives we’ve ever found that were safer to use than any other brand).  Typically, I ask one student if it is OK if I use the knife on him to demonstrate.  With his permission, I put the tip of the blade on one of his high-value targets, then shove and dig it in at the intensity I would use if this were a real situation and I was employing my knife in a deadly force response to save my life.  And as always happens, the student immediately melts away because it hurts.  Sometimes they squeal.  Almost always they make some noise indicating distress.  There it is again.  Pain.

As I don’t believe that rank has its privileges, only greater responsibilities, I also don’t believe that it is right for an instructor to inflict pain without that student reciprocating on the instructor.  So I invite and permit the student to use the training knife on me in the same way.  Often they are a bit tentative as they begin to push.  They know it hurts because they just experienced pain.  When I stand there and tell them to push and to dig with the knife, they increase the pressure.  It hurts but I work hard at reflecting no emotion or pain on my face.  When I tell them that they need to really push and to dig with that knife, they generally shove it hard into me.  It hurts, and still I reflect no emotion or pain.  Sometimes I am forced to urge them to work the blade harder and more vigorously.  And only after I believe that I can’t stand it anymore, I give them another second to push and to dig with that dull steel blade before I move away from the knife to stop the pain—and work to never let them see how much it hurt.  I do this because I’m their trainer and they need to see someone role-model the proper training attitude.  Sometimes that need to be their role-model sucks, but every trainer is a volunteer, not a victim.  It is my responsibility as their trainer to give them every opportunity to survive and prevail, and the first lesson in surviving combat is having an attitude that permits me to prevail no matter the cost.

Then I work with a different student to demo the next target.  And he or she reciprocates with me.  After the students do this back to me, I begin to hear people on the floor saying things like, “Doesn’t he have any nerves?” and “I guess he doesn’t feel pain.”  I sometimes want to scream at them, “Of course it hurts a lot!”  Instead, I say, “It’s only pain.  I need to learn to manage it so that it does not manage me.”  I say this because I need to hear it as much as they do.  It is a lesson that every warrior must learn—“I manage the pain and quit only when I want to, not because pain forces me to.”

Pain.  I know I can only take as much as I decide to take.  Eventually it is no longer worth it and I give up.  I know I am not a “tough guy” who can take pain indefinitely.  Maybe there are no “tough guys” in the real world.  Maybe they can be found only in comic books, novels, and movies.  I have read first-hand accounts of our POWs in North Korean and Vietnamese prison camps who “broke” under torture.  I realize that I am no different than any of those men, and fear that I may not have been able to handle what the best of them did.  Each and every man who wrote about his torture stated that he held out as long as he could until they were no longer capable of resisting the pain.  Could I have done as well under such terrible conditions and such terrific intensity?  I don't know, but I keep pushing myself to my limits...and then just a bit further.

Pain.  Something a warrior must understand, be familiar with, and know intimately.  At some time, whether in training, in a fight, or in combat, a warrior will inevitably be injured at some point—not a bump or a scrape, but a serious injury.  It will hurt to rehab that injury or wound.  But if he doesn’t carefullly push through the pain, with reason and dedication, he’ll never be functional again.  I know that over the years, pain, while not a friend, has and remains a constant companion of mine in this life.  I never look forward to it, but I don’t fear it as I once did.  It just is. It's just pain.

By working through pain intelligently during training, where it is safe to experiment with your limits, you begin growing your capacity for pain, to function while in pain, to fight better and longer while hurt.  You will learn where you can accept more pain, and where it is smart to avoid it.  There are instructors out there that train full-contact on students all the time.  Their hype is that they create tougher fighters.  The reality is that effective, efficient combatives  injures others severely (kind of by definition, right?), and only a few of the top dogs can survive in that environment for any length of time.  Sure they're "tough," but they also have a God-given physical attributes, skills, and talents that the rest of us mere mortals were not favored with.  Intelligent training protects the student from serious injury while presenting an opportunity to learn the skills, tactics, and lessons needed in their profession at arms...and from pain.

In your chosen profession of violence, I believe that our students are taught so often that they are the ones in a force event or in combat that will hurt and kill the other guy that the reverse becomes unreal—that you might be the one who is injured but is required to remain combat effective and in the fight, even though a body part might not work, or its it’s hard to breathe, or you are bleeding badly.  The reality of conflict is that few in a fight—and especially in combat—are immune from some type of injury during their battle.  Learning that pain is something that can be decided about, at least for a time, is an incredible training gift.  And something every warrior needs.

Pain.  It's a decision.  It's a capacity that can be increased by training.  Learning to go just a little longer than you think you can stand teaches you about the toughness necessary to prevail in a fight.  I watch how the students in the police and military knife classes, and all of our classes actually, accept or avoid pain.  In this last class, like all classes, I saw a few consicously pushing their limits to pain--and a couple of them I would never have guessed initially that they would understand the need, and also was surprised by how others I thought would be tougher avoided pain at all costs.

I see those who push themselves as different from the others.  Knowing that man or woman is a warrior, I can trust to watch my back.  Because I know that no matter the cost to them, they will keep fighting beyond the pain, through the blood, and will risk as much for me as I will for them.

Every SEAL team member I have ever met and/or trained has said to me that he is "stupid."  After hearing this dozens of times, I finally asked why every SEAL I ever met said that.  A former Chief who'd spent 18 years in the teams looked at me and said plainly, "Smart people wouldn't go through what we we did to get on the teams and stay there.  They quit.  Only someone who's stupid enough not to quit can be a SEAL." Stupid enough to take the pain and deprivation that training puts a man through to create the toughest possible warfighter.  The BUD/S Naval Special Warfare Instructors know that the pain they inflict on the SEAL team recruits will cause them to grow, to go beyond what they believe to be their limits, and to create a warrior who will never quit.

By accepting pain and moving beyond its limitations, you are freed from the constraints of "normal" people.  Where a normal, rational person would quit because of pain and be killed, you keep fighting and win, saving your life or someone else's, and accomplish the mission.  It's just pain.  A warrior doesn't seek it...only accepts that it is, and does what he or she has to do in spite of it. 

“It” happened.  You have been named as Defendant in a civil rights lawsuit in either state or federal court resulting from a force response incident.  You were served with the lawsuit some time ago.  You have met with your civil attorney (who may or may not work for your jurisdiction’s Attorney’s Office).  You likely have already been required to respond to Interrogatories (written questions answered under oath), and have now been notified that your deposition will be taken at a date not too far in the future.  You may have been subpoenaed.  Like most officers, you figure, “No big deal…I testify in criminal and traffic court all the time.”

This attitude and belief will likely cost you and your agency dearly in your upcoming trial.  While officers have been taught that a “trial” is the pinnacle of the officer’s efforts as a witness in a criminal proceeding, the same is not true in a civil trial.  Your case, and the possible adverse award by the jury against you and your agency, will rise or fall on both your trial performance and deposition. 

A deposition is testimony given under oath in an informal setting.  Depos are primarily conducted at one of the attorney’s offices.  Generally, the only persons present are the opposing attorneys, the plaintiff(s), the defendant officer(s), and a court reporter.  Some will be videotaped with a professional videographer present.  DO NOT LET THIS INFORMAL SETTING FOOL YOU—everything you say will be presented to the jury in some way, and always in a manner that is advantageous to the attorney using your testimony to influence the jury to his or her version of the events. 

