A guide to personal survival basics, Part 1: Reading an inmate

Force reduction for custody

By Senior Training Deputy John Williams

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Part 1 of 2: Read Part 2: Countermeasures

Most individuals who work inside our nation's jails are not trained martial artists, nor are they brawny enough to
discourage an attack by their mere physical presence. Furthermore, we are not seasoned convicts who have made a
profession out of assaulting and manipulating others. The passage of time lulls many of us into a sense of complacency
leading us to become over-dependent on our portable radios, pepper spray and ready back-up. Easy-to-neglect skills
like empty-hand defense suffer.

Once we complete basic academy training, we're immediately expected to supervise and maintain order among the
inmate population. And even though the academy gave us basic defensive skills and orientation lectures gave us some
expectation of what to expect working inside a jail, the truth is, many corrections officers still don't feel confident in their
ability to defend themselves. I wrote this article to help prepare you to feel more confident about your safety and your
job — mentally and physically.

Mental attitude
Mental preparation is everything. Because the inmate
already knows what he is going to do, your reaction time will
leave you at a disadvantage. To minimize this reactionary
gap, you need to have a plan of action.You must constantly
be aware of your surroundings, who is behind you, where
your back-up is, or where is the nearest avenue of escape.
Any time you have contact with an inmate, when/then
thinking must be in full effect: "If he charges me, I will move
to my left, hit him, create distance and call for assistance."

As a peace officer, your "will to survive" attitude is rooted in

minimizing injury to yourself and others. If an inmate comes
up to you, presents his fists and says he is going to kick your
ass, you need to back up, create distance and call for
assistance. There is no honor to foolishly taking on an inmate Inmates constantly size you up. They will observe your
for the sake of saving face. The saying, he who runs away, demeanor and command presence. Never attempt to
predict the behavior of an inmate. Always be prepared to
lives to fight another day is very applicable here.
act. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)
In a nutshell, when possible, disengage — create distance,
retreat, get back-up and have a plan.

Threat awareness
Never underestimate an inmate. Regardless of his size, age, or demeanor, you can never be sure of an inmate's
capabilities or intentions. The majority of inmates doing time in our jails are hardened career criminals. Many of these
inmates are in jail for violent crimes including murder. Additionally, many of our inmates suffer from mental illness and
may not be able to comprehend or follow your directions.

An inmate's security classification is not a reliable gauge of threat level he poses to you. The sentenced misdemeanor
inmate you are talking to may also be a murderer who has not been caught yet. Unbeknownst to you, that same inmate
may also be facing a third strike conviction. That third strike may be just enough to motivate him to launch an assault or
escape through you.

As you can see, the motivating factor behind an inmate's assault remains unpredictable. Because jails are a stressful
place, he may just "snap." His girlfriend may have just broken up with him, or he may have a deep-seated hatred of you
because of your authority, race or gender. The inmate may be mentally ill, delusional, or suffering from substance
withdrawal.

Make no mistake; inmates are well adapted to choosing their victims. They will be constantly sizing you up. They will
observe your demeanor and command presence and evaluate your
physical fitness, commitment, and experience. Never attempt to The 3 Truths
predict the behavior of an inmate. Always be prepared to act. Anyone
who attacks you indisputably has a high degree of motivation and a
high desire to win. Always expect the unexpected.

Primer for personal survival basics It can happen to you.

If absorbed, practiced and used in custody, the following tips can
help sharpen your alertness for early danger signs and improve your Better to have mastered a skill that
immediate response tactics. isn't needed than to need a skill
that isn't mastered.
Be a good observer
Just as body language and demeanor can reveal when an inmate is in a state of distress, his or her posture and
behavior may telegraph when you are in danger. By reading these clues early, you may be able to build distance, issue
commands, assume a defensive stance and, most importantly, avert a possible assault. The following are some
common warning clues you may observe in inmate behavior. (Many of these early warning signs and pre-attack
postures can be traced back to the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminars of the early 1980s. Although they have been
updated and expanded over the years, these threat assessment opportunities remain as valid now as when they were
first identified.)

Repetitious inquiries
A deceptive inmate who repeats your questions in order to stall while he thinks up answers may be using this tactic to
buy time to formulate a plan for attacking you. This is a danger clue. You should be formulating your own defensive
plans and direct the inmate to give direct answers now.

In trying to verbally persuade a difficult inmate to cooperate, you should follow this five-step tactical process developed
by Dr. George Thompson of the Verbal Judo Institute:

1. Ask: "Sir will you please...?"

2. Explain the reasoning behind your directive.
3. Present options by explaining both the positive and the negative consequences if the inmate refuses to cooperate.
4. Confirm the inmate's non-compliance by asking, "Sir, is there anything else I can say to get you to cooperate? I
would like to think that there is."
5. Act: Use physical control techniques or other appropriate force measures in the face of continued resistance or threat
to yourself or others. Remember that "acting" may include both disengaging and/or escalating, based on the "totality of
circumstance" known to the officer at the time of the incident.

This five step tactical process allows the officer to control repetitious inquires by focusing the inmate back to what the
officer is asking the inmate to do and allows the officer to take action.

Conspicuous ignoring
Here, the inmate deliberately refuses to respond to your presence or dialogue. Failure to obey commands or to even
acknowledge you is a universal indicator of trouble. His behavior is telling you, You're not going to control me. He may
be hoping to sucker you more in closely. If you do, he may attack.

Looking around
The inmate may be listening and talking to you, but his eyes are darting past you or to his sides. Darting eyes indicate
agitation. He may be looking to see if you have back-up, or he may be looking for help from one of his fellow inmates.
This can be a significant warning sign to create space and establish a good defensive position.

Excessive emotional attention

If the inmate is cursing and/or ranting and raving out loud over what you believe to be a normal detention, ask yourself
why he's so upset. Excessive emotional attention can quickly escalate into an attack. Be especially cautious if he starts
alleging that you want to use violence against him, e.g., You wanna kick my ass? He may be projecting what he really
want to do to you.

Exaggerated movement
If an inmate begins pacing rapidly and angrily or throws his arms around in wild gestures, these may be signs of an
imminent attack and should be dealt with immediately. Start with verbal commands such as "I need you to face away
from me and stand still". If he doesn't, give an option to him: "Sir, I can put you in handcuffs; then you won't wave your
arms around." Be ready to escalate to physical control measures if necessary.

Physical crowding
Consciously or unconsciously, the suspect moves in close to you. This may be an effort to intimidate you or a set-up to
attack you. Your immediate goal should be to create space and provide for a reactionary gap. If the inmate fails to follow
verbal directions and continues to crowd you, one useful option is to spread the fingers of your weak hand and place
your fingertips on his chest. If he fails to move back, abruptly slam the heel of your palm against his sternum and, at the
same time, straighten your arm and thrust hard. Put your whole body into the move.

If this move fails to move the inmate back, you may consider pushing into the small indentation located just above the
inmate's sternum with one or more of your fingers. This area is very sensitive to touch and will move back even the
largest and most threatening inmate. Because this "pressure point" is located next to the sensitive and vulnerable areas
of the neck, it should only be used when you believe your life is in imminent danger.

If he grabs your arm while you execute one of these maneuvers, he'll expect that you'll try to pull away. Push toward him
instead. His momentum and your momentum will combine to push him backwards and most likely knock him off
balance. At the very least, you will "redirect" his attention and position.

Sudden cooperation
An agitated, uncooperative subject suddenly has a profound change of attitude and has becomes sweetly cooperative.
Maybe something you've said or done altered his thinking, or he could be tricking you into relaxing your guard.
Ceasing all movement
You should be at your highest level of alert if you
encounter an agitated inmate who suddenly stops cold.
This can be the calm before the storm, a brief transition
period before taking action. It is often accompanied by
the "thousand yard stare" and a radical facial
expression.

Pre-attack postures
Unlike the danger clues mentioned earlier, a pre-attack
posture is a solid indication that you are about to be
assaulted. Pre-attack postures occur when an inmate
decides to assault and needs to arrange himself
physically to carry out his attack. It can be done quickly
or very subtly depending on how the inmate wants to If an agitated, uncooperative subject suddenly becomes sweetly
launch his attack. cooperative, be extremely cautious. He could be tricking you into
relaxing your guard. (AP Photo)
Some pre-attack posture clues include an inmate who
begins to bounce up and down on his toes. His fists may open and close nervously or clench tight. He may attempt to
bend his elbows or put one or more hands behind his neck in an effort to pre-position his hands to a ready position. He
may turn sideways to you to protect his "center line" which transverses his vital areas.

The inmate's body in general will tighten just before he moves. He may also slightly bend his knees in an effort to lower
his center of gravity to better launch a strike against you. Unless the inmate is highly trained, he will instinctively look
where he intends to strike, before he attacks.

If you encounter any of these danger signs, clear, loud verbal commands may diffuse an imminent assault. Tell the
inmate forcefully to "Stop, face away from me and stand still". This tells the inmate you won't be taken by surprise.
Remember to stay cautious with all inmates. Ask yourself: If you were going to attack an officer, would you be noticeably
aggressive right away, or act submissively and wait for the right opportunity?

Protective stances
If you consciously stand so you're ready to deal with trouble, you send a message of discouragement to the inmate.
Even aggression-prone inmates will usually think twice before attacking an officer who appears ready and alert.

Open stance
If an inmate is calm and cooperative, the "open stance" will help you convey a non-threatening appearance and promote
rapport and communication. Here, your feet are about shoulder-width apart with your strong leg back slightly. You
should position yourself at least six feet from the inmate. Your elbows are comfortably bent at about 90 degrees with
your hands roughly at waist level. Your palms may be turned up and out, or you can stand with your fingertips together
in a modified "prayer" position. Standing with your hands at your sides or in your pockets leaves you open to a sucker
punch and increase's your defensive reaction time. From this position, your hands are deceptively close to your pepper
spray.

Defensive stance
If the inmate starts showing resistance, including verbal abuse or any of the other emotional indicators we previously
discussed, take a more aggressive defensive stance and direct the inmate turn around and face a wall.

From the open stance, move your strong foot back and place your elbows to your sides with your arms protecting your
chest. Your hands should be higher and your palms facing each other shielding your face and ready to curl into fists if
you need to make a defensive jab to keep the inmate away. A modified version of this stance calls for you to leave one
hand up to shield your face and put the other on your pepper spray, prepared to draw it if the inmate moves to assault
you.

Assuming the inmate has followed your directions; you should call and wait for back-up before you attempt to conduct a
pat down search of the inmate for weapons. If the inmate continues to be resistant, you may elect to handcuff him for
both his and your own safety.

A guide to personal survival basics, Part 2: Countermeasures

By Senior Training Deputy John Williams
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Force reduction for custody, Part 1
Last week, I talked about the power of body language
and demeanor, and how it can reveal when an inmate is
in a state of distress — and you are in danger. Today I
will focus on countermeasures and defensive techniques
employed if the situation escalates.

