Other church or 'religious' police forces

[Samuel Bache 11]

I am planning on doing several posts on key topics I have learned about as a Special in training that will hopefully help others who are going through the process, help the knowledge stick in my mind and allow others with more experience to give me constructive criticism on areas my knowledge may be incorrect in.

I hope other specials out there will find these posts useful especially now as there are exams to pass throughout the course (for my force anyway).

I understand that with a topic such as this, what is learned in a classroom environment differs greatly out on the streets. This is primarily aimed at those sitting exams to gain attestation.

A key point to remember when using force is that "all force is unlawful unless justified".

A good mnemonic to help come to a decision before using force is PLANL.

Proportionate: (least injury to subject as possible).

Legal: What power are we acting under, can we justify it?

Accountable: Record and explain through use of force form.

Necessary: Is force the best option or is there a diplomatic solution?

Least impactive: (On the community) think how others may perceive our actions.

There are several powers that allow us to use force.

1) Section 117 PACE (Can be used in almost any justifiable situation)

2) Human rights act 1998. particularly articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and degrading treatment). We must uphold the rights of others, but also not breach them ourselves with unlawful force.

3) Common law. Anyone can use common law reasonable force to protect themselves, another or property.

4) Section 3 of the criminal law act 1967. (Self defence)

Officer response levels:

There are 6 levels of officer response, each level is an escalation in force.

1) Officer presence: Just having an officer or officers in uniform present can have a massive effect on how people behave.

2) Communication skills: We can enforce officer presence through effective verbal and body language communication.

3) Primary control skills: The first form of physical force, pressure points, locks, handcuffs and restraints. When the officer stops, the pain stops and there are no lasting medical implications.

4) Secondary control skills: (PAVA spray) When the officer stops, the pain continues for a short while, but there shouldn't be any long lasting medical implications.

5) Defensive/ offensive control skills: Baton strikes, unarmed skills and take downs. When the officer stops the pain continues and there is a chance of long lasting injuries.

6) Deadly force: Action is likely to cause death or severe harm. Can be applied through any justifiable means and is not limited to use of firearms.

5 step communication model:

Before using force we can help justify our case or avoid force altogether by effective communication.

1) Simple appeal: Ask the subject to comply with our commands.

2) Reasoned appeal: Tell the subject what conduct is being breached, explain why we are making our request.

3) Personal appeal: Inform the subject what is at stake if they continue, family, work, etc....

4) Final appeal: Let subject know this is there last chance, "What can I make you do to comply?".

5) Take action: Communication has failed, you can use action that is proportionate and justifiable to the situation.

Profiles and subject behaviors....

As well as taking into account our own actions, we must also read what is going on around us, particularly when dealing with subjects in order to stay as safe as possible.

There are 6 categories of subject behaviors.

1) Compliance: Subject does as they are told, there is no drama.

2) Verbal resistance: Subject uses verbal feedback, often through colorful language.

3) Passive resistance: Common among individuals protesting etc, subject sits, stands or lies down refusing to move.

4) Active resistance: Subject pushes or pulls officer attempting to escape, but does not go as far as to strike.

5) Aggressive resistance: Subject will physically attack the officer.

6) Serious aggravated resistance: Subject attacks with a weapon or in such a way that causes life threatening injury.

Warning and danger signs, what to look for?

The first warning sign is when subjects verbal control deteriorates.

This includes foul language, gritting of teeth etc, at this point effective communication on our part can still de escalate conflict.

Next comes physical warning signs, prolonged eye contact, kicking of the floor and exaggerated movement.

Subjects exhibiting physical warning signs can still be de escalated through effective communication.

Lastly comes danger signs. The subject loses control and displays animal like behavior.

They may take a fighting stance, hands above waist for target acquisition, lower head to protect neck.

Under most circumstances effective communication will not work at this stage.

Also be aware that some individuals are so used to conflict and contact with the police that they may not exhibit any warning or danger signs at all.

Such individuals can pose a much greater threat due to a lapse in guard on our part, always stay alert!

[HMService 0]

Very comprehensive I'd say. However and this is more of an observation of our love of reducing everything we do to a flow chart.... I think dealing with conflict needs to utilise natural communication skills and defensive tactics. When we start trying to break such encounters down into a series of if you see X then do Y it can not only look very strange, it can lead to some quite inappropriate and disproportionate behaviour or a complete lack of adequate response to the threat.

There is nothing like years of experience with difficult people, to help you deal with difficult people.

Consequently while I think these warning signs and behaviours are useful for including in statements I really think any expectation that you should be following steps 1-5 then utilising force is fraught with danger.

For example "What can I make you do to comply?". Have you thought about what this means? To me that doesn't leave much room for the subject. Why not use, "Is there any reasonable thing I can do that will mean you will co-operate with my requests?"

With regard to "Lastly comes danger signs. The subject loses control and displays animal like behavior." In my experience, frequently they don't lose control. Many people just choose to attack because they wish to escape/hurt you etc. It's done clinically with a degree of coolness and pre-planning.

Any assumption that someone who is still "in control" is safe could mean that you are complacent.

Essentially a professional psychologist could write a book on one confrontation that escalated over time to violence. There is great danger in simplifying such a complicated thing to a flow chart and treating it as gospel. Unfortunately those that write these things frequently haven't dealt with many violent people and their writing gets altered and sanitised by the Home Office to look nice rather than be effective.

HMS

Edited May 25, 2016 by HMService

[Samuel Bache 11]

I agree with you 100%. My day job involves me coming face to face with high risk offenders within the probation system so I have some experience already.

I find the classroom can sometimes be very general with topics like this and all the terminologies and catergoriseation takes a back seat when dealing with real people.