Formally, depositions are part of the discovery process.  The reality is the depo is an opportunity for the opposing attorney to ask any question on practically any topic related to the case, your job, education, training, and even your prior employment.  It is a fishing expedition that is governed by the rules of evidence, including objections by your attorney (you are required to answer even though there is an objection—unless you are directed by your attorney not to answer).  You will likely be questioned detail by detail, as the minutiae of the case is explored and examined.  While improper and cumulative, Plaintiff’s attorney will likely ask you the same question over and over again, over the repeated objections of your attorney.

Every word of your resulting deposition testimony will be scrutinized by Plaintiffs and their highly paid experts for inconsistencies and omissions from your previous testimony (your written report(s) and/or oral interview(s)).  You will likely be asked the same questions in your civil trial, and your previous testimonies and reports will be compared to the answers given in front of the jury.  This is an attempt to impeach you, making it appear that your inconsistencies are a result of your being untruthful. 

Like you, jurors hate liars.  The Plaintiff’s attorney will do every thing possible to make it appear that you are not telling the truth, are evasive, and not consistent.  If you give an opening through sloppy reporting or deposition testimony, the opposing attorney may be able to seize an advantage.  If it happens, the jury will likely turn on you, providing a huge judgment to the Plaintiff, and a big payday for his/her attorney. 

As a defendant officer, it is vital to understand this fact:  As a police specialist—a skilled investigator and first responder, capable with your force tools and firearms—you are a competent officer on the street.  But as a defendant, you are no longer on the street—you are in the “legal” domain where the attorney is more highly skilled at what he or she does in that courtroom than you are.  As a Defendant walking into a deposition, it is to your benefit to assiduously prepare for your testimony.  Flippantly believing that you will “handle” the deposition based on your normal criminal witness expertise often results, at best, in a lackluster performance that does not assist your defense.  At worst, your testimony at deposition will lose the case for you, even though you did a good job during the incident.  Fair or not, that is the reality of the civil arena.

Preparing for your deposition depends minimally upon three factors.  First, understand the overall theory of the plaintiffs and how they will attack your testimony. Second, know your policy, force laws, and training.  Last, know the facts of the case as you perceived them at the time, and understand the difference between the testimony you are used to, and the very different world of your new role as “defendant” in a civil case.

 

PREPARATION:  Plaintiff’s Theory

 Some police civil defense attorneys are incredibly good.  Some are plainly incompetent.  Most are average attorneys.  If you are represented by a good attorney, you will be extensively briefed about what to expect, and where the Plaintiff will likely focus his attack.  If not, there are ways of gleaning what the thrust of the opposing attorney’s questions will be.

One of your first stops is to make an appointment with your agency's risk manager.  These are individuals who manage risk for a living.  Your risk manager should be able to give you an overview of the case and where the Plaintiff's attorney is focusing in your case. 

The Plaintiff lays out their theory of the case in the Complaint.  There will be a fact pattern that is alleged to have occurred that will generally be very different than the facts you remember.  They will allege various failings and civil rights violations you committed during the arrest and subsequent force response.  They will likely allege that you knowingly had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to contact the individual in the first place.  They will likely accuse of maliciousness and a deliberate disregard for the law and the rights of the plaintiff.

You will either laugh or be outraged, but these are the allegations you will be forced to deal with for the next couple of years of your life.  Sometimes the more outrageous the allegation, the more difficult it is to disprove (it is often easier to prove you did something, rather than prove you didn’t do some act).  Don’t be surprised if the allegations seem to change as the Plaintiff’s attorney discovers that the original story his client provided doesn’t jibe with the evidence.

These allegations will be the starting point in your proving your proper conduct, and disproving their version of the “fact pattern.”  Once you understand how you will be attacked, you can begin to prepare your defense.  The Plaintiff gives you your blueprint. 

 

PREPARATION: Policy, law, & training

Plaintiffs attorneys are getting better and better at their jobs—which is to take tax money away from your jurisdiction, and, if possible, out of your pocket (although relatively rare in the real world, “punitive damages” is where the officer is personally punished by the jury and required to pay out of pocket for malicious and/or extremely reckless behavior).  Hoping you will come up against an incompetent opposing attorney is not a realistic strategy.  Knowing how they will attack you, and readying your defenses is.

It is to the Plaintiff’s benefit to portray you as incompetent and ill-trained (or even untrained).  Therefore, they will look for weaknesses in your job knowledge.  You will be asked questions about:

Force Policy.  Read, understand, and know your policy.  Know when can you respond with specific force tools—and any limitations.  You will be asked when you must report your force response to your supervisor, as well as when you are required to report.  Your being “conversational,” or able to easily discuss your agency’s policy requirements will assist you during the inevitable examination of your understanding of the policy.  If your policy requires you to employ “minimum force in order to minimize injuries” (a very poorly thought out policy provision), be able to explain why your actions were within policy.

Valid Core Transaction.  A “valid core transaction” is fancy lawyer-speak for “What was your legal basis for contacting the suspect?”  Whether the incident arose from a consensual contact, a detention (investigative, Terry frisk for weapons, or officer safety), or probable cause for arrest, every evaluation of your force response rests upon a legally sound basis for contact.  It is a fact specific, fact dependent analysis of why you were legally permitted to be doing what you were doing when you perceived the need to respond with force.  You shot the suspect because he pulled a gun and began firing at you?  No problem—completely justified…except, that is, if you were in the house without a warrant, without exigence, and with the consent of an obvious minor who let you in the house.  In this instance, you had no right to be there, and your claims of self-defense have no legal validity.  Your fundamental justification for contacting the individual must be legally sound and defensible.

The Plaintiff’s attorney will likely explore your training and expertise regarding:

• What is required for a consensual contact?
• What is required for a detention?
• How were you trained that reasonable suspicion is defined?
• What is necessary for an arrest?
• How were you trained that probable cause is defined?

Knowing the key components and being able to provide all of the facts you depended upon at the time you contacted the offender will be the basis for the beginning of your justification of your force response.

Force Law.  You will be asked about your training in what is permitted by law regarding defense or control of the subject.  KNOW THE LAW—this is simply being professional.  Minimally, be conversational with the key components of Scott v. Harris (2007), Graham v. Connor (1989), and, if you shot someone as they were fleeing, Tennessee v. Garner (1994).  Also, know your state’s law(s) enabling you to respond with force, especially if it has different requirements regarding the force response.

If you shot someone in a standup gunfight (even if it is a “mistake of fact” shooting), know the “deadly force threshold” permitting you to respond with deadly force (“I had an objective and reasonable belief that my life and/or the life of others was in actual or imminent danger of death or serious physical injury based on the totality of the facts known to me at the time.”).  By the way, when asked, your intent in responding with deadly force was to “save” a life (yours or others)—NOT to “kill” the suspect!  While shooting to “stop” is proper and correct, it is more accurate to describe the deadly force response as the life-saving act it always is.

 This ability to explain the laws regarding force response is simply seen by the jury as “fundamental job knowledge.”  Consider what your own response might be to a surgeon who doesn’t seem to understand the biological processes of the body or fumbled around trying to remember basic anatomy—chances are, you wouldn’t permit him to perform surgery on you.  In the same way, a police officer who cannot talk about the laws permitting him to hurt, injure, or employ deadly force against a suspect is seen as ignorant and untrained.  This is never pretty in front of a jury.