First, I need to be clear that these countermeasures are

not designed to deal with passive, non-assaultive inmate
resistance; we are talking about close quarters, sudden
inmate assaults that need to be dealt with quickly and
decisively.

These countermeasures are designed to overcome and

control violent inmate assaults, i.e., when the officer is in
the protective mode, protecting him/herself from imminent
violence. Our countermeasures need to provide a quick,
decisive tactical response to a clear and present threat.

Control and correct

Star tactic (Photo/Gary Klugiewicz)
Understanding your strengths and your opponent's
weakness are crucial to success. There are many elaborate
systems of defensive techniques involving complicated
wrist locks, holds, and such. But for officers with limited
practice time and physical skill, what's offered next is much
more practical for situations where you are a victim of a
surprise assault.

The goal of defensive countermeasures is to take back

control and correct the problem immediately. Considering
you're under attack and that your pepper spray or flashlight
is unavailable due to time, distance, or circumstances and
you have to fight back with your empty hands. The first rule
of thought is to avoid fighting "fair." You will lose a fair fight.
You want to use tactics that will stop the assault fast, before
your energy gives out, and before you get injured or
disarmed.

The first thing you should be aware of is that when you're in

a physical fight with your empty hands, all areas of the
suspect's body is open game. This means you can Defensive chair tactic (Photo/Gary Klugiewicz)
immediately strike at an inmate's head or other vital areas
such as the groin. The carotid restraint is also an option.

You are expected to use everything at your disposal. This includes your fists, palms, open hands, elbows, fingernails,
feet, knees, teeth and head. You must do whatever you can to free yourself from his assault and help you buy time and
distance to get out your pepper spray, flashlight and get help.

Whatever you do, it must be done quickly and forcefully. Do not start out with a wimpy effort or spar around. Remember,
you need to end the assault fast because the longer it lasts, the greater the chance you'll get hurt. No matter how hard
you've been hit, you must hit back harder.

Additionally, you need to get on your radio the first chance you get. You need to get help rolling before circumstances
turn against you. You should mentally practice putting
out calls for assistance during your free time. Be sure
not to rush your mike and avoid yelling into the
microphone. Remember that you must observe a
momentary pause before you speak into your mike so
that your call can be understood. And finally, always
know your location and how to describe where you are
at all times.

Your voice

While you're trying to fight off an attacker, be sure to tell

him verbally what you want him to do. Yell out loud an
appropriate command for compliance such as "Stop,
get down on the ground." Voice commands may help
distract and overload the senses of your attacker and
Emergency takedown (Photo/Gary Klugiewicz)
may help bring assistance to you.

Hand strikes
Your hands are your best defensive weapon. The clenched fist is probably the most commonly used hand weapon.
Many a broken wrist has occurred by not having the fist properly clenched prior to striking. The proper way to make a
fist is to roll your fingers into the palm of your hand.

The thumb should rest across your index and middle finger. When you strike with a closed fist you should hit so that the
knuckles of your index and middle finger receive the majority of the blow. You should be aware that the head is made up
almost entirely of hard boney areas. As such, it is best not to hit it with a fist; a much better choice is a palm-heel strike
or hand slap.

As with any strike it is crucial that you follow through. Put your hips and weight into it for maximum impact; hit as if
you're trying to strike a target "behind" the intended impact area. Follow-through has a far more devastating impact on
your attacker than you.

Feet and leg strikes

Your legs contain the strongest muscles in the body. A foot or
knee strike to the pressure point located on the outer thigh will
cause even the largest inmate to fall to the ground. Specifically,
this pressure point is located about six inches above the knee cap
on the outer thigh muscle. This strike is best delivered when the
inmate is standing upright or has most of his weight supported on
the target leg.

Other vulnerable areas of the legs include the shin area and top of
the foot. Both of these areas have little muscle protecting them
and can cause a disorientate amount of pain when struck. Be
advised that a leg strike must be sudden and brief to overcome
the inherent danger of standing on only one leg.

Forearm strikes

If you're right in close to the subject, your forearms can be more

powerful weapons than your fists, and are much less likely to
break if you strike a bony area. Alternating forearm strikes are
extremely effective.

Eye jabs
Besides the old-fashioned "Three Stooges" jab — which sounds
easy but may in fact be difficult to deliver precisely to the small
and protected areas of the eyes — one option is "the fan." Here Knee strike (Photo/Gary Klugiewicz)
you simply sweep your hand laterally across the suspect's eyes
so that your nails and fingertips rake across his eyeballs. This inflicts considerable pain and is hard to move away from if
done suddenly. Because of the potential for permanent injury, this tactic should be reserved for life-or-death conflicts.

Brachial stun
To execute this maneuver, make a tight fist. Bring your arm out about eight inches from the side of his neck and,
keeping your arm rigid, swing so you whack his neck with the meaty muscle mass of your inside forearm. Aim for the
point at the base of his neck, about halfway between the side and front where the cluster of nerves called the brachial
plexus is located. Absent a deadly force situation, special care needs to be taken to not hit the inmate's throat, which
could result in permanent injury and even death.

Groin strikes
Groin strikes can be very effective against male attackers
only if you hit the genitals. More specifically, we are talking
about the testicles. Too often due to the ferocity of the
attack you may not be able to target the proper area. If you
are on the ground with your attacker, you may consider
grabbing hold of the testicles and squeezing as a
defensive countermeasure.

Summary
You don't have to wait to be assaulted before you can
peremptorily strike. Depending on your state of mind, you
may truly believe you are about to be attacked by factors
that only you can articulate. These factors may include the
difference in size and physical conditioning between you
and the inmate and your level of experience and training.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department's Force Policy

states that we have a "positive duty" to use force
reasonably and when necessary to defend ourselves or
others.
Defense against sudden assault (Photo/Gary Klugiewicz)
You must have a "will to survive" mentality for which you
need to be prepared to immediately go to deadly force in a mil-second. If he comes at you with his fists, you come at
him with your flashlight and pepper spray. If he comes at you with a shank, which is a deadly force situation, you have a
green light to strike repeatedly anywhere and in any manner until he stops his attack.

You need to fight back quickly, decisively and without hesitation. Be prepared to gouge his eyes out, bite off his ear —
whatever it takes to stop the attack. You must use every dirty fighting technique in the book to win, and win quickly.

When cornered by an inmate with a deadly weapon, we don't want you to wrestle with your attacker; he is trying to kill
you. We want you to immediately stop the attack. No pepper spray, no wazoo knife takeaways; if need be, in a deadly
force situation, you strike the head repeatedly until the attack ends. Of course, once you stop his attack, you also must
stop immediately and call for assistance.

The techniques and tactics outlined in this article are meant to help you anticipate, prepare, and ward off a physical
attack. However, nothing can replace good physical conditioning and on going defensive tactics training. Remember an
old saying, "Stay ready and you'll never have to get ready."

Be safe.

7 things never to say to anyone, and why

From the Archives: This piece originally ran in November of 2005, but we thought it was well worth dusting off.

By Dr. George Thompson, Founder of the Verbal Judo Institute

Part 1 of a 2-part series
Read Part 2: 7 things never to say to anyone, and why

Safety lies in knowledge. If you deal with cagey street people, or indeed difficult people at all, anywhere, you need to
watch your tongue! The "cocked tongue" can be more lethal than the 9 millimeter or the 45.

In part one of this special two-part series for CorrectionsOne.com, I'll share the first four of a total of seven commonly
used statements that can work against you.

1. "HEY YOU! COME HERE!"

Consider, you are on patrol and you see someone suspicious you want to talk with, so you most naturally say, "Hey you!
Come here!" Verbal Judo teaches that "natural language is disastrous!" and this provides a wonderful example. You
have just warned the subject that he is in trouble. "Come here" means to you, "Over here, you are under my authority."
But to the subject it means, "Go away-quickly!" The words are not tactical for they have provided a warning and possibly
precipitated a chase that would not have been necessary had you, instead, walked casually in his direction and once
close said, "Excuse me. Could I chat with momentarily?" Notice this question is polite, professional, and calm.
Also notice, you have gotten in close, in his "space" though not his "face," and now you are too close for him to back off,
giving you a ration of verbal trouble, as could have easily been the case with the "Hey you! Come here!" opening.

The ancient samurai knew never to let an opponent pick the place of battle for then the sun would always be in your
eyes! "Come here" is loose, lazy, and ineffective language. Easy, but wrong. Tactically, "May I chat with you" is far better,
for not only have you picked the place to talk, but anything the subject says, other than yes or no-the question you
asked-provides you with intelligence regarding his emotional and/or mental state. Let him start any 'dance' of resistance.

Point: Polite civility can be a weapon of immense power!

2. "CALM DOWN!"

Consider this verbal blunder. You approach some angry folks and you most naturally say, "Hey, calm down!" This
command never works, so why do we always use it? Because it flows naturally from our lips!

What's wrong with it? One, the phrase is a criticism of their behavior and suggests that they have no legitimate right to
be upset! Hence, rather than reassuring them that things will improve, which should be your goal, you have created a
new problem! Not only is there the matter they were upset about to begin with, but now they need to defend their
reaction to you! Double the trouble!

Better, put on a calming face and demeanor-in Verbal Judo we say, 'Chameleon up'-look the person in the eye and say,
gently, "It's going to be all right. Talk to me. What's the matter?" The phrase "What's the matter?' softens the person up
to talk and calm down; where 'Calm down' hardens the resistance. The choice is yours!

3. "I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU AGAIN!"

We teach in Verbal Judo that 'repetition is weakness on the streets!' and you and I both know that this phrase is almost
always a lie. You will say it again, and possibly again and again!

Parents do it all the time with their kids, and street cops do it with resistant subjects, all the time! The phrase is, of
course, a threat, and voicing it leaves you only one viable option-action! If you are not prepared to act, or cannot at the
time, you lose credibility, and with the loss of creditability comes the loss of power and safety!

Even if you are prepared to act, you have warned the subject that you are about to do so and forewarned is forearmed!
Another tactical blunder! Like the rattlesnake you have made noise, and noise can get you hurt or killed. Better to be
more like the cobra and strike when least suspected!

If you want to stress the seriousness of your words, say something like, 'Listen, it's important that you get this point, so
pay close attention to what I'm about to tell you.'

If you have used Verbal Judo's Five Steps of Persuasion you know that we act after asking our "nicest, most polite
question,"

"Sir, is there anything I could say that would get you to do A, B and C? I'd like to think so?"

If the answer is NO, we act while the subject is still talking! We do not telegraph our actions nor threaten people, but we
do act when verbal persuasion fails.

4. "BE MORE REASONABLE!"

Telling people "be more reasonable" has many of the same problems as "Calm Down!" Everyone thinks h/she is plenty
reasonable given the present circumstances! I never have had anyone run up to me and say, "Hey, I know I'm stupid
and wrong, but here's what I think!" although I have been confronted by stupid and wrong people! You only invite conflict
when you tell people to "be more reasonable!"

