Dear Editor,
I RECENTLY read an interesting letter in the print media under the caption, “Police need to use non-lethal force,” submitted by Karan Chand, a Region Two resident. In the missive, the writer mentioned that it was reported recently that the police in Berbice shot and killed an intoxicated security guard who did not comply with their orders and approached them wielding a cutlass. The writer posited what he classified as seven non-lethal approaches that law enforcement officers can apply before they shoot and kill someone: Pepper spray; rubber bullets; collapsible batons; tasers; grenade sting; grenade flash and technical communication. I will comment on them in another article.

There was another balanced letter written by Tacuma Ogunseye entitled, “These articles of brutal force have demonstrated how challenging is the task of reforming the police force”. The letters have titillated me to put my fingers back on the keyboard of my computer after a self-imposed break from writing letters to the editor. I do not have sufficient facts in issue or facts relevant to the facts at issue in relation to the fatal shooting and the alleged beating of Shamar Tanner. Hence, it would be remiss of me if I attempt to pronounce on whether or not the police’s actions were justified.

However, please permit me to repeat some issues I raised in a previous letter to the editor, and introduce some new concepts as I join in the conversation: Use of force, including deadly force, by law enforcement officers.
According to the doctrine of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, “A police officer will never employ unnecessary force or violence, and will only use such force in the discharge of duty as is reasonable in all circumstances.

Force should be used only with the greatest restraint, and only after discussion, negotiation and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. While the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every police officer will refrain from applying unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering, and will never engage in cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment to any person.”

The IACP defines force as, “that amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject.” This includes physical, chemical, impact, electronic and firearm force. The IACP defines excessive use of force as, “the application of an amount and/or frequency of force greater than required to compel compliance from a willing or unwilling subject”.

Use of force is sometimes a necessary part of the police job. Use of excessive force has always been difficult if not controversial at times, but determining what is reasonable force is highly subjective.

The landmark case in the United States of America in use of force is Graham v Connor (1989) in which the Court held: ” The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgements – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

Use of force expert Nowicki (2000) explains, “The standard, according to this decision, is the ‘ reasonably objective officer.’ ”
Use of Force Model used by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) is very instructive. It has five levels. Level one is the Compliant Level where no use of force is usually reasonable. Level two is the Resistive (Passive) Level where the subject does not follow the officer’s commands. Force options here including guiding or directing the subject through hands-on techniques. Level three is the Resistive (Active) Level, which occurs when a subject actively resists arrest.

Level three force options include joint manipulation or restraints, leverage techniques, pressure points, even OC (pepper) spray, with a warning given first under proper circumstances. Level four is the Assaultive (bodily harm) Level, a direct physical attack on the officers or others. Appropriate force options at this level include strikes with the hands, fists, elbows or knees; kicks; baton strikes; and forcefully directing the subject to the ground. Level five is the Assaultive (serious bodily harm or death) Level, where appropriate response would be deadly force.

Rosenbaum (2001) suggests, “They are tools available to police managers who want to be proactive in the area in the use of force in order to help guide officer behaviour, to teach proper use of force, to correct it when it is on the borderline, to deal with it through discipline when it crosses over the line. One of these tools is clear policies regarding the use of force. ”

Grossi (2002) contends, “A policy that is tactically sound allows for contingencies. As most officers know that use of force is a reactive process. We react to a suspect’s action. So a good use of force policy has built-in contingencies.” He suggests that force policies must also be tactically sound and administratively feasible. Nowicki (2002) opions “There are three rules relating to the use of force by an officer. Rule number one is you go home the same way as when you went to work: ALIVE. Rule number two is that you don’t go to prison. Rule number three is that you keep your job. If your use of force is reasonable, you protect yourself, your agency, the community, and even the assailant. But, when in doubt, always remember rule number one.”

Yours faithfully
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Retired)