Additionally, federal case law does not require officers to explore “lesser alternatives to force.”  You are required, based on the totality of the facts known to you at the time, to respond with objectively reasonable force.  Your job is to explain your actions to meet the “reasonable officer standard” (would another officer with similar training and experience, given similar circumstances, make the same decision or react in a similar manner as you did?).

Force tools:  You will be closely questioned about your training and knowledge about the weapons you carry—especially if that weapon was employed against the Plaintiff.  Knowing the make, model, caliber, maker of the ammunition, bullet type and weight, etc., will demonstrate a level of training and expertise with your equipment.  Again, drawing from other professions, imagine a carpenter who cannot discuss different tools and brands of tools used within his profession.

Recent problems in this regard is testimony regarding the Taser.  Many officers carry it.  They have a reasonable understanding of when to employ it, and do a good job responding to suspect threat.  However, when asked to explain how the device functions, including specifics about voltage, who it is suggested through training that officers refrain from tasing, etc., many struggle through this or provide incorrect information.  For instance, one police officer testified that the Taser is intended to gain compliance, and refusal to comply immediately is resistance sufficient to be tased.  Another testified that he was trained that a Taser was impermissible to be used on a subject who is wet or in water (in a case where the subject was under the influence of drugs and profusely sweating).  Yet another testified that there was no data capture ability on M26 Tasers.  Each of these officers’ explanations of Taser operation and employment was incorrect, and each had problems during their testimony as a result—not because of their actions during the force response, but a result of their explanations and the appearance of being unfamiliar with the tools of their profession.

Prior to the deposition, contact your agency trainer and set up a formal meeting to review everything about that force tool.  Know the specifications peculiar to that particular tool.  Knowing manufacturer, optimal distances, weight, maintenance requirements, etc., and answering every question confidently and correctly will create a disincentive to the Plaintiff’s attorney to continue to make you look well-trained.  The result will be fewer questions about your job knowledge (since it is not in her best interest to demonstrate a knowledgeable, confident officer), and more about the incident and your actions and perceptions.

 

PREPARATION: Know the facts of the incident

Many officers wander into a deposition, thinking they are prepared to answer any questions that might come up simply because they skimmed their report “two weeks ago.”  Generally, this doesn’t work out well for them—remember, this is not criminal testimony.  You are the defendant, and are seen by the jury as someone with something to lose.  It is not unusual for a deposition to take four to seven hours in a case with an arrest involving a 20-second scuffle with injuries no greater than scrapes and a couple of bruises.  Remember, 55% of all federal civil rights lawsuits involve force no greater than control holds, takedowns, and handcuffing.  In these cases, the “injuries suffered by the Plaintiff” are often completely healed within 10 days.  And you will be required to fully justify all of your actions and statements at the scene like it was the biggest event that ever happened in the history of policing.

During your sworn testimony at deposition, a competent Plaintiff’s attorney will take you second-by-second, and sometimes microsecond-by-microsecond, through the incident.  This is an exhaustive and excruciating examination of the details as you believe them to be and why you believed you responded reasonably. 

To prepare for any deposition in which you are a party:

• Study—don’t just read—your reports, interview transcripts, and any information generated from the case that involves you.  Know the case from your perspective.
• Study the Plaintiff(s)’s depositions, Citizen Complaint Forms, Plaintiff's expert witness' report, etc.  Knowing what the Plaintiff is contending will give you a real good idea of where the questioning will go.
  
• Visit the scene and, if possible, at approximately the same time as the incident.  Note location of objects and structures, their relative distances and sizes, and lighting issues, if any.  If the incident took place inside an apartment still occupied by the Plaintiff, there are often empty apartments that are identical or mirror images to the actual location.
• Be clear about the cardinal directions of the location.  Know that if Officer “A” was to your left, he actually was standing southeast of you.
  
• Discuss your perceptions and memories of the event with your attorney.  The more you discuss it in a professional manner, the better your testimony will be.
• Listen to the dispatch tape.  This will assist you in determining timing and affirming your memory of the sequence of events.
• Get some sleep.  Working a midnight shift and then showing up at 09:00 hours to give testimony is not a good idea.  Ask to be excused from shift the night before any deposition and be fresh.
  

 

The deposition itself

Be early to the deposition.  Even though there is no judge present, any disrespect shown to the process will not bode well for you.  This is the first look that the Plaintiff’s attorney will have of you.  Think about it from her point of view.  The attorney will not get paid unless she wins the case—that’s about three to five months of income she’s betting on this case.  This is her first opportunity to evaluate you.  Go into the deposition in a clean, pressed uniform, shined shoes, fresh haircut, and organized (some attorneys will ask you to be in a suit and tie for all court proceedings).  Have a copy of the materials you reviewed with you, preferably in a briefcase and organized.  Present a professional image of the stand-up, honest cop that you are.  Your being squared away in your deposition may sway her against putting a lot more time into this case.  That’s a good thing for you.

Some opposing attorneys are polite and professional to defendant officers.  Others are incredibly nasty, rude, and condescending.  A few are simply bullies.  One has a practice of announcing once each deponent officer has been sworn in that he (the plaintiff’s attorney) wants to extend the “courtesy” to the officer of knowing that he will be turning over the officer’s sworn deposition to the US Prosecutor at the end of trial for investigation and possible prosecution for perjury.  He also states that he is proud that two officers are being tried for perjury as a result (it’s curious that he has said the same thing the same way at the beginning of officers’ depos for many years now, and it seems that the same two cops are perennially being tried for perjury).

Regardless of how the Plaintiff’s attorney treats you, you will be expected to act in the same manner as you perform your job in the field:  polite professionalism.  Professional answers, clear and concise, just the same as you will in court.  Being a smart-aleck and whipping out sarcastic answers may feel good or seem funny at the deposition, but that will change dramatically when your testimony is read word for word to the jury at trial.  Remember, if you cannot control your mouth—or your temper—during testimony, how can the jury trust that you were in control of your mouth and actions during your force response?

The issue of time and memory may arise in a civil trial.  It is not unusual for a deposition to be three or more years post-incident.  Your written report and/or audio-recorded oral interview contemporaneous to the incident may contain information and perceptions that you simply don’t remember at the present time.  The best testimony is always the truth:  “I don’t remember as I sit here today.  However, my written report contains that information.”  Refreshing your memory is part of the purpose in writing a report, and it is OK to have a human being’s memory that doesn’t recall the details of an event years later.

Always be clear and comprehensive in your deposition testimony.  Many judges are limiting evidence at trial on the basis of that evidence not being a part of the officer’s “state of mind” at the time of the incident.  Generally, the basis for these exclusionary judgments are:

1.    The officer did not report that knowledge or fact in his first report, and/or;

2.    The officer did not testify to the knowledge of that fact in his deposition.

The importance of being comprehensive cannot be overemphasized.  Failing to document the belief or the objective signs of being under the influence of either narcotics or alcohol has resulted in key toxicology reports being excluded from the jury, and any mention of the suspect/decedent’s being under the influence prohibited during testimony.  Imagine attempting to describe why you responded with force, including deadly force to stop an irrational assault, yet not being permitted to explain the basis of that out-of-control behavior because testimony is limited and evidence has been excluded by the court.  Frankly, it has resulted in many adverse judgments where the officer achieved reasonable conduct but was unable to prove it later at trial.  If you forgot or neglected to provide information in your report, ensure the information in your deposition is comprehensive and complete—hopefully the judge will permit all of the facts known to you at the time of the incident into evidence. 