Instead, make people more reasonable by the way in which you handle them, tactically! Use the language of
reassurance-"Let me see if I understand your position," and then paraphrase-another VJ tactic!-back to them their
meaning, as you see it, in your words! Using your words will calm them and make them more reasonable because your
words will (or better be!) more professional and less emotional.

This approach absorbs the other's tension and makes him feel your support. Now you can help them think more
logically and less destructively, without making the insulting charge implied in your statement, "Be more reasonable!"

Again, tactics over natural reaction!

7 things never to say to anyone, and why, Part 2

By Dr. George Thompson, Founder of the Verbal Judo Institute
In Part 1 of this special PoliceOne.com series, I shared the first four of seven things I suggest you never say to anyone:

1. "Hey you! Come here!"

2. "Calm down!"
3. "I'm not going to tell you again!"
4. "Be more reasonable!"

Now, I'll share three more…

5. "BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES" (or "THAT'S THE LAW!")

If ever there was a phrase that irritates people and makes you look weak, this is it!

If you are enforcing rules/laws that exist for good reason, don't be afraid to explain that! Your audience may not agree
with or like it, but at least they have been honored with an explanation. Note, a true sign of REspect is to tell people why,
and telling people why generates voluntary compliance. Indeed, we know that at least 70% of resistant or difficult people
will do what you want them to do if you will just tell them why!

When you tell people why, you establish a ground to stand on, and one for them as well! Your declaration of why defines
the limits of the issue at hand, defines your real authority, but also gives the other good reason for complying, not just
because you said so! Tactically, telling people why gets your ego out of it and put in its place a solid, professional reason
for action.

Even at home, if all you can do is repeat, "those are the rules," you sound and look weak because you apparently
cannot support your order/request with logic or good reason. Indeed, if you can put rules or policies into context and
explain how the rules or policies are good for everyone, you not only help people understand, you help them save face.
Hence, you are much more likely to generate voluntary compliance, which is your goal!

6. "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?"

This snotty, useless phrase turns the problem back on the person needing assistance. It signals this is a "you-versus-
me" battle rather than an "us" discussion. The typical reaction is, "It's not my problem. You're the problem!"

The problem with the word problem is that it makes people feel deficient or even helpless. It can even transport people
back to grade school where they felt misunderstood and underrated. Nobody likes to admit h/she has a problem. That's
a weakness! When asked, "what's your problem?" the other already feels a failure. So the immediate natural reaction is,
"I don't have one, you do!" which is a reaction that now hides a real need for help.

Substitute tactical phrases designed to soften and open someone up, like "What's the matter?", "How can I help?", or "I
can see you're upset, let me suggest . . . ."

Remember, as an officer of peace, it is your business to find ways to gather good intel and to help those in need, not to
pass judgments

7. "WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT IT?"

A great cop-out (no pun…)! This pseudo-question, always accompanied by sarcasm, is clearly an evasion of
responsibility and a clear sign of a lack of creativity! The phrase really reveals the speaker's exasperation and lack of
knowledge. Often heard from untrained sales clerks and young officers tasked with figuring out how to help someone
when the rules are not clear.

When you say, "What do you want me to do about it?" you can count on two problems: the one you started with and the
one you just created by appearing to duck responsibility.

Instead, tactically offer to help sort out the problem and work toward a solution. If it truly is not in your area of
responsibility, point the subject to the right department or persons that might be able to solve the problem.

If you are unable or unqualified to assist and you haven't a clue as to how to help the person, apologize. Such an
apology almost always gains you an ally, one you may need at same later date. Beat cops need to remember it is
important to "develop a pair of eyes" (contacts) every time they interact with the public. Had the officer said to the
complainant, for example, "I'm sorry, I really do not know what to recommend, but I wish I did, I'd like to help you," and
coupled that statement with a concerned tone of voice and a face of concern, he would have gone a long way toward
making that person more malleable and compliant for the police later down the road.

Remember, insult strengthens resistance and shuts the eyes. Civility weakens resistance and opens the eyes!

It's tactical to be nice!

The low-down on non-lethal weapons
In today's C1 Exclusive, training expert Dave Young looks at non-lethal weapons and tells you which ones are
effective, and which ones you should consider using.

As the 2008 calendar year comes to a close, I want to address a few questions I've been asked with regard to non-lethal
weapons, and explore a few important factors.

I'm pretty well schooled in non-lethal weapons. For over twenty years, in addition to researching and using non-lethal
weapons, I've
developed
training
programs and
designing
strategies for
their
deployment.
I've been
sprayed with all
of the common
chemical
aerosols — OC,
CS and CN in
liquid, power
and pyrotechnic
form — from (Photo Credit/Sgt. John Stanley/LASD)
companies here
in the United
States and abroad. I've experienced dry stun contacts, shocks from probes escort belts, and have had darts fired into
my body from various manufactures like NOVA, Tasertron (now defunct), Taser and the new Stinger device, even the
new Stun Cuff. I've been shot with projectiles from the pepper ball, FN303, 12 gauge, 37/40MM specialty Impact
munitions from MK Ballistics, Defensive Technology, Federal Laboratories, SAGE, ALS Technologies, Combined Tactical
Systems and more. I've felt the effects of microwave blasts and energy-directed weapons.

That said, I want to dispense my best advice on these topics. I'll do this by addressing important questions that we
should try to answer for 2009.
What's better, to create a pause in combat by affecting the subject's breathing and vision, or to create neural
and muscular dysfunction to their body?

Non-lethal devices are designed to create a pause in combat. This pause in combat can be mental and physical, or at
times, both. Both are optimal.

It's often been said that the mind will go where the body tells it to. If the mind is hindered (a mental pause), that can
greatly hinder an individual's physical ability to resist. (Note, this often does not hold true if the person’s mind is hindered
through, alcohol, drugs or the emotional hardships that can create an irrational person to do irrational things in the first
place.)

Physical pauses induced by non-lethal weapons, on the other hand, create physical disabilities in the body, for instance,
the sensation of pain to the facial area of heat and burning from chemical aerosols; pain from being hit with an electrical
device or specialty impact munitions; visual impairment from chemical aerosols; the muscular dysfunction which is
created when a subject’s body is introduced to a series electrical shocks, pulse charges into the body can create a
temporary dysfunction and physical inability to control their own body.

Which is safer for the officer vs. What is safer for the subject?

In order to define what is safer, we need to know what our alternatives are, and we need to gauge the threat of injury to
both the officer and subject.

An officer needs to look at his own safety first, the safety of the subject second, public safety third, and public image
forth. (Sometimes, policies that are written in a non-stressful environment, bump the subject's safety up to the #1
concern. That's determining what's "safe," for better or worse, goes hand-in-hand with what's written in your policy.)

When an officer is engaged in a physical encounter and does have the option of deadly force, he would have to make
the subject verbally comply or go hands on. When the non-lethal option is not available, he can either disengage, or
engage with deadly force. Deadly force is not optimal for the subject, and society generally frowns on it; we also have to
take into considerations of personal injury and threats to the officer and bystanders.

Apply the " Greater Danger Theory:" This is the possibility of increased danger to the officer and bystanders if the officer
does not stop the threat.

When are chemical aerosols projectors, as opposed to electrical immobilization devices used?

The selection of a non-lethal weapon depends on a few factors:

• Confidence. When an officer's life is threatened or physically challenged, an officer will select the weapon delivery
system they feel the most confident with.

• Distance. How far from is the officer from the threat, and what will give the officer the best deployment for control?

• Environment. What kind of area is the officer in? Is it windy, crowded with people, in the flow of traffic, on a roof top
etc.

• Number of threats. How many threats or subjects are there? At times we can get focused on one threat at a time or
the one that is closet to us; however if there are multiple threats certain weapons will not be as effective as another.
At times, your non-lethal weapons can be used in combination with to increase effectiveness.

• Possibility of injury to self. Ask yourself: If use this non-lethal weapon, what is the possibility of getting injured if it
works or does not work? (Remember, non-lethal weapons don't work on everyone!)

• Is there a possibility of injury to the subject? Ask yourself, if I use this non-lethal weapon, what is the possibility of
injury to the subject if it works or does not work? (Remember, another force option may need to be deployed.)

• What is the possibility of injury to the bystanders? Ask yourself, if I use this non-lethal weapon, what is the possibility
of injury to the bystanders if it works or does not work? (Know your back stop target and beyond!)

What do I need to consider when determining which chemical aerosol projector is better than another?

• Safety: Is the aerosol safe to use, who has gotten injured from being contaminated. Was it from the application or
chemical formulation, or from the way the person was decontaminated?

• Consistency: Is the formulation you are using consistent, when I was sprayed with it in training did I get the same
response in the field or was it drastically different, is the aerosol unit dependable?
 • Decontamination effects: How long does it take a subject to recover from the given formulation — days, or minutes?
Is the spray so overwhelming that it knocks you down immediately, and if so, what will it do to the officer who is using
it? Am I having to supervise the contaminated subject for hours after being sprayed, etc.?

• Research the safety of non-lethal options for yourself. Review the results of health testing, other agency evaluation or
even outside testing from the NIJ (or other field studies).

What is better to use: chemical aerosols or electrical devices?

It's difficult to say, given that they each affects different part of the body, and when use correctly both have a great
effective ratio. Both can fail, as well.

Weigh the following:

• Chemical aerosols affect the breathing and lungs of a person, which combines both the physical with mental effects
and in some cases can cause a subject to comply or enrage a subject.

• Chemical aerosols affect vision which combines both the physical with mental effects and in some cases can cause a
subject to comply or enrage a subject.

• Chemical aerosols affect the threshold of pain on a subject from facial burning, which combines both the physical with
mental effects and in some cases can cause a subject to comply or enrage a subject.

• Electrical devices affect the muscles and nervous system of a person, which combines both the physical with mental
effects and in some cases can cause a subject to comply or enrage a subject – note that accuracy with this weapons
is more vital them with chemical aerosols.

• Electrical devices affect the physical coordination of a subjects body, which combines both the physical with mental
effects, and in some cases can cause a subject to comply or enrage a subject, especially if the connection from the
device to subject is broken.

• Electrical devices affect the threshold of pain on a subject from muscle soreness, which combines both the physical
with mental effects, and in some cases can cause a subject to comply or enrage a subject.

• You have a far greater physical recovery from being hit with an electrical device than from being contaminated with a
chemical aerosol. I would much rather be hit with a electrical device then sprayed with a chemical agent due to this
quicker recovery time.

What is better to use: the FN 303 or the Pepperball?

The Pepperball projectiles are circular in shape and design to rotate through the air, while the FN303 is designed to be
more aerodynamic: the front part is circular in shape but the rear is redesigned for a spinning motion when in flight for
quicker movement through the air.

Both have various rounds for selection and rely on pain effectiveness and chemical deployment.

I have found that the pepper ball is most effective and safe within the 10-40 feet ranges for maximum point of aim and
point of impact. I have found that the FN 303 is most effective and safe within the 30-60 feet range for maximum point-
of-aim and point-of-impact. Each of these distances will vary based on wind and weather (as well as whether you're
inside or outside).