[Stripe 94]

In regards to the pieces of legislation: don't worry about knowing the human rights one, that comes at the end of the list in terms of importance. If you follow the other 3 then you've already complied with UK law.

The 5 step positive appeal: step 4 is not a question - it's a statement and is used as the 'trigger' word to let your colleague know you're about to go hands on.

Otherwise a nice set of notes

[Guest]

Just a quick one, s3 CLA 1967, is not about self defence (that's a common law principle):

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Burnsy2023

[Guest]

The 5 step positive appeal: step 4 is not a question - it's a statement and is used as the 'trigger' word to let your colleague know you're about to go hands on.

No, the final appeal is a last ditch attempt at finding some way to get an agreeable outcome. It should be a question with possible answers that would avoid going hands-on.

[Stripe 94]

No, the final appeal is a last ditch attempt at finding some way to get an agreeable outcome. It should be a question with possible answers that would avoid going hands-on.

That's not what we were taught during OST. We were told that by that point if they haven't complied with you, then chances are they aren't going to even if you do ask them if there's something you can 'reasonably' do.

[Guest]

That's not what we were taught during OST. We were told that by that point if they haven't complied with you, then chances are they aren't going to even if you do ask them if there's something you can 'reasonably' do.

Well, clearly there is a difference in opinion between trainers then, although CoP APP agrees with my view and is what should be taught.

Whilst it's unlikely for people to change their mind at the final appeal, it is there as the last ditch attempt before taking action.

[HMService 0]

In regards to the pieces of legislation: don't worry about knowing the human rights one, that comes at the end of the list in terms of importance. If you follow the other 3 then you've already complied with UK law.

The 5 step positive appeal: step 4 is not a question - it's a statement and is used as the 'trigger' word to let your colleague know you're about to go hands on.

Otherwise a nice set of notes

Here is point in fact- An OST trainer has told an officer what an unknown person is or isn't going to do months or even years in before the encounter. And on that basis you have decided before even meeting a person that this is the point that you are going to employ violence to enforce your will/lawful power.

So I ask "Is there anything I can do that will make you willing to comply with me?" and the subject replies, "Yes, if you wont let me will you just call an ambulance my child is upstairs with my wife choking.." Only he doesn't because after "Yes, if..." We have complied with our OST advice and jumped him...There is no way he would be complying right? And all that struggling and fighting to get into his hallway where his phone is....."

Guys. Don't do things like robots-Apply your intellect and humanity and reasoning powers. The flowcharts are rough guidelines. Think about this- How can an OST trainer prepare you for every eventuality..and if he can't should you treat anything he/she says as black and white?

HMS

[Samuel Bache 11]

Thanks everyone for getting stuck in, I always take on board what you guys say and think. I am eager to learn and really do appreciate the feedback

[Stripe 94]

Here is point in fact- An OST trainer has told an officer what an unknown person is or isn't going to do months or even years in before the encounter. And on that basis you have decided before even meeting a person that this is the point that you are going to employ violence to enforce your will/lawful power.

So I ask "Is there anything I can do that will make you willing to comply with me?" and the subject replies, "Yes, if you wont let me will you just call an ambulance my child is upstairs with my wife choking.." Only he doesn't because after "Yes, if..." We have complied with our OST advice and jumped him...There is no way he would be complying right? And all that struggling and fighting to get into his hallway where his phone is....."

Guys. Don't do things like robots-Apply your intellect and humanity and reasoning powers. The flowcharts are rough guidelines. Think about this- How can an OST trainer prepare you for every eventuality..and if he can't should you treat anything he/she says as black and white?

HMS

Hold your horses. I'm not saying I'm treating what I've been taught as gospel, or is what I will use. The OP is about what happens in training - not in actual situations; and I'm relaying what I've learnt in training.

[HMService 0]

Hold your horses. I'm not saying I'm treating what I've been taught as gospel, or is what I will use. The OP is about what happens in training - not in actual situations; and I'm relaying what I've learnt in training.

That's not what we were taught during OST. We were told that by that point if they haven't complied with you, then chances are they aren't going to even if you do ask them if there's something you can 'reasonably' do.

Yes my point exactly...What you were taught in training... I am trying to get officers to look at a different dimension to encounters with the public.

Personally I feel these flow charts (so often taught with conviction by people who have never faced an angry man in their lives) are good for two things:-

1) Providing structure to your statements when you are trying to explain in laymans terms what you were doing and what your thought processes were and rationale behind your decision making.

2) Providing a little structure or a standard to compare your behaviour to when reflecting on what you actually did and how you can learn from it.

It absolutely should not be a mental checklist/flow chart that you try to follow when that angry man is in front of you. You should be operating at a heightened level of awareness with your fear and or potential anger held firmly in check. You should be exploring options, probing for information, utilising your communication skills and situational awareness and allowing a natural flow of communication, both verbal and non verbal. Being ready to take a weighed risk where appropriate, mitigating the threats and being clear about what your objectives are(that might not be as straightforward as you think-You are a Police Officer and your duty much of the time puts others before you).

I expect my officers to be 25% diplomat 25% social worker 25% Scary monster and 25% Ninja.

I don't like the somewhat common delusion that the OST prepares officers for someone that really is ready to hurt you. YOU must prepare yourself for that- The OST is just food for thought. It provides structure and food for thought. It should never be considered an instruction manual.

I hope that makes sense.

HMS

[Policey_Man + 765]

I expect my officers to be 25% diplomat 25% social worker 25% Scary monster and 25% Ninja.

I like that, it made me laugh. Although in reality surely it's at least 50% administrator these days?.....

[Gripper 6]

The one thing you can be 100% sure of is'You can't reason with a drunk'.

[Policey_Man + 765]

The one thing you can be 100% sure of is'You can't reason with a drunk'.

But it can be fun to try.

Even better to watch a new probationer try