In the deposition, as in trial, the opposing attorney is permitted to mislead you and to misquote the evidence during your questioning.  Be on your toes if the attorney begins any question with, “Isn’t it true that…” or “Do you agree that…”  It is almost assured that what follows will be a misrepresentation of the facts, your policy, and/or the law.  If it is not 100% accurate, NEVER agree with the attorney’s version.  Restate the question to include the facts, policy, or law as you know and have been trained.  Take charge of your testimony and do not permit the opposing attorney to put words in your mouth. 

If you misstate something, or realize that your prior testimony in the deposition was incomplete, correct the record.  Interrupt the proceedings, explain that you need to add or change your testimony.  You will be given the chance.  If you need to change your testimony in a manner that contradicts your earlier testimony, explain the context of your understanding of the question at the time, and why you misunderstood or answered incorrectly.  Above all, get the record right before you leave. 

 

Conclusion

In our society, it is important that limits to police power and behavior be monitored and enforced.  This process will not be pleasant for the men and women who protect the public by putting their lives on the line daily.  Many officers resent being grilled by attorneys who intentionally misrepresent the officer’s intentions and actions.  The civil process can scar officers, and create life-long cynicism in otherwise good officers.  Preparing for this long, sometimes painful process can lessen the trauma and will increase the likelihood that the jury can be made to understand what actually happened and arrive at an informed verdict.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are not supermen or superwomen.  Some are incredibly gifted at their craft.  Most are just average attorneys—more than a few are dolts.  They are litigating a case against you, and their every effort will be to make you appear to the jury to be untrained, incompetent, predatory, callous, and malicious.  Their clients, the “subject-turned-suspect-turned defendant-turned plaintiff,” will tell a tale of official malfeasance and abuse that will likely be very different than the incident you remember. 

Thinking that because you did a good job on the street and handled the incident within policy, law, and training that you will be automatically vindicated by the jury is a recipe for disaster.  While you are in control on the street, you will be well-served to remember that you are the defendant and in the opposing attorney’s battle space.  This is their job, not yours.  They get paid only if they prevail in this case and convince the jury to award their client vast sums of taxpayer money.  If they can portray you as an out-of-control thug, the more likely they will get their payday.

You did the job on the street.  If you want to win the civil trial, you must be prepared to provide the best testimony of your life.  It will be too late after you have been served with the lawsuit to rewrite your first report to be as comprehensive as you will later wish it to be.  Your testimony in the criminal defendant’s trial will commonly be brief and not comprehensive.  By the way, transcripts of your testimony will likely be introduced into evidence in the civil trial.

Your first real opportunity to provide the whole story from your perception of the events will be your deposition.  The more thoroughly you prepare, the more likely the deposition will help you to accurately convey your case, and prepare you for trial. 

You did the job in the field.  Now do the job that’s required to prevail in the civil trial.

The situation is familiar to patrol officers:  a parolee “hanging” on the street, sitting on one heel, leaning back against a wall, forearms resting on his knees, talking to his associates.  Every officer has seen this.  Is this simply a “comfy” way to relax while talking to friends rather than standing or sitting on the concrete?  Or could there be something more.

While there are individuals in whose cultures this is a common way to relax, the possibility that this is a parolee or gangster requires officers to be cautious and appreciate the threat this position can pose to safety.  Officers must take precautions during any subject contact with an individual who is in or assumes this position.  Even though “it feels” like the officer standing has the advantage, the person in the “prison crouch” or squat (the term, “prison squat” seems to be perceived by jurors as more vulgar in court, although that is more accurate) has many tactical advantages.

All State Corrections Officers can tell you that parolees assume this position for two reasons:

1. Prisons are made of concrete.  Concrete is cold.  Sitting on cold concrete for years, according to convicts, will give the person hemorrhoids. 
2. Sitting flat on your butt in prison prevents effective response to sudden attack.  Sitting on your butt on the floor or ground is an invitation to attack.

This “prison crouch”—sitting on one heel with the other foot flat and forward—is an indicator of a subject who may be a threat to an officer.  Even when the individual has not been to prison, this behavior is often seen in youngsters emulating the “OGs” who have. 

Sitting or squatting in this position is not the sole indicator of any individual having spent time in prison.  This position is seen, too, in Latin American immigrants, especially farm workers or those of the peasant class in their home countries.  These cultures continue to work the fields as they have for centuries.  When in the fields, there is no place to sit but on the dirt.  Instead, these immigrants (legal and illegal) will squat or crouch down like this as an alternative to standing.  However, when combined with other threat-cues, the prison crouch is a position an officer should approach with caution, being aware of the position’s capabilities.

 APPEARANCES AND CAPABILITIES

While to the lay-person the Prison Crouch seems to be a “submissive” position, it actually has inherent offensive and defensive capabilities that must be addressed in the field if an officer is to safely handle the situation.  The lay person often believes that since the individual is lower than the officer and sitting back, that the subject is therefore at a disadvantage. 

Not true: 

Lower than the officer.  With the officer standing over him while the subject is sitting on his heel, it appears the officer has an advantage of being “bigger” and “higher.”  However, the closer the officer gets to the subject, the more vulnerable his legs are to the suspect suddenly springing at the officer for a leg takedown.  Any wrestler or jujitsu-player will see this relative positioning as an opportunity to “shoot” for the leg(s) and take the officer down.  Even with extensive wrestling/jujitsu training, once someone is in the officer’s legs, it is very difficult to prevent that party from taking the officer down.  The subject’s being lower does not prevent his springing at the officer, and is therefore a danger signal that may result in serious assault.

Sitting back.  The lay person sees an individual “sitting” with his back against a wall.  This, they wrongly reason, will make it more difficult to move suddenly and attack anyone by surprise—especially an officer who is paying attention.  While opposing attorney’s may characterize the standard Prison Crouch as “a guy sitting ‘back’ on his heels,” the reality is that this position is defensive as well as offensive, and used by individuals in a predatory environment (prison) to prevent their being attacked without defense by other predators (fellow prisoners).  Kicks are easily deflected, punches to the head are extremely difficult, and tackling the individual results in an opponent who has all of his physical weapons (hands, feet, and head) available for groundfighting.  He’s low to the ground, and less likely to be injured when tackled, negating much of the value the tackle provides against a standing opponent.  And as officers who have experienced combative or resistive suspects in position know, individuals can stand up surprisingly fast when they want to. 

Submissive.  The lay person will see this prison crouch as a submissive position, and will often judge the situation to be one of dominance by the officer who is standing over the subject.  Actually, this is a position where one can lure the unwary individual easily into range for an almost indefensible takedown (without extensive and current training) on to a hard surface (concrete or asphalt) where elbows, wrists, and heads are vulnerable to possibly severe injury from striking the ground. 

There is a temptation to use the standing position and a louder, harsher voice from a closer position to attempt to convince the subject to comply.  Remember:  this position is designed as a defensive position.  An officer wandering into the subject’s range because of a natural perception that standing is advantageous and dominant can be a mistake that can cost an officer his health and possibly his life.

THREAT VERSUS CULTURE?

Is there a foolproof way to predict whether any individual is simply sitting versus a threat from a “prison crouch?”  No.  Are there indicators that should alert the officer to the threat of an individual who takes this position either as a defensive posture or as an attempt to lure the officer into range?  Of course. 