Next, consider how many hits from each will it take for effectiveness and recovery. Since the pain threshold varies from
individual to individual, this is hard to define. This about it in terms of a person knowing they are being hit with a
projectile, versus being hit unexpectedly; or a person being hit with a weapon that they know for fact will not kill or harm
them, versus believing they could be killed or harmed.

At this time, there are no documented deaths with the deployment of pepper ball – I have been hit at point blank ranges
with the pepper ball to the left bicep area and have sustained nothing more than heavy bruising, discoloration to the
skins surface followed by swollen capillaries. At this time, there has been one documented death from being hit with the
FN 303 during the Boston winning the world series – the closet I have been hit with the FN 303 is 10 feet.

I've been hit with the FN 303 at the close distance of 10 feet to the right thigh bicep area, and have sustained nothing
more than heavy bruising, discoloration to the skin's surface followed by swollen capillaries.

Both projectiles pack a powerful punch; however, you still have to rely on accuracy and the capacity to strike specific
areas on the body.

Here's to non-lethal compliance and safety in 2009!

Use of force and the mentally ill
A C1 Member Asks: Is it the industry standard or policy not to use pepper spray on a known mentally ill person?

I have reviewed case decisions on the use of pepper spray dating back to 1970 and did not come across a decision that
would prohibit an officer in a detention facility or a street officer
from using pepper spray on a known mentally ill person. Also,
over the years I have reviewed use of force policies for
agencies have not seen such a policy statement.

While it is frequently difficult to agree on many so-called

“industry standards” when it comes to using varying use of
force techniques or equipment, this appears to be an
administrative decision to design policy language which
indicates such a prohibition. I am unaware of a "standard" that
prohibits such use. There, however, may be a case settled
out court or a consent decree requiring such policy language
or restrictions for a specific agency or area, but absent that
caveat, I am unaware of such provisos.

Additionally the ADA does not identify such provisions, even

when some plaintiff’s attorney may attempt to do so. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)

The concern here appears to be one of policy language that

significantly restricts an officer in protecting him/herself, safely engaging with such a person, and protecting the mentally
ill person. Frequently, policies are written with little thought as how the policy may impact field operations or how an
officer may actually implement the policy.

Use of force responses are dictated by the demonstrated resistance and behaviors of the person, the perception of the
officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, and not on some other special consideration. Of course there are
innumerable variables that may enter the equation which may be considered prior to an officer using any degree of
force.

But it remains the standard that it is the behaviors of the person that directs the level of force an officer employs. For
example, if a mentally ill person was in the process of choking someone, whether it be in a jail or a house, etc., using
pepper spray may be a viable option to incapacitate the person. Also, if a mentally ill person adapts a threatening stance
with his fists clenched and threatens an officer, again, pepper spray may be a viable option to consider. Each situation
must be evaluated on the merits of the circumstances but to make a blanket policy statement about not using pepper
spray on a known mentally ill person severely hinders an officers use of force option. This is of particular importance
when detention officers may have limited force options available to them.

Use of force policies should be crafted around pertinent U.S. Supreme Court holdings and legal standards which
emerge from these decisions. Under the Fourth Amendment
the Graham v. Connor (1989) case should be referenced in accordance with the objective reasonableness standard
(see also, Brosseau v. Hagen, 2004; & Scott v. Harris, 2007). In corrections and detention settings the Hudson v.
McMillian (1992) case should be reviewed pertaining to force used maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of
causing harm.
It would also be instructive to review the Johnson v. Glick (1973) case under the shocks the conscience standard (14th
Amendment). The case decision sets the standard
and not a special classification of a person. Use of force policies should be written which allows options for the officers
based on the varying types of encounters he/she may confront. They should be written with enough latitude that it
allows an officer to use his/her judgment and perception as the circumstances unfold.

Calif. police cleared in death of mentally ill man

The life saver: Impact weapons on the line

Impact weapons serve one of the most important roles in any mini-team formation: they save the lives of the officers
who deploy them. They are ultimately an extension of your
arm, helping you create greater distance from the threat,
and giving you the ability to hit harder and safer than you
could by using your own hands.

Impact weapons have always provided officers with a

positive visual deterrent, however, lately, due to the
evolution of non-lethal weapon technology that allows
officers to strike a subject down at greater distances,
impact weapons have slowly faded from facilities' armories.
But it's important to remember that impact weapons are
there to save your life if non-lethal weapon technology fails,
yet you still need to escalate to deadly force. It is then the
impact weapon resumes its role as the life saver.

Professional visual deterrent

When an officer is standing on the line with the impact
weapons drawn and in a carry position, there is a certain air
about them — the air of confidence, motivation and Batons on Line Exercise: This is a controlled exercise where
certainty. Often this is all it takes for the inmates to stop the offices only strike the target area within their own areas of
being combative and to start complying. respobilities.

Tip: Baton carries: A visual deterrent

Various carrying methods

1. Baton rest: This carry position presents a very professional image and still allows the officer access to the baton in
case of emergency. Having the officer stand with feet shoulder width apart and the baton held equally in both hands
straight down in front of them with their arms extended.

2. Low profile: This carry position presents a very professional image with the baton held in the strong hand down
along their side with the striking end hidden behind the officer’s calf as they stand in the interview position.

3. Command carry: This carry position presents a command image with the baton held in the strong, and the striking
end centered between the officers bicep and lat muscle on their weak side, with the weak going under the baton and
grabbing their own wrist on the strong hand.

4. One-hand ready: This carry position is a high profile image with the baton held in the strong hand, and loaded at
their shoulder of their strong side, standing in the interview position slightly bending at the knees with their weak hand
up as to signal the subject they are confronting.

5. Two-hand ready: This carry position is a high profile image with the baton held in both the strong and weak hand,
with the striking end facing the threats and even with the officer’s elbows, standing in the interview position slightly
bending at the knees.

6. Port arms: This carry position is used when moving officers from one location to another while the baton is drawn.
Simulating a military appearance with the baton held in both the strong and weak hand, with the striking end facing
 upwards at a 45’ degree angle going across the
officers chest, standing in the interview position
slightly bending at the knees.

Various types of impact weapons

Batons have come a long way from the over-shaped,
uneven club of old, into impact weapons off all different
shapes and sizes.

Straight stick: A great impact weapon of various lengths

and weight; a one-piece made of wood, aluminum, metals
or plastics. Carried on the side of the officer for easy
access.

Advantages
Baton on Line Striking Drills: This drill reinforces line integrity,
• Would never malfunction when being used focusing on target area and listening to command.

• Great striking power

• Offers good blocking capabilities

Disadvantages

• Not secure in carrier

• Escort and restraints are limited

• Cumbersome for smaller officers

Side handle baton stick: Various lengths and weight; at one time made of two pieces with aluminum, polycarbonate
and plastic materials. Carried on the side of the officer for easy access.

Advantages

• Excellent defensive tool for blocking

• Great for restraints

• Looks different. Professional visual deterrent

Disadvantages

• One piece side handles did not secure in carrier

• Collapsible side handles secured well

• Ineffective knockdown power from having to swing the side handle over conventional striking tactics

• Not instructed as an offensive tool

• Too time restricted to learn and maintain adequate

skill level needed to survive an encounte

Expandable Batons: Various lengths and weight; a friction lock

baton using multiple shafts or forcing cone design to open and
lock in place, or in an auto-lock version using a push button to
close and manually open like the friction lock baton; made of
aluminum and metals. Carried on the side of the officer for easy
access.
Baton deployment strategies

1. Combine verbal directions with physical alternatives

2. Evaluate the response from the inmate after
deploying
3. Survey the area for additional threats Baton On Line Drill: This drills focuses on selecting your target
area, working as a team and areas of responsibilities.
 4. Maintain your alignment and do not drift from line
5. Never hit in the same place more than once if possible
6. If you drop the baton on the line have a plan for retrieving it
7. Practice your baton strikes wearing all of your assigned duty gear to include you protective mask
8. Practicing striking on line and in close quarter areas
9. Build yourself up for striking drills at 15-30-60-90 second intervals
10. Have a plan for retaining your baton if someone tries to take it from you

Advantages

• If you used a snap-closed carrier, it would stay on officer during during great physial exertion and when you need it.

• Provided a positive visual deterrent when being opened

• Easily concealed on duty belt for low profile

Disadvantages

• Limited knockdown power as compared to the one piece straight baton

• Not to effective for escort and restraints due to possible bending of baton

• Not instructed as an equally offensive and defensive tool

• When hitting a subject, you would be striking them with the hollow part and lightest part of the baton

Rapid Rotation Baton: A great hybrid impact weapon. Taking the best of the straight, side handle and expandable
batons and rolling them into one. Various lengths and weight made of one piece made materials of special proprietary
materials. Carried behind the officer's firearm for easy access.

Advantages

• Would never malfunction when being used

• Great striking power because a solid material

• Equally effective for blocking

• Excellent for Restraints and escorts

• Ability to access for escaping grips, grabs and body holds

• New look excellent for presenting a professional and positive visual deterrent

• Duel retention holster for east carrying and accessibility

Disadvantages

• Different then the norm at first look

• Federal Bureau of Prisons participated in a 6-month testing and evaluation of the RRB and cut it to only 3 months
and approved this baton.
(Worth taking a look at it)

Striking tactics

Striking with a baton physically demanding, but also necessitates a mental commitment. You need to be cognitive of
where others are around you; you have to know how to hit the target you are aiming at. All of this takes practice.
Practice takes time, and you need to dedicate yourself to this time in order to become proficient.

1. Forward Strike: Holding the baton in a one-hand ready position in your strong arm to swing the baton in a forward
motion. This is definitely the most powerful of strikes, giving the officer the ability to hit a target with enough power to
physically knock the aggressor to the ground and/or stop their aggressive and resistant behavior.
 2. Reverse Strike: This is the return swing of the forward strike. Definitely not the most powerful of strikes. Providing
the officer the ability to hit a target while recovering from a forward strike.

3. Cutting the Grass: Holding the baton in a one-hand ready position in your strong arm to rapidly swing the baton in a
forward motion low across the shin area of the inmate. Providing the officer the ability to strike several times target
with enough power to make a inmate move backward and away from you.

4. Middle strike: Holding the baton in a two-hand ready position, bringing the baton across your body and, using a
pushing motion, striking the subject with the center of the baton to push them him off the line.

5. Two-hand jab: Holding the baton in a two-hand ready position, jab outwards away from your body using a forward
pushing motion striking the subject with the striking end of the baton to target the lower abdominal and push them off
the line.

Target areas
We are not going to address this area in the same manner that it has been addressed for the last 40 years. When you
strike a target area on an inmate, you need to do the math.

If an inmate has his fists up and is trying to punch you in the head, we could all reasonable assume that he is trying to
cause serious harm which may result in your death. Legally you would by justified in escalating to deadly force, and be
legally supported if you were to strike the subject in areas that could cause harm, and that may result in death.

However, in the training we have been teaching officers to strike the thigh of an inmate, which when struck could cause
little to no harm to the inmate and allow them to continue fighting. Striking the thigh of a combative inmate causes no
real incentive for the inmate to stop his assault, and will bring you much closer to the threat, leaving the officer in greater
danger, whereas striking their arms and hands while they punch you, and striking their feet or shins when they kick you,
will allow you to have a greater chance in stopping the threat because you are striking the inmate's own delivery
systems.

You need to adopt a fighting philosophy. My philosophy with fighting has always been this: Take away the attacker's own
weapons, "plus no one has ever died from a broken arm or shin that I know of, however officers have been seriously
injured trying to strike less effective target areas."

And you may ask why have we taught this softer approach to personal defense and use of force? Well because we as a
society think an officer needs to show compassion even during times where someone is trying to kill us. I would like to
introduce this new and effective philosophy.

If an inmate is trying to punch you, strike their arm. If the inmate is trying to kick you strike the bridge of their foot. No
one has died from a broken are or foot. However officers have died from being punched and kicked! You need to ask
yourself why I would strike an inmate in the thigh when they are trying to punch me in the head.

If you were an inmate, where you rather be hit with a baton? The arm or leg where it would hurt more and most likely
stop your ability to continue fighting, or the thigh where you can take a large amount of blunt force trauma and still
continue to fight?

Do the math!
Assessing detainee resistance in Michigan jails, Part 1
A detention officer should not focus his decision to use force solely on the detainee’s mental condition, but
rather, on the manifested behaviors which may be harmful to the officer, the detainee and others.

Part 1 of 2
Read Part 2

Introduction
Jails are complex detention facilities which confine a diverse, transient, and unhealthy populations. Since 1994, the
average daily population in America’s 3,300 jails, was over 550,000 detainees, admitting from 12-13 million annually.
Nationally, at time of admission, 60 percent of jail detainees are under the influence of a chemical substance, over 25
percent have a blood alcohol content within a range of .12 to .22 percent, 45 percent are admitted with a drug abuse
problem, 41 percent admitted with a psychological impairment, 70 percent are taking medication, 36 percent are
admitted for a violent offense, and 31 percent are admitted for a drug offense (BJS, 2005).

Supervising this population can be a dangerous proposition

requiring care, skill, training, constant vigilance to safety and
security, and updated research. According to the Criminal
Justice Institute (2003), from 1990 to 2002 the annual average
number of detainee assaults on officers is 10,000. The average
number of detainee on detainee assaults amounted to over
17,000, accounting for about 20 detainee assaults per 100
detainees.

The National Institute of Justice (1999) ranked the job of

correction/detention officer, as the fourth most dangerous
occupation in the United States, behind, police officers, taxi cab
drivers, and security personnel. Due the volatility of the jail
environment the need to use force control techniques and
equipment is a critical core job task. With some frequency (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
detention officers must resort to force measures in self-defense,
defense of another, to prevent an escape or crime, to overcome unlawful resistance, to prevent detainee self-harm, and
for medical intervention purposes.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to perform an assessment of the nature of the use of force and detainee resistance in 15
Michigan jails. The study was undertaken to learn more about the nature of detainee resistance situations detention
officers' face while performing their custodial duties. Empirical knowledge is needed to update officers on their safety
considerations when approaching detainee resistance and dangerous situations. The study provides insights into the
nature of the use force encounters that officers face — which has not been widely studied.

The findings can be useful in providing information on detention officer safety and occupational risk reduction by
examining common types of detainee resistance situations. Highlights from the full study are provided and divided into
two parts: Part I provides an assessment of the correlates of detainee resistance and Part II will provide an assessment
of the common types of force officers employ and also provides policy and training recommendations.

Using a longitudinal approach, 949 use of force incident reports were analyzed for three years, from 2003 to 2005. A
total of 175 variables were examined using correlational statistics. Common types of detainee resistance and the types
of use of force applied by officers in response to detainee resistance were examined.

Common Circumstances Where Officers Encounter Detainee Resistance

The top eight force circumstances where detainee resistance is commonly encountered by detention officers include: (1)
attempting to control a detainee [30%], (2) during the booking phase [29%], (3) enforcing rules [28%], (4) while
conducting a personal search [24%], (5) a prisoner disturbance [20%], (6) during a forced cell move (14%), (7)
performing a cell transfer/moving a detainee [13%], and (8) escorting a prisoner [14%]. These percentages total over
100 percent as more than one circumstance may be involved during the incident altercation. For example, an officer
maybe enforcing a rule, giving an order to the detainee, while attempting to control the detainee.

Combinations of Detainee Resistance

Several patterns of combinations of detainee resistance were encountered by officers. Verbal resistance combined with
defensive resistance occurred in 50 percent of the incidents. Verbal resistance was accompanied by defensive actions
and physical actions of assaults in 38 percent of the encounters. Examples of physical actions of assault may include:
wrestling with the officer, punching, pushing, kicking, grabbing, slapping, head-butting, and throwing an object at the
officer. Lethal force types of assaults against an officer accounted for 5 percent of the incidents and included choking
the officer and an edged weapon assault. Verbal resistance accompanied lethal force attacks in 97 percent of the
incidents.

Detainee Resistance
The data show common types of detainee resistance and significant associations of the types of force officers use.
Officers routinely encounter six forms/types of detainee resistance. Slightly less than 75% of all detainee resistance
comprises three forms of resistance: verbal, defensive, and physical actions of assault. Interpretation of these patterns
of resistance, however, must be done with caution as detainee resistance may follow any path of progression,
depending upon the totality of the circumstances.

A consistent statistical finding showed that detainees engage in wrestling with the officer with some frequency (40%).
This appears to be associated with two levels of physical altercations. First, defensive resistance may be encountered
which escalates into aggressive physical actions of resistance, where the detainee ends up on the floor on top of the
officer in a wrestling scenario. Second, the officer may encounter an assault whereby the detainee kicks, pushes, head
butts, slaps or punches the officer, resulting in a loss of balance and the officer (s) and detainee end up on the floor,
again in a wrestling position. Both situations place the officer in a vulnerable position. Training should address how an
officer can protect him/herself if placed in this situation.

In a majority of the incidents, officers are more likely to confront a detainee who has displayed verbal resistance toward
the officer’s authority or instructions. Combined with verbal resistance, the detainee escalated his behavior to defensive
resistance. This primarily occurs as the officer may initially respond with a soft-empty hand control technique (a control
hold) and the detainee attempts to break free from the officer. Verbal and defensive resistance comprises the majority of
resistance an officer encounters. In a significant number of incidents, however, detainees escalated their resistance to
more aggressive physical actions against the officer (s). A significant number of these incidents commonly involved
wrestling with the officer (s).

In approximately 50 percent of the incidents, resistance altercations involved an "emotionally upset" detainee, while
officers confronted a detainee who is mentally ill or “under the influence” in the remaining incidents. This underscores
the fact that a sober but emotionally distraught detainee is as likely to exhibit resistance as a detainee who is under the
influence or who is mentally impaired. This also underscores the fact that the officers must attend to resistive behaviors
or assault cues of detainee body language and actual verbal comments made which may indicate the potential actions
of the detainee, regardless of their state of mind.

Officers are likely to confront resistance from a mentally ill detainee (24%) in aggressive physical forms of
confrontations. Officers should be prepared for the unpredictable and assaultive actions which can accompany a
confrontation with an irrational or psychotic detainee. Further, review of how to respond to a violent mentally impaired
detainee and how to employ intervention strategies should be addressed by detention personnel.

While it is important to understand the varying dimensions of human behavior, such as irrational or psychotic behaviors,
and/or behaviors associated with being under the influence of a chemical substance, it also important to understand
“resistance is still resistance.” This means that a detention officer should not focus their decision to use force solely on
the detainee’s mental condition, but rather, on the manifested behaviors which may be harmful to the officer, the
detainee, others, and the security of the detention facility.

The key, therefore, to gauging a justifiable decision in using a degree of force should be predicated on articulable
detainee resistance behaviors and not on an officer attempting to clinically diagnosis what maybe the “underlying cause”
of the resistance or assault.

Correlations of Resistance
While detainees may resist or assault an officer in any location of the jail or during any type of escort within or outside
the detention facility, three locations were significantly more associated with resistance. Analysis revealed that three
locations within the jail accounted for 78 percent of detainee resistance: booking area; cells (including, general
population, holding, adjustment, and observation cells); and recreational/dayroom areas. Respondents reported that
detainee resistance could occur outside the facility during a transport to court, to the hospital, in court, or other transport
locations, but were least likely to occur at these locations. Transporting a detainee, however, implies security priority of
the assignment and should not be ignored when performing the duty.

The location and circumstances of detainee resistance produced several consistent themes. Performing the booking
function in the booking area, with a detainee under the influence, produces a common pattern. Over 40 percent of the
resisting detainees were categorized as “unclassified,” which would be associated with being newly admitted into the
facility. The arrest or the arrestable charge is commonly associated with property, violent crimes, and substance abuse
violations, and performing booking procedures are difficult at best with a person under the influence.

An added dimension of the detainee's level of resistance at the time of booking is how the detainee was treated at time
of the arrest, during transport by the arresting officer, and/or or how he/ she is treated by the admitting officer (s). Hence,
knowing that a significant association exists between a detainee’s resistance, who is under the influence, at the time of
booking, detention officers should be mindful of their safety, prepare for resistance, and work toward reducing the risk of
a force circumstance as feasible. Ensuring that a sufficient number of officers and the necessary force equipment is
accessible in the booking area is an important consideration during admittance and booking.
Responding to a detainee disturbance and performing a forced cell extraction provide another significant finding
regarding correlations and the resistance circumstance. Conducting these types of assignments are among the most
dangerous tasks an officer is asked to perform. While the findings show that performing these functions occurred in 34
percent of the resistance incidents (20% disturbance; 14% cell extraction), the data reveals that it is more likely that an
officer will sustain an injury, particularly a back injury. In fact, the data showed that officers were more likely to encounter
defensive and physical actions of resistance, and that officers are more likely to encounter an edged weapon than in
other incidents of detainee resistance. Because of the unpredictability, dangerousness, and safety concerns, detention
agencies should review and revise their procedures and practices of responding to these types of scenarios as
warranted.

Being under the influence of a chemical substance is another important factor which can contribute to the detainee’s
behaviors. In slightly under 40 percent of the incidents the detainee was under the influence of either alcohol or another
substance. Officers can not only anticipate resistance from this type of detainee but can expect to encounter resistance
in three forms; verbal, defensive resistance, and aggressive physical actions. This implies that the detainee who is
under the influence will more likely resist verbal instructions and more likely be physically aggressive with the officer, as
opposed to being a “passive drunk.” Such resistance is more likely to occur at time of booking.

Implications
This research underscores that officers cannot become complacent in performing their custodial duties. Detainee
resistance has some degree of predictability to it, and is not commonly a spontaneous, unpredictable, out of control
detainee who unexpectedly creeps upon the unsuspecting officer and assaults him or her. Rather, resistance requiring a
force response occurs when officers engage in responsibilities where resistance can be expected. For example,
resistance while conducting a personal search occurred more commonly than using force in self-defense.