Failure to comply with orders to get on the ground or on his knees.  All non-compliance is, of course, a key threat indicator.  Taking a position contrary to that ordered, or remaining in a position after being told to move calls for caution and distance solutions (Taser or OC spray) rather than hands-on efforts or getting closer to exert one’s will.  By giving orders in Spanish (“Boca abajo,” literally, “mouth down,” but translated as “Get face down,” or “A tierra se,” or “Get on the ground”), future Criminal Defense and Plaintiffs attempts to portray the subject as unable to understand the officer’s intentions will be short circuited.

Changing orientation.  An individual who changes his orientation to the officer’s latest position is clearly maneuvering to engage the officer.  As the officer moves laterally, he rotates to remain oriented to the officer’s position, thereby protecting his flank.

Eyes remain on the officer.  The subject maintains eye-contact with the officer, tracking his or her movement.  Cultural indicators are submissive, and not looking authorities in the eye.  In their country of origin, the police are not someone whom a citizen safely confronts—even with sustained direct eye contact.  Anyone visually tracking the officer from the crouch or squat position and remaining alert to the officer’s position or actions should be treated as a threat to officer safety. 

Indicia of gang association.   Knowledge of gang involvement, gang-style clothing, and identifying tattoos transform this seated position into a “prison-crouch,” with all of the safety ramifications that entails.

Identifying and remaining aware of the threat-cues that a “prison crouch” or squat signifies will permit a safer contact.  This position alone may not justify a higher profile response.  However, its inherent strengths combined with one or more threat indicators call for a moderate distance response.  The first non-compliance indicator, failure to respond to legal commands, routinely justifies a distance response (the threat or use, as justified, of OC spray or Taser).  As the threat-cues compound and multiply, a higher profile response to someone in the prison crouch is needed. 

 

Be safe.  Wear your vest.  Know your policies, especially your force response, deadly force response, and pursuit policies by heart.  And thank you for taking care of me and mine, and us all.

 

There are three rules of police work:

1.  Officers are shot at, beaten, stabbed, and sometimes killed while doing their duty.
2.  Officers respond to a call for service when dispatched, having little idea of who or what is involved.
3.  Nobody can change Rule Number One.

Another hero was shot down on Halloween, 2009.  This time a complete ambush.  Timothy Brenton, Seattle PD Officer, husband, father of two youngsters, son, and friend.  Field Training Officer.  Great cop.  I never met him, but I’ve met thousands like him.  Honest, hard-working, courageous, concerned, and funny, of course.  Three dimensional living, breathing people who put on the uniform and walk into the unknown every shift, risking their lives to protect people they don’t know.  I was at his memorial yesterday, among several thousand cops from all over the country, including a large contingent of red-coated Mounties, and another thousand concerned citizens who wanted to share their outrage and grief with the family and to share their support of law enforcement.

This, I believe, is my 38th police funeral.  Sitting there, we all were waiting for the service to begin, waiting for the family that was in so much pain and shock, waiting for the ancient ceremonies and rituals for this last farewell to a fallen warrior, the forced stoicism, and the inevitable choking back of tears.  I reflected back to the five officers who I know attended my classes and who have been murdered in the line of duty. 

As a trainer of police for the last 28 years, I have been honored to have trained over 24,000 officers from all 50 states, several US territories, and 14 foreign countries.  Like most trainers who have done this job for any period of time, more officers than I can remember have called to thank me for the training I shared with them, saying that I “saved” their life.  These calls are always humbling, but the reality is that these officers saved their own lives by making good decisions early enough to make a difference.  The other side of that is the quality of the training each officer receives is a real factor in their survival. 

Being a police and military trainer has always been a sacred responsibility.  Even before my first police funeral, I knew that being a Trainer of warriors carried with it the weight of each student’s life.  Teaching officers defensive tactics, firearms, building entry and search, officer safety tactics and field response, any of the myriad courses I’ve taught carried with it the realization that what I taught matters to people’s lives.  I believe that, as a trainer, I am called upon to provide the best training that I can devise, find, or borrow in pursuit of keeping these men and women, heroes all, alive on the street.

Hero.  That word was used a lot yesterday.  Rightly so.  “A person who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action;  a person admired and venerated for his or her achievements and noble qualities.”  While uncomfortable with being described so, officers who act with integrity, with honor, and understand their role as warriors and servants are heroes.  How can I, or any of us who are the trainers of warrior-servants, give anything less than these heroes are called to do?  

The first time an officer I had taught was murdered, I almost quit the profession of training.  I foolishly believed that training could solve every problem, and if the training I presented was of high enough quality, then no one would ever be hurt.  Officer James O’Brien.  He was pursuing an active shooter (well before Sgt. Jeff Martin, San Jose, CA, PD, and I coined that phrase over a decade ago) who had just murdered several people in a government office.  Jim parked his police car a couple of blocks away from the suspect’s location, got low, and peeked between the driver’s A-post and side spotlight.  He took a .300 Winchester Magnum round in the face, having penetrated the spotlight, killing him instantly.  He did everything right:  given the suspect’s known weaponry, he maintained extreme distance, he got small, used his vehicle properly as cover, and attempted to maintain observation of the suspect while directing backup officers to a safe approach.

When I heard that he had been murdered, I remembered Jim—out of the officers in a class long before, I remembered his face,  I had had lunch with him during the week of training.  For the two years following his murder, I searched my soul for something I had missed, feeling I had somehow let him down in the training.  Even though I only trained those methods and concepts that I believed in, I scoured my training doctrines and lesson plans for any garbage that wasn’t practical or effective.  I examined everything for anything that was based on my “being special” as an instructor and didn't serve the officers I was training.  I laid awake at night, going over and over what I taught compared to Jim’s response in this call.  A close friend of mine, a retired sergeant from Los Angeles County SO, Randy Johnson, said something that should have been obvious, but evidently wasn't to me for so long.  “Sometimes we do everything right and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.  Sometimes it’s just up to God.”  It was then that I realized that training couldn’t solve every problem, and that if I did my job perfectly, cops are still going to die.  That’s the nature of the job.  All that I can do is provide the best training I know how to help them minimize the chance of that happening.

Let no officer's ghost ever say my training failed him or her.

So I continue to scour the classes we teach, revising every class each time we teach it as we learn more, discover different ways to problem-solve, and figure out how to better present it so that it is easier for them to learn and, most importantly, remember when our cops are hurt, tired, and scared.  We teach them to be warrior-servants:  uphold the Constitution, follow the laws and their policies, and to help those who need them.  And we teach them to be warriors within the law:  fierce, dominating, and ultimately effective.  If we teach them to do the best job possible, then it is up to that officer and his or her decisions in the field to stay safe.  And sometimes no matter what they do or don't do, it is up to God.

I have known several officers personally who have been murdered.  I've trained five.  Of the five officers I have taught who have been murdered, only one of them made a series of terrible mistakes and seemed to be unaware of the dangers he might have been able to see.  Sadly, he and his family paid a terrible price.  Another murdered officer was intentionally T-boned by a fleeing suspect, having no chance to change an unforeseeable outcome—I remember him like it was yesterday.  The two remaining officers fought like lions after being wounded, but succumbed to their wounds.  Anne Jackson was one of these two officers--she was constantly smiling and laughed a lot--a nice woman who worked hard during training.  She was the last one of the officers attending my classes murdered…so far.

So far.  There is nothing I can do in training that will change Rule Number One.  But I will continue to provide the best training I know how, searching and revising and changing the curriculum so that it gives the officers I serve, we serve, the best information possible to do this job safely and to increase their chances of coming home.