Conducting the search places the officer in a high degree of closeness to the detainee and can certainly place the
officer in a more vulnerable situation. An officer must pay attention to how he or she approaches the detainee and cue
into potential assault cues that may be harmful to the officer. Performing booking tasks and executing a forced cell
extraction are two other resistance circumstances where officers can predict resistance with high certainty.

While the findings showed a natural progression for resisting circumstances, officers must still be prepared in each
resisting situation to respond to the dynamics of the changing variables associated with the confrontation. These
findings also emphasize the importance of officers being diligent in enhancing their personal safety no matter what task
they may be performing. Part II will address officers use of force responses and recommendations.

More reading: Factors that influence the use of force in a correctional institution

Read Part 2

Assessing detainee resistance in Michigan jails: Part II

Part 2 of 2
Read Part 1

In Part 1, the highlights from a study which examined 949 use of force incidents in 15 Michigan jails revealed common
patterns of detainee resistance. The findings showed that just under 75% of the incidents comprised three patterns of
resistance: verbal resistance, defensive resistance, and physical actions of assault. Officers confronted lethal force
encounters in only 5% of the incidents. Officers were likely to face higher levels of resistance (actions of physical
assault) from a mentally ill detainee (24%) and were likely to encounter resistance of any nature from an intoxicated
detainee in about 38% of the incidents. The average blood alcohol content of these detainees was 0.20.

Here, I'll examine the types of force techniques officers generally applied in responding to these encounters, and offer
recommendations based on this.

Common types of force employed and injuries sustained

In 75% of the incidents multiple officers responded to a resisting detainee encounter and the presence of more than one
officer, accompanied with verbal commands and instructions, were successful in controlling the resistive detainee in
60% of the situations without using physical force measures. Verbal commands preceded any use of force measure in
98% of the incidents. In the situations where officers used physical force or force equipment, detainees sustained a
treatable injury (e.g., cut, hematoma, sprain, or fracture) in 11% of the cases.

Detainees were more likely to sustain an injury during booking, a forced cell extraction, a detainee disturbance or while
an officer enforced a rule. Injuries were more likely when an officer(s) used a takedown technique, a control hold, a
wristlock and when applying restraints of a combative detainee. Injuries were not sustained or minimized when officers
used pressure points, the TASER, an aerosol or the restraint chair.

Officers sustained a treatable injury in 15% of the incidents and are likely to sustain an injury when they faced defensive
and aggressive actions of assault, such as: wrestling with a detainee, performing forced cell extractions, strikes/kicks
delivered from the detainee, when choked, and when facing an edged weapon. Further, officers were more likely to
sustain an injury while performing a personal search of a detainee, when breaking up a fight, when performing booking
duties, in self-defense, and during a cell transfer.

Officer injuries were more likely when they were applying a takedown technique, a control hold, and while applying
restraints. Officers were less likely to incur an injury while using a TASER, using an aerosol, and/or when using a
pressure point control technique. The TASER was applied in 15% of the incidents and an aerosol was used in 60% of
the incidents displaying detainee defensive and assault actions.

Officers were less likely to sustain an injury when two or more officers responded to a resistive altercation. Further,
when multiple officers responded to an incident, they were less likely to use an aerosol and apply handcuffs (45% of the
incidents). When one officer was engaged with one detainee, the officer was more likely to use an aerosol and/or the
TASER, and handcuffs to restrain the detainee.

An aerosol was more likely to be used by an officer in any circumstance after verbal instructions have been used and
when confronted with defensive resistance or physical actions of assault. The restraint chair was used in 25% of the
incidents and used primarily when officers encountered detainee disturbances, after breaking up a detainee fight with
another detainee, after a cell extraction, assaults on officers, and after physical actions occurring at time of booking.

An officer is more likely to use a wristlock and takedown techniques when faced with a resistive detainee in self
defense, particularly when assaulted during a personal search or conducting an escort. Pressure point control
techniques were more likely to be used when multiple officers were encountering a resisting detainee. About 33% of the
resistive incidents involved a forced cell extraction and comprise 30% of officer injuries (back related).

In 80% of these circumstances, a special response team of at least three officers performed the task, faced verbal
threats, and defensive resistance, actions of assault, and lethal force resistance. The officers used verbal commands,
and with frequency, used takedown techniques, wristlocks, pressure points, knee strikes, aerosols, the TASER,
restraints, and the restraint chair. In the remaining 20% one or two officers attempted to perform the task and increased
the frequency of incurring an injury.

A consistent finding showed that detainees engaged in wrestling with the officer, regardless of the circumstance (43%).
The encounter may occur in three potential scenarios. First, defensive resistance may be encountered which escalates
into aggressive physical actions of resistance, where the detainee ends up on the floor on top of the officer in a wrestling
scenario. Second, the officer may encounter an assault whereby the detainee kicks, pushes, chokes, punches the
officer, resulting in a loss of balance and the officer (s) and detainee end up on the floor, again in a wrestling position.
Third, wrestling frequently occurred result during a forced cell extraction situation.

Conclusions and recommendation

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the types of detainee resistance, the types of fore techniques that
officers employed in response and to determine what relationships emerged between varying research variables.
Highlights of the significant findings, identification of major locations and circumstances where detainee resistance is
highly likely to occur were addressed.
The study has also identified the various types of force officers use with regularity, as well as their associations. Key
information was presented in order to make administrative decisions, and with information to work toward risk reduction
in managing the use force within a detention facility.

The following recommendations are suggested.

Developing a use of force tracking system

Administrators should develop an internal tracking mechanism which is designed to track and assess all use of force
incidents. It allows the manager, supervisors, and officers to know how frequently force is used within the facility, the
type of force equipment that is used with frequency, the type of resistance, circumstances, and the location where force
is applied with frequency. As a primary objective these trends are useful for training purposes, deploying personnel,
increasing officer safety, facility security, and managing the detainee population. Adopting a tracking system can assist
in researching the use of force more efficiently.

As a secondary objective, the tracking system can be used to monitor the proper implementation of policy and provide
information for policy revision. Tracking the use of force has assisted in serving as an early warning system which can
provide information pertinent to an individual officer who may need further training or counseling in using appropriate
force measures.

Policy

In light of the findings, administrators are encouraged to review their use of force policy and revise it as warranted. Once
the policy has been revised, all supervisors and officers should receive their own copy and training to its contents.
Training should be conducted on an ongoing basis and allows for clarification and specification of critical policy
components. It also provides a forum for personnel to ask questions on sections which need further clarification. Testing
on the policy contents is recommended.

Principles of escalation and de-escalation should also be reviewed. Agency policy should be framed within
Constitutional and state standards, and tailored to the unique needs of the agency. Agency officers and supervisors
should receive training in the policy in order to respond to force incidents appropriately.

Use of force training

The study has shown that officers are using force appropriately and in direct proportion to the level of detainee
resistance they encounter. This is evidenced by the low probability of incidents where a detainee received a treatable
injury. An injury does not automatically equate to the use of excessive force. Additionally, based on the significant
associations that exist between the type of detainee resistance and the officers’ use of force, responding officers are
demonstrating their understanding of the principles of escalation and de-escalation of force measures.

Administrators are responsible for providing their officers with ongoing training to job tasks. This research has not only
shown the types of detainee resistance officers’ encounter but has shown the circumstances, locations, and frequency
of its occurrence. Such training should be ongoing and address the realities of the incidents officers confront.

Officer safety and force techniques

Based on the nature of detainee resistance officers should receive ongoing training in enhancing their skills in cuing into
human behaviors. The findings show that encounters follow common patterns of combinations of detainee resistance.
Further, having the ability to cue into non-physical and/or physical behaviors of resistance can enhance decision making
regarding when to use verbal intervention strategies and how to approach an agitated detainee.

Personal safety training issues should be addressed on a regular basis which can assist the officers in executing their
duties competently and confidently by addressing the following: the reactionary gap and reaction time, use of verbal
intervention strategies, responding to the chemically and mentally ill detainee, cuing into assault behaviors, conducting
escorts inside and outside of the facility, performing forced cell extractions, de-escalation intervention strategies, edge
weapon defense, force equipment, restraints/restraint chair, policies and procedures, and health care response. Officers
should continue to be diligent in maximizing their safety when confronted with a volatile situation by keeping appraised
of their operating environment, circumstance dynamics, access to necessary force equipment, and access to other
officers.

The study showed that officers frequently wrestle with a detainee. Officers should receive training which incorporates
ground avoidance and ground fighting techniques. Such training should be conducted regularly and designed for one
officer engaged with one detainee and multiple officers engaged with one detainee. Study findings showed that when
multiple officers responded to an altercation officer injuries were reduced. Training should be designed and conducted
which trains a coordinated response by multiple officers in the use of control techniques and force equipment. It is
recommended that after a combative altercation, officers should apply handcuffs to ensure the officers and the
detainee’s safety and a search of the detainee should be performed.

The findings also illustrated that 20% of the forced cell extractions were performed with only two officers, which resulted
in more frequent officer injury. Performing this type of task is dangerous and to maximize officer safety 3 to 4 trained
officers, suited in proper equipment, should perform the task. Forced cell extraction training should be conducted on a
regular basis.
In the past questions and lawsuits have emerged about the proper use of aerosols, the TASER, and the use of varying
restraints, including the restraint chair, suggesting that such equipment has been used excessively resulting in an
increase likelihood of detainee injury or death. Study findings indicate that such questions are baseless.

The findings support that when such equipment is appropriately and properly used detainee and officer injuries were
minimized. They underscore the manufactures design and specifications for using such equipment, that being to safely
control combative persons.

Additional training should be directed toward keeping officers physical control skills honed and their competency in the
use of fore equipment. Dynamic scenario-based training should be provided on a regular basis which is designed
around the types of detainee resistance, the circumstances, and locations where such resistance is common.

Liability Issues

Finally, officers should receive training on the constitutional standards and responsibilities pertinent to the use of force in
detention facilities. Training should be provided at two levels. First, supervisors need training on the legal parameters of
using force and their responsibility of supervising officers and their applications of using force. Such training should
address how the agency can place them in the best defensible position to defend a claim of “excessive force.” Second,
officers should receive training regarding their own responsibilities when deciding to use a particular level of force.
Training should address how the courts review cases of excessive force and apply constitutional and state standards to
claims of excessive force.

Survival checklist: Improvised and unconventional weapons

For hundreds of years, unconventional weapons have been evolving into killing tools. In the hands of inmates, the art
may have been perfected.

Improvised and unconventional weapons are weapons made with the intent to kill another person, defend or protect
oneself, and are found inside a correctional facility will vary from small half-inch to larger
sizes, and made from everything like paper, cardboard, plastics, to various types of
metals all found within the facility.

These weapons are pointed, sharp, durable and capable of delivering a fatal blow to the
human body from puncturing a major artery, to slicing any part of your body open to
even breaking bones upon contact. These weapons are made for various reasons
ranging from personal protection to murdering or even being a hit man for hide. They are hidden in and on areas of the
body that make it sometime impossible to see with just a gaze from the naked eye.

These weapons when used are up close and person and are one of the bloodiest weapons to use, and the scar they
leave are both mental and physical. These can also mean various types of protective gear, or masks to limit or prolong
the effects or chemical, specialty impact munitions, or even electrical devices. This improvised equipment will help limit
or increase the person's pain tolerance. In another words they make their own protective armor.

Types of improvised weapons and gear

1. Protective Masks – Using Ripped pieces of clothing various types of equipment

can be use like a mask to cover their face. This is used when the inmate knows
that the uses of chemical are imminent. See image (R) - Nose Cup, Front and
Back of Mask made out of elastic straps from underwear, clothing and
shaped pads to physically protect the face.

2. Armor – This armor is made from everything from book covers, wet/dried paper or
molded magazines, pillow cases, and placed on the body were damage is more
likely to cause serious bodily injury which could result in death. Inmates often refer to this as "wearing their Skin."
See Pictures – 2 Armor Pictures

1. Small edged weapons, blades – These are made from various pieces of metals
like small pieces metals scraped or filed down, or pieces of a razor blade from a
shaving kit to fit into a handle of some sort to hold the blade in place while the
attack happens. These blades are small, and easily concealed in the hands or
other parts of the body. Most times these blades will separate from the handle
during the attack which can leave life threatening wound.
See 2 Pictures – Small key stolen from a guard then wrapped in a piece of nylon to simulate a handle to hold.

2. Longer Shanks or edged weapons – Like the smaller made weapons these are made from various pieces of metals
like the fire extinguisher safety pins, book shelf parts, food trays, or even the hard reinforcement bindings inside the
hard back books, metals scraped or filed down, or pieces of a plastic melted down and files, taped, or wrapped in
cloth into a handle of some sort to hold the blade in place while the attack happens. These blades are small but fitted
into a large handle to help create more distance, or larger when concealment is not necessary. Most times these
blades can chip, bent or break after the first cut, or can even will separate from the handle during the attack which
can leave life threatening wound.
See Image (R) – Pen and Tooth Picks, Straighten Safety Pin, Razor and Tooth
Brush, Piece of Book Shelf and Part of Shelf as a sword

3. Impact Weapons or other bludgeon devices – These weapons are used to crash,
strike and break the bones and skull of their victim. Made many things like rolled
towels filled with harder objects like soap, or cans of food, to a piece of wood or
cardboard and a piece of metal or aluminum and placed together to simulate an
hammer or pick.
See image (R) – Rolled and filled towel with soap, and the man made axe of
a piece of wood and aluminum shelving sharpen and held together with
pieces of cloth.

Tactics to watch for

No doubt, technology acts as an extra set of eyes to keep watch on our incarcerated inmates. But any correctional
officer will tell you that there's no substitute for direct supervision that is done in person — in other words, an inmate
watched in your presence.

Change of behavior, body positioning, hiding of hands or a faster-than-normal walking pace are all good cues to alert
you to the covert handling of an improvised weapon. However inmates are aware of this as well and may employ
distraction tactics, for example a yell or other inmates fighting, and in the extreme, the inmate breaking a limb or faking
an illness.

Having a plan for these types of attacks is vital to an officer's survival, especially if we are the target. Being aware of
your surrounding is critical.

In this field, it is what you don't see that can get you killed!

Edged Weapons Defense Concepts

The use of improvised and unconventional weapons has been a threat even since the first incarcerated inmate. Now,
these weapons are synomous with prison culture. Below are a few suggestions to help keep you safe.

1. Create Distance when possible. Running away is a great tactics when needed and possible. General Custard could
have lived longer if he retreated.
 2. Use weapons that are readily available to you: trash bin, buckets, broom stick, mop handles, chair, tables, etc.
Weapons of opportunity could give you the edge you need to survive.

3. Grab the arm of the attacker and break it. Remember, he is trying to kill you, and no one (as far as I know) has ever
died from a broken arm — but, officers who have tried to disarm and control the subject while they are still an active
threat have not been so lucky.
4. Verbalize during your encounter; this could help other officers and even another inmate intervene on your behalf.

5. Practice whatever plan, and make sure you are ready if and when the attack occurs.

6. Be confident and in control. Adrenaline is your friend, whereas panic is an element of death, not survival.
7. Practice team and single officer defense tactics – at times a team response can be more deadly
8. Know your facility - Try to place yourself in areas where you are aware of the escape routes
9. Listen to the signs, your gut feeling, what your eyes and heart tell you – Sometimes that is all we have

10. As Coach Bob Lindsey says, "You have a choice to be an 'if/then thinker' or a 'when/then thinker.'" Be ready for when
it happens.

Good luck out there, and remember — Be safe, be strong and stay alive!
Fightin' words: Does your attitude put you at Today's Top Stories

Friday, February 20,

risk? 2009

By Tracy Barnhart • Civil Liability

Ohio Department of Youth Services Seminar for
Administration
So you want to be a corrections or law enforcement officer. It’s something that you and Line Officers
have wanted to do ever since you were bullied on the schoolyard.
• Mo. sheriff helps
Whoa: Wait a minute, are you saying that some corrections and law enforcement with inmate
officers are vindictive? release

No, I’m not making that generalization at all, but I will say this: Everyone needs a • Calif. inmate
job, but not everyone needs this job. paralyzed in Taser
incident sues
Have you ever met an officer who could piss off the Pope? This is the same officer
who always seems to have the most physical restraints and reportable incidents. • Colo. fugitive
Well, Here I will reference my good friend Gary Klugiewicz after I saw one of his sentenced in life-
informative verbal defense video clips (see featured video). I am taking what he changing crash
brought to light on this topic.
• Budget crunch
Now, as promised, I’m going to give you six ways to piss people off – and possibly impacts prison
invite a physical assault. I realize that there are many more ways to bait or induce time
individuals into a physical altercation, but these are the six major things that I see
officers do every day that could be avoided. MORE ARTICLES

The wrong facial expression

Featured Columnists
This may be the start of the altercation and you could have initiated it. Sometimes
when we are multitasking and trying to do more with less, we get aggravated with
others after they interrupt our thoughts. Now the individual may have a legitimate
request or question about a procedure or task. But to us we think, “You a**hole, you Personal
have got to be kidding me, you disturbed me for that?” Now our frustration Survival
shows in our facial expression and body posture. Basics

A sigh or a look away with the click of our tongue and a head tilt will put the individual
on immediate notice that their request, question, idea or presence is not wanted, was with John
stupid, and not worthy of our time and trouble. This may be the start of the altercation D. Williams
as the individual; especially an inmate or criminal now feels slighted or disrespected.
Think, “Did I cause this aggression?” • A guide to
personal survival
A bad attitude basics, Part 2:
Countermeasures
Your attitude along with your facial expression will take you to another rung on the
altercation ladder. Say that an inmate new to your pod asks you to unlock a restroom
• A guide to
door and you expertly respond, “Listen a**hole, I will unlock a restroom for you
personal survival
when I decide that it benefits me and not until then. You go sit down and wait
basics, Part 1:
for that moment in time.” Now we all know that inmates and criminal are needy Reading an
and tasking to our patience but the second that we make those volatile attitude inmate
expressions we have made an unnecessary step toward unjustified force. Now again,
we have to ask ourselves, “Did I cause this aggression?”

Mannerisms

I see the following mannerisms every day at our facility, with occasionally shocking
results. As you read these, ask yourself how many times you have violated them — 10-8: Life
and how many people you pissed off. on the Line
-
Sponsored
• Crowding. You’ll see animals in the wild posture up close to one another in an by Blauer
attempt to make the other cower. They are intimidating others showing that they
are bigger, meaner and have a worse bite than the other does. This is also with Charles
evident in law enforcement and corrections. We attempt to show others that we Remsberg
are the authority and what we say goes without question. We will stare them
down, get chest to chest or nose to nose attempting to get them to respond
accordingly because we cannot accept questioning of our authority.
• Are we
breeding a
• Parental Finger. After we make it known that we are in charge we will often police culture
point our finger at the individual that defied our authority. This represents the of “additional
parental finger to the individual that we are pointing it at. They feel as if we are victims?”
attempting to parent them and treat them as if they are a small child. The
• Protecting
Verbal and non-verbal indicators of assault
By Tracy E. Barnhart

When we speak about the use of force, I notice more and more that officers either need or want the green light to be
given to them before they act. Deep down, Correctional Officers have an intimate fear when it comes to the use of force
— either reacting too soon, too late (resulting in injury), or not at all. They have a natural, ingrained fear of the criminals
themselves, that the administration won't back them for their actions or decisions — and that their their peers won't have
their backs for those very same reasons.

They have terms like reasonable, excessive, and liability thrown at them withour clear-cut definitions, directions or
leadership. It is often said that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to request permission. In today’s highly litigious
society this may be true, but painfully unforgiving.

In this article I will attempt to give you those "green light indicators," as well as indicators that you may be assaulted or
attacked. If all inmates had a green light indicator above their heads that, when activated meant you could utilize force,
we would all be better off.

I have gone through internal and criminal investigations relating to my own use of force, and let me tell you, they are not
fun. You lose sleep; you become irritable towards your family because of the stress. Your mind plays tricks on you
when overloaded with the armchair quarterbacking of the administration and your peers. You may even start to doubt
yourself and question your reasoning before it is all over with — at the very least, your inclination to use force will
diminish after your reasoning and motivation are questioned. You'll start to hear officer say, “I am not touching anyone!”

The court U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Conner (1989), gave no definitive answer to law enforcement or
corrections in terms of what is reasonable as it pertains to excessive force. Consequently; an officer will follow his
training, departmental policy and the standard operating procedure of the supervisory staff.

Unfortunately this doesn't mean he's in the clear. Despite adhereing to policy and training, the officer can still be
charged criminally or sued civilly. Moreover, the judge and jury can deem his response inappropriate. This "damned if
you do, damned if you don't" feeling can make officers think, “They're going to screw me anyway, so I’ll make it worth
my while." Officers will make the use of force vengeful and vindictive. Officers may even choose to not get involved in
the incidents or look the other way as it is occurring. Of course, either course of action is inappropriate.

No matter what you have done during your shift, you can pretty much bet that your agency will not be disbanded for
your actions or the actions of others. But you on the other hand, just may: You may lose your credibility with your peers,
your supervisors and the administration. You may be disciplined and even terminated, which, contrary to how it sounds,
could just be the beginning of your issues. Depending on the incident, you may be criminally charged, or at the least,
civilly sued for that thirty-second decision to place your hands on an individual. During this emotional and stressful time
your marriage may fail, only adding to your anxiety and turmoil.

Sounds like fun, doesn't it? It can make you wonder why we do what we do for a living.

Current Supreme Court legal decisions regarding use of force clearly give officers a great deal of latitude in their
rationale for employing such force. Officers have to make split-second judgements in tense and rapidly evolving
cirsumstances. Allowences need to be made. There is no place for armchair quarterbacking during the investigation
phase, as hindsight is 20/20. The same holds for the application of others' judgment in consideration of criminal
charges.

With all of this on your shoulders, your own personal safety and survival mentality is likely at the forefront of your mind. I
see videotapes of officers who were assaulted by inmates who, prior to the assualt, clearly signaled their intentions.
Sadly, these signals were either missed or ignored by the officers.

Why? Because too many officers harbor the "it can't happen to me" mentality.

Here, I present some verbal and non-verbal indicators that you can use in reports and throughout your daily activities.

Remember: Inmates will rarely attack you without letting you know what they plan to do. Their aggressive statements
are meant to prompt some sort of a response from you, hopefully fear and intimidation. Their ultimate goal is to have
you fear them and hold you as their pawn to move and place across the board as they want. Potential non-verbal pre-
attack signals need to be constantly observed and documented in your reports, as they will save your butt and prevent
your surprise injury.

If an inmate exhibits any one — or combination — of these, your hackles should go up:
 1. The individual may verbalize their intention: “I’m going to kick your ass!”

2. Their face may show tension and will tighten or twitch. The jaws and lips will tense into a biting position, as well as
quiver, and mouth will frown and tighten over the teeth.

3. Their body posture will display broadside, with their hands on their hips or clasped behind their head. They will take a
bladed boxers stance and will rock back and forth or bob up and down on the balls of the feet.

4. Their hands will pump and clench into a fist to the extent their knuckles will go white. Always look at their hands and
what they are doing with them.

5. They will deepen their voice tones and the volume increases. The more threatened or aggressive an individual
becomes, the lower, harsher and louder their voice — thus the bigger and tougher they seem. The deeper the voice,
the more authoritative they seem.

6. The eyebrows will come down as if to shield the eyes. This makes they look more aggressive.

7. The nostrils will flare and their breathing will become rapid and deep.

8. The individual will seem to be looking through you; their eyes become glazed over with an empty stare. The individual
will take on an uninterrupted stare with alternating eye stares and the eyelids will tighten down. They may attempt to
get chest to chest with you.

9. They may start sweating and beads of sweat will form on the forehead.

10. Eye blinking; the blink rate reflects psychological arousal. The normal blink rate is about 20 closures per minute.
Significantly faster rates may reflect emotional stress.

11. Individuals will show exaggerated movements such as pacing, finger pointing, and threatening fists with bent arms.
Their verbals will be relentless to get you to change your mind or change your last orders that have sent them over
the edge. They want to win the confrontation.

12. The individual may shed clothing such as taking off their shirts or jackets bend down and tighten their shoes or
remove items of value such as watches and hats and set them aside.

13. The individual will start to look around to assess witnesses, back-up available, escape routes or will start to target
glance at the places they want to strike on your person.

14. Vasodilatation and vasoconstriction or flushing of the face will also be evident at the tops of the ears by a darkening
redness due to the release of adrenaline and noradrenalin into the bloodstream.

The bottom line this: You need to do your job and keep yourself and other staff members safe while making good
decisions that you will be able to defend. Use these examples of inmates' threatening statements and behavior to make
the right decision and to justify your force response.

Remember, it is often not enough to do the right thing – you must be able to explain in your reports and testimony why
your actions were the right thing to do. Win the fight (force encounter) and then win the war (court decision). Do not take
it personally because it may not be. Think of the interaction as a game, they are on a team where they will be attempting
to circumvent your commands and resist your authority in every way. It is your job during the game to remain
professional and apply just enough pressure to accomplish the task without personal vendettas, abuse or attitude
toward the individual.
Dispelling myths about chemical aerosol Today's Top Stories

Friday, February 20, 2009

projectiles
• Civil Liability
Chemical aerosols are one of the most used and reliable force options inside a Seminar for
correctional facility. Throughout the last 17 years, they've given us a resonable Administration and
expectation for results, and they're easy to maintain and to deploy. Line Officers

Effects of Chemical Aerosols • Mo. sheriff helps

with inmate
When a subject is contaminated they will experience both a mental and physical release
effect of being contaminated from the aerosols. At times the mental effects can
outlast and be more intense than the physical effects. Chemicals have been use • Calif. inmate
throughout the world in many paralyzed in Taser
situations from training, incident sues
distracting, disabling, but,
more important, they are • Colo. fugitive
designed to create pauses in sentenced in life-
combat. changing crash

There are many phobias • Budget crunch

associated with being impacts prison time
contaminated with chemicals.
We see movies were people
are helpless, or even MORE ARTICLES
knocked out rendered
unconscious to where some Featured Columnists
show no signs of being
overwhelmed or effected. The
mere fact of being unable to
control how they are feeling
emotionally powerful and Answering
many times is responsible for the Call
the panic they feel. When you
mix this with the anxiety that with Barry
people have with the Evert
unknown and combine it with
the fear people have in • Mission change:
general losing the control,
Aligning yourself
you can get many different
with non-custody
types of responses and even panic. staff
When you add the mental effects a person will experience with the small physical
effects they can be overwhelming at times, and often incapacitating for some. The • Mass casualty:
effect may be either mental or physical, and in many cases, both. Corrections
officers as
One of the top human phobias in the world is the fear of not being able to breathe — secondary
suffocating, choking or gagging also factor into this. This fear is magnified when you responders
combine the person's inability to get control of their own breathing.

Facial burning is usually the first physical effect they feel. This normally occurs on
the soft tissue of the eye lids, eyes itself and eye brows, facial area, cheeks, ears
and neck usually any part of the skin the aerosol comes into contact with.
Women in
OC is classified as an
Corrections
inflammatory agent, meaning
it swells the surface it comes
into contact and causes with Laura
duress to the mucus Bedard,
membranes causing the Ph.D.
mucus to run from the nasal
passages. • How do I choose
between ant killer
OC Myths and underwear?
Running a prison
Here are a few questions on in tough economic
what OC really does: times

1. Does OC stop the

aggression of a charging
• In prison for the
holidays: A
subject?
management
approach to
a. No, OC creates pauses in combat that will allow the officer the ability to evaluate
Defending yourself from being choked
You are in a fight for your life with an inmate. He has you pinned against the wall and he is punching you and slamming
your head into the wall. You fall to the ground, and as he mounts you he wraps his hands around your neck and starts to
squeeze. Your movements become restricted and you experience blurry vision, a slight headache, shortness of breath,
tingling sensation to your legs, shoulders, knees, arms and finger tips. You realize you have a brief short moment of
opportunity to do something. What do you do?

Chokes are separated into two different categories:

1. Blood Choke — Pressure is |placed on |the cardiac and the

blood flow is slowed down, which affects the amount of oxygen
transported to the brain. When the level of oxygen needed for
brain support is reduced to a lower level the subject goes
unconscious.

a. The Rear Choke is an example of a blood choke. The inmate

positions themselves directly behind the officer and wraps one
of the arms with the forearm going around the front of the throat
of the officer, and then secured with the second hand.

2. Air Choke — this is when pressure is placed to the front of

the throat, or the mouth and nasal passage ways prohibiting
the needed oxygen to sustain human life. Examples include:

a. Front Hand Chokes — the inmate places their hand around

the front of the officer throat and squeezes.
b. Bar Arm Choke — the inmate uses their forearm or elbow to
apply pressure directly to the front of the throat area.
c. Smothering — the inmate uses either a pillow or soft materials or their body to place over the officer's face.
d. Strangulation — Parts of the officer’s clothing is twisted around the officer's neck.

Immediate Response to Chokes

• Remain calm. Panicking will not help you get out of this, and time is of the essence.
• Protect the airway. You need to release the grip from around your neck. If possible you can do what is called the
“Turtle Shell Technique,” this is what you tuck you chin down and raise your shoulders up to help support your neck.
• Stay focused on your objective. Chokes can be reapplied, so escape quickly and evaluate your force options.
• Survey the areas for possible weapons you can use or that they may have access to.
• If all else fails you can always try playing possum and
collapsing to go motionless and limp giving the inmate the
impression he succeeded.

Weapons of Opportunity

Let’s take a look at the possible weapons that may be available

to an officer who is being choked:

1. Biting whatever is in front of our mouth.

2. Your fingers into the inmates eyes.
3. Head butting with the back of your head.
4. Slamming their body into a wall or other hard objects like
door knobs, pay phones, rails to stairs etc..
5. Break anything within reach. This includes fingers, ankles,
knees, legs or toes.
6. Sticking your pen or other hard object into the inmates eyes
or throat area.
7. Changing your environment if you are standing and nothing
is working try going to the ground and using it as an impact
weapon, or down the stair case.
8. When all else fails goes completely limp, play possum and wait for an opening
In my last 25 years studying, researching, practicing and teach various forms of officer survival tactics I have learn one
important thing. "If you don’t train today for your opponent today you may be giving them a shot at the title tomorrow!"

Stay safe, stay strong and most importantly: Stay Alive!

Ground defense for correctional officers

There are many reasons for an officer in today's society to learn and become proficient in ground-defense techniques
and tactics.
When you hear the term ground fighting, certain names come to
mind: Ultimate Fighting Championship, Jujitsu, Judo, wrestling,
Mixed Marital Arts, etc.

All of these systems are very effective, and in their own unique
way meet the needs of correctional/law enforcement encounters.
However, we need to remember that in any sporting event or
fighting tournament there are always a few rules — Like no
biting, eye gouging, kicking to the groin. Also, the fighters aren't
wearing any tight-fitting uniforms, ballistic vests, duty belt or
firearm that will greatly limit the flexibility or the side the officer
may have to work with.

Any ground-fighting system you learn needs to be effective in

application and defensible in the courtroom. The system must also fit the needs of your administrations, and be
supported by departmental polices.

Reasons you get to the ground!

1. There's the most obvious: an officer has attempted to gain

control of a subject they are physically arresting, and the fight
has been taken to the ground.

2. An officer is contaminated with OC and distance is not an

option from the attacker, or when prying your eyes opens is
impossible.

3. When the officer is injured or too exhausted to continue their

fight on their feet. This is when a balanced, stable and protective
ground positions needs to be assumed. This is the same balance
needed when defending from a standing position.

It is important to remember when you are in a ground defense position to always provide cover to your head, heart,
spinal (vertebrae area), and weapon. We need to understand the reality of a ground-fighting encounter, and ask
ourselves a few important questions.

1. What is the goal of the subject when we go to the ground?

The primary goal of a subject who gets on top of an officer is to sit high up on their chest placing their knees high into
the shoulder well of the officer. This is when the subject raises their elbows higher than the officer's shoulders which
opens up the airway and makes the chest cavity and ribs weaker. This places the officer in a vulnerable position
because it's difficult for the officer to have easy access to their firearm and it places officers in respiratory distress.

This also places the officer in a very compromising position: Do they use both hands to protect their face, or their
firearm? Is it better to leave one