The very first funeral I attended for a fallen warrior had the following poem read aloud in his honor.  It was written by George Hahn, a retired LAPD Officer.  It is entitled, “The Monument.”

I never dreamed it would be me,
My name for all eternity,
Recorded here at this hallowed place,
Alas, my name, no more my face.

“In the line of duty,” I hear them say;
My family now the price will pay;
My folded flag stained with their tears;
We only had those few short years. 

The badge no longer on my chest, 
I sleep now in eternal rest. 
My sword I pass to those behind, 
And pray they keep this thought in mind. 

I never dreamed it would be me,
And with heavy heart and bended knee; 
I ask for all here from the past, 
Dear God, let my name be last.  

So at Officer Brenton’s memorial, the Ceremonial Commander, the honor guard, the color guard, and the flag-bearers all did their job with scrupulous dignity and attention to detail befitting the honor this hero and his family deserved.  The politicians gave their self-serving speeches.  The eulogies were given by his friends and family, their pain apparent to all.  Two buglers played "Taps," the mournful notes lingering in the echoes.  The pipers played “Amazing Grace,” forcing us all to catch our breath against the sobs, with the last piper walking off into the distance, and breaking all of our hearts all over again.  The last radio call was played, and Officer Brenton’s call sign and badge was retired, the silence between the dispatcher’s calling him over and over ripping through us all.  Tough men and women failed to hold back their tears.

Rest in peace, Officer Tim Brenton.  God bless your family.  I promise you, sir, that we will not bury a cop attending our training because the training is substandard or presented for anyone’s benefit other than our students.  We will continue to ruthlessly critique our training material to ensure that we give the best chance to every officer who honors us by permitting us to share our knowledge and skills.

And we know that you will not be the last hero we bury, because we know nobody can change Rule Number One. 

 

Coming of age in the world of men of action, guns, and danger, one is taught that the subject of “Tactics” (capital “T”) is something you should know and be good at applying in order to stay “safe” and be effective.  To learn to be “tactical,” you’re generally given a list of actions to take given a specific incident or event—and there are a lot of events where tactics are necessarily employed.  Those who are good at memorizing and then recalling under the pressure of the real world tend to excel at tactics.  But what about the others in the profession at arms who do not?

But there are many who “don’t get it.”  They got the same lists of do’s and don’t’s that everyone else did.  Like everybody else, they were forced to memorize them.  And yet, the ability to apply these lists and act tactically didn’t take.  Everyone has these folks in their agency, team, or unit.  And for some reason, they often don’t get hurt when they probably should have—until they do, or they get someone else hurt or killed.  

What is it about “tactics,” that some get it and others do not?   Many of those who “get it” actually tend to grasp what is behind the laundry list of tactics, seeing the principles that are the basis of the tactical laundry list.  However, tactics are not about a laundry list of do’s and don’ts.  Tactics are fundamentally a way of conducting business that puts your opponent into a recognizable disadvantage from which he is unable to survive (whether that means he is defeated/killed/injured/taken into custody, etc., he is unable to continue his present course of action against you). 

Sound tactics are essentially a physical manifestation of Applied OODA Theory©.  OODA theory to gain a decisive edge in the time competitive environment of combatives at any level generally focuses on the ability to orient quickly to any threat, enabling you to respond in a manner that is confusing and disorienting to the Threat.  Applied OODA Theory© requires orienting early to threatening behavior and circumstances early enough to gain a decisive tactical and physical edge over the Threat.  Primarily it concerns two different OODA Cycles to permit the officer to “get inside the Threat’s OODA Loop,” get them into a “Goofy Loop” (the “O-O Bounce”) and keep him there :

►       Threat cue:  Threat cues are based on orienting to the suspect’s behavior and orienting that behavior to the laws and policies governing your force response. 

o   Threat cues require the full O-O-D-A Cycle and further orientation before action can be taken. 

o   When force is not reasonable given the present orientation (perception), the cycle will resemble a continuing cycle of O-O-D-->O… (Observe-Orient-DecideàObserve…).

o   As soon as it is oriented that the suspect has become a “threat,” the full O-O-DàA sequence is employed.

 ►     Trip-Wire:  A trip-wire response is a “go/no-go” decision.  Based on suspect behavior, and upon orienting to the threat, you act as soon as that trip-wire threshold is met.  It requires no thought about “why?” or “If I’m allowed to…”  Based on his actions, you respond per training. 

o   Trip-wires shortcut the decision-making cycle.  Upon orientation, the action is taken.

o   O-O-->A (Observation-OrientationàAction) sequences continue until there is a need to determine an action based on continuing threat cues (whereupon the full O-O-D-->A cycle sequence will initiate based on threat cues). 

Tactics are essentially an application of "Applied OODA Theory"© consisting of the three foundational principles of tactics: 

• Angles
  
• Proxemics.     
• Relative capabilities of the combatants, equipment, and their weapons.  

#1.  ANGLES     

Angles are primarily “angles of attack.”  It is the direction and angle by which one is attacked.  Whether that is through trajectory (the parabolic flight of a missile—bullet or otherwise—through the air) or a fist, vehicle, sword, stick, explosive, air delivered munitions—whatever the mechanism to injure employed—there is an angle of attack that must be identified and protected against to increase your safety.       

All angles of threat have a direction.  It may be from the gunman five feet away, a man with a shotgun 20 yards away, that sniper 800 meters away in an elevated position, or mortar fire.  Traditionally it has been called a kill-zone.  A kill-zone can be defined as any area permitting the intersection of a weapon or missile (and its effects) with its target.  If you get shot, you were in a kill-zone.  If you suffer the effects of an explosion, you were in a kill-zone.  The same if you are kicked in the shins or knifed through the ribs.  All result from a directional component, or angle of attack.  Identifying and avoiding the kill-zone created by the angle as determined by the proxemics is key to preventing injury while creating injury (or threat of injury) to the opponent.                

#2.  PROXEMICS

Proxemics is the relationship of bodies in space and geography.  The combatants’ position relative to the other becomes a threat or not based on their weapon’s capabilities, e.g., a man armed with a knife at 50 yards is not a serious immediate threat, whereas a man with a shotgun or rifle likely is.  A man with a scoped rifle who is 40 feet higher than his target is important information in determining either how to shoot the target or in not getting shot, depending on which side of the muzzle one finds himself.  Determining the position of an opponent prior to a shot being fired, explosive being detonated, or a kick beginning or the knife striking provides valuable intelligence that permits you to avoid the kill zone, negating—or, at least, mitigating—the weapons’ capability to harm you.The same goes when selecting an area or place in which to confront an opponent.  Your position can give you an advantage over your opponent. Selecting a favorable site or creating a circumstance for the confrontation greatly influences the outcome.  Understanding the advantages and disadvantages inherent in proxemics provides a foundational opportunity to create or eliminate angles of attack based on your present needs.

#3.  CAPABILITIES OF THE COMBATANTS, THEIR EQUIPMENT AND WEAPONS, ETC. 

A core component to Tactics is the capabilities each of the combatants brings to the fight.  How these capabilities match up can be a deciding factor in the victory.  This includes: 

The willingness to do what it takes to win.  The desire to win, the ruthlessness which one enters into violence, the willingness to harm another, and the relentlessness of never quitting despite overwhelming odds, injury, and fatigue cannot be measured.  This is the single most important component in capabilities.   

Attributes.  This not only includes that which is God-given in terms of size, natural strength, reflexes, eye sight (especially the all-important peripheral vision), hand-to-eye coordination, etc., but also those attributes that have been enhanced through strength and fitness training.  Size matters in a hand-to-hand fight—given equal training, athleticism, and skills, the larger, heavier fighter will likely win. 

Skills.  These are the fighting skills each possesses.  CQB, CQD, Defensive Tactics, running the gun, ability to hit what is needed to be hit on-time, in-time are all important components in determining the outcome of the conflict.  Higher skill development often gives an unbeatable edge to the better trained combatant. 

Experience.  Combat experience, whether in full-fledged military-style combat, police gunfights, in the ring, or in street fights gives the more experienced combatant the edge because he has been better inoculated to the stress of fighting.  Like a novice skydiver that remembers almost nothing of his first jump but becomes more and more clear after a dozen jumps, the highly experienced fighter knows when to move and where to go to survive.  The German Air Force in World War I discovered that a pilot who survived three dogfights would likely go on to be an ace—however, the greatest losses of pilots were those considered to be inexperienced. 

Disparity of Weaponry.  The disparity in weapons each employs carries a great deal of weight in the outcome.  The saying from the Old West that “God made man, but Sam Colt made them all equal” is true.  The best empty hand fighter in the world against a competent shooter armed with a semiautomatic rifle at 20 yards has almost no chance of survival.   

While a man can win a gunfight armed with a handgun against an opponent armed with a shotgun or rifle, generally a firearm against a knife wins (unless the man with the knife can get inside the muzzle of the firearm, turning the firearm’s strength into weakness due to the relative capabilities of both the knife and the firearm).  The capability to penetrate cover renders a good position fatal.  A rifle against a tank, or a tank against an armed jet aircraft carries a disparity of effectiveness that renders the ability to survive unlikely. 

Numbers.  The greater the number of personnel one has available to respond to aggression or threat, the more likely the outcome will be affected in favor of the side with the most people.  A lone operator against a dozen armed men at close range will likely be at a huge disadvantage.   

Equipment.  Ballistic armor and vests, radio communication, optical sights, night vision or infrared capabilities, air assets, armored vehicles, etc., increase your capabilities to defend or detect your opponent.  These can also be employed by the Threat to your detriment.  The quality and relative capabilities of the involved-parties’ equipment is a real factor in the outcome of any conflict.  

Relative capabilities.  It is the relative capabilities of the opponents that creates opportunities for victory or defeat.  A bigger, stronger fighter will want to use those positive attributes against a smaller, weaker opponent.  That weaker fighter will hope to use attributes of mobility and hit and run against the stronger opponent to wear him down and injure him sufficiently to create a win.  A sniper in an elevated position at 600 yards hidden by dense undergrowth with a clear field of fire can paralyze 100 soldiers who cannot see him and are shot if they move.  The highly trained can often overcome superior, seemingly overwhelming numbers.  

All fights will involve the capabilities of each opponent relative to the other.  Each attempts to bring his strengths to bear against the weaknesses of the other.  

CONCLUSION

 Before getting into either the study or the application of specific tactical solutions, understanding the core foundations of “Tactics” is helpful.  The core elements of tactics are an amalgamation of three components:  angles and proxemics, applied OODA theory, and the relative capabilities each brings to the fight.  Angles of attack, or how you deliver force or avoid being the recipient of some type of force mechanism is primary to tactics.  Angles are determined by the proxemics of the combatants, or where each is in space relative to the other.  Positioning should be conscious, placing your opponent at a disadvantage (he is downhill, has the light in his eyes, he cannot see you, etc.) that is eventually recognizable to him.      

By intentionally employing the concepts of Applied OODA Theory©, you are able to deceive him regarding your true intentions.  This deception creates confusion, delaying his ability to understand what is happening.  As confusion increases, fatigue and injuries take a dramatic toll on his ability to continue effectively struggling.  Soon, he fails and is defeated. 

The relative capabilities of the opponents are a determining factor in the outcome.  Being a bigger, stronger, more athletic and experience fighter against someone smaller and less experienced is an advantage.  Bringing a bow and arrow to a fight against an unarmed man at distance is a positive capability.  It turns into a disability against a man armed with a repeating shotgun.  That repeating shotgun is less useful at 300 yards against a semiautomatic rifle.  A scoped rifle will likely be an asset at 800 yards against the semiautomatic rifle with iron sights.  A man with night vision capabilities armed with a handgun against that scoped rifle in conditions of extreme darkness may have the advantage.  Ten guys shooting at a single man have an advantage.  Most capabilities are inadequate against an artillery round landing within a few feet of the shooter.  A nuclear weapon tops them all.   

All capabilities in a fight are relative.  Capabilities must be matched to the situation.  Those with lesser capabilities must create an advantage through Applied OODA Theory© to distract and confuse the Threat.  When confusion reigns, even the most sophisticated fighter is paralyzed. 

Tactics is an uncomplicated concept that has been made complicated.  Uncomplicating it is process of understanding what the components are and applying them in-time, on-time to make a difference.    

As your agency’s defensive tactics or force response trainer, you are undoubtedly the “go-to”-guy or gal on all things pertaining to force.  For this reason, it is vital that you are completely clear that the program of training for your cops can actually be applied by your cops.  Training your officers in the latest, most popular program out there must not be based on something because it is cool.  Everything you teach must have relevancy on the street--where it is going to matter the most.

With the growing popularity and mainstreaming of events like the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship), Pride Fighting Championship, and similar events, there has been a large movement in DT circles to adopt the training approach from Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as a realistic way to train officers.  At first glance this approach may make sense, but a more careful analysis of the needs of the police officer on the street reveals serious weaknesses in using MMA training as a foundation for training officers.

There is no question that when watching MMA events, one is presented with some of the most talented and dangerous people on the planet.  The level of toughness, technical skill, and determination that makes these fighters who they are is something to behold with the utmost respect.  Because these athletes compete in a sport mimicking a level of violence that is kindred to the violence facing our uniformed warriors, the MMA approach to training for combat is highly touted as a truly viable method for training our police officers (and even our soldiers) as a response to the level of violence that they may face while performing their duties. 

Because of the sport’s growing popularity, officers are now finding themselves with the unhappy task of arresting better trained, physically talented combatants.  This leads well-meaning trainers to believe that by training the officers in MMA, it gives the officer a better chance of prevailing if he/she knows what the fighter knows. 

While much can be learned from the mixed martial arts as currently practiced in the highest levels, the  all-around, comprehensive nature of MMA skills that makes it seemingly desirable, actually makes it impractical for training the “average” cop to survive.  For the “average” cop, police training program development has to consider things that the “average” MMA fighter would never face.  Limitations such as minimal training time, limited attributes (“attributes” are everything the officer physically and mentally brings to the fight) and most importantly…is it going to work when they are tired, injured and scared—and haven’t had any DT training for a year?  These are not concepts the MMA’er ever thinks about, but police trainers must. 

When the cop’s reality of “This has to work or I may die” is compared to the training requirements needed to be just an average MMA competitor where nothing is on the line other than pride, it is easy to find they are two different worlds that share very little context.  The question of training officers to “fight like the MMA-fighter or to fight like a cop” takes on a whole new meaning.

Minimal Training Time

As a defensive tactics instructor, wouldn’t it be great if you had 40…60…or even 80-hours of in-service training time with each officer just for DT?  Reality check:  you are lucky you have 4 to 8-hours of DT training annually.  A really forward thinking agency may permit 16-hours a year.  Most competitive MMA fighters train 2-3 hours daily, and top level fighters often train 4-6 hours daily.  This is required to hone their proficiency in every skill domain they need to compete.  Even at these training levels, we see fighters who are destroyed in the ring by other fighters.  Do the math.  Competitive MMA fighters put in your yearly allotment of training time in less than a week.  Those who just train “for fun” three times per week will have the equivalent of your agency’s training time within two to three weeks.

 So then how does an officer who may train once a year for 4-16 hours expect to fare against a better trained athlete using the same approach?  MMA by design is a technically-based skill set that often takes an athlete months of intensive practice to even begin to solidify the basics.  Officers, unless training on their own, just can’t develop the skills to even begin to match amateur fighters mano a mano, using the same approach to fighting.  Training your officers to match skill sets with those who have superior training is a recipe for disaster.

Limited Attributes

The thing that is overlooked when watching a highly competitive MMA fighter is that you are not just witnessing a “skilled” fighter, but also an exceptional athlete.  The men and women (females are doing it too...and are good at it) that participate in these fighting exhibitions have attributes that many people in the general population do not have.  They have inherent traits of agility, balance, and coordination.  These natural traits have been further developed and honed to razor sharp perfection.  Most cops on the other hand are not physically gifted athletes—they are just average folk with average athletic abilities.

This is not to say that there are not cops who are physically gifted or are not or could not be great fighters.  If most were gifted with the attributes to be great fighters, they would probably be professional fighters and not the great cops they are.  Our reality as trainers is that most cops view physical skills training as something that they are required to do, and not something that they want to do.  Without a great desire to train in complex skills, MMA-based training for the police makes their already limited “attribute set” a further hindrance to effective employment.

So what is the solution for the officer who must survive when all is on the line, although training time and attributes are far from ideal?  We say “Train to Fight like a Cop.”

Fighting Like a Cop

Your job as a trainer of cops is to prepare them for the street.  It is not a contest; there are no trophies for “winning.”  Winning means they go home or don’t—they live or die.  They might also do a great job in the fight and still get sued.  That’s the game cops play.

It is your job to teach your officers to utilize every reasonable means within the law to get done what they need to do in the fight.  Fighting like a cop first means knowing the law.  The better they know the law, the more they are intimately familiar with what they can do and when they can do it.  This knowledge permits them to respond immediately to threat with reasonable tools.  It may mean that shooting someone who is attempting to “submit” an officer and putting them in reasonable fear of being seriously injured would be a reasonable response. 

The tools your cops carry(handgun, knife, OC, baton and taser) are not just stuff to be carried around.  The law permits, given a reasonable perception of threat based on suspect behavior, officers to employ those tools to protect themselves and others, and to take offenders into custody.  Thinking that officers should be trained to meet a trained threat with a similarly trained response is a misunderstanding and a misapplication of the mission and force law governing these contacts.  All defensive tactics problems cannot be solved with defensive tactics.

While the practice of MMA has a place, as trainers we have to be careful that we give our warriors training that is within the context of their job needs.  It lies in providing them with the right tool box filled with achievable skills for the right situation.  Because of the institutional limitations we have as trainers, every moment we spend with our people has to be relevant to their immediate survival needs.  All training must result in a defensible response by the officer.  It must also be simple enough to be effective over a long period of time.  This is what fighting like a cop is all about...Simple...Legal...Effective.  MMA-style training is simply not appropriate for general police training programs.

 

You're a conscientious cop who takes real pride in doing your job right.  Because this is the case, you might want to change how you talk about force after doing a good job on the street. 

All of your career, you have heard, been taught, and said the phrase, “use of force.”  You’ve read it in case law in the language of the courts.  Use of force is so synonymous with policing that no one thinks about the phrase—until you are the defendant in federal civil court wondering why in the world, after you did the job the way you were trained, are you being accused of misconduct?

Yes, you injured the suspect after responding to his behavior, but you responded to his resistance according to your training.  And you know your actions in overcoming his assault and attempts to flee were reasonable and well within the bounds of your agency policy.  Yet you are facing a trial in civil court as a defendant…what went wrong?

Actually, nothing really went “wrong.”  It’s the system.  The US Constitution requires the police, as government agents, to defend their actions against any person (citizen or not).  To meet this challenge, you must adequately address the "second half" of your enforcement activities.  This involves describing your actions accurately and in sufficient detail so that others who are not the police and who weren’t on-scene during the arrest can understand why you took the action you did.

The words you use matter.  A lot.  No kidding.

Let’s talk about the foundation of how you think about describing your job in a force incident.  Let’s consider two phrases:

1.    “The officer used force on the suspect.”

2.    “The officer responded with force to the suspect’s actions and behavior.” 

Is there a difference in the meaning between the two?  Is there one phrase that implies responsibility for the event and any outcome (injury to a suspect) to you as the arresting officer?

PHRASE ONE.  In the first phrase, the officer is the “actor using force.”  The officer is making the decision to hurt or shoot the suspect.  This phrasing reveals nothing about the suspect’s actions.  It plays into the media’s and Hollywood’s wildly inaccurate portrayal of the police (ever see a cop TV show or movie that looked anything like your real life job?).  This language puts the responsibility for the force employment solely on your shoulders.  The question is, where is the suspect and his/her behavior in this?

PHRASE TWO.  The second phrase is clearly demonstrating that the suspect is the “actor.”  If the suspect had not done “something,” there could be no need to “respond.”  The suspect is the cause of the event, not the officer.  While your response to his resistance resulted in his being injured, it was the suspect's behavior and actions creating the reasonable need for those injuries.

Even a casual understanding of constitutional and case law shows that officers may not simply “use force” on a suspect:

• In Scott v. Harris, 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007), the balancing test in any force evaluation of the police is “the likelihood of injury or death to the suspect balanced with the apparent threat of the suspect to the officer or others” as reasonably perceived by the officer.  
• In Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989), officers are required to base their force decisions on “the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time.”  Just three factors cited by the court are “the severity of the crime at issue” (the crime you are responding to with force—generally resistance or assault—not necessarily the crime for which he’s being arrested), “the threat of the suspect,” and “the active resistance or attempts to flee.”  

The majority decisions in each of these cases extensively discusses the need for describing the suspect's behavior and threatening actions.  In each of these major, controlling US force cases, the focus is not on the officer, but on the suspect’s actions forcing the officer to respond. 

It’s time to change your language to protect yourself and your agency.  By describing the event as a “force response,” you use accurate phrasing to describe what you do.  It sets up the next step for your articulation and justification of your force response.  Consequently, your reporting of the force event will be more accurate in describing the offender's actions and behavior (both subtle and overt) that led you to reasonably perceive the suspect's resistance, threat, and/or attempts to flee.  This simple change--"responding with force"--benefits you, your partners and agency, your community, and the jury members who simply want to understand what happened during the incident.  By describing your specific response to each threatening or resistive action taken by the suspect, you are more likely to be rewarded with a fair judgment of your actions. 

If you follow this suggestion, your language will probably begin sounding like:

• “I responded to his (actions and behavior) by...”
• “I was involved in a force response incident created by the Defendant/Plaintiff's behavior, when I observed him...”
• “I responded to his resistance by (which ever reasonable response options you employed to overcome his resistance or attempts to flee).”

Be safe.  Wear your vest every day, every shift.  In your reports, tell us why you responded to the suspect’s behavior and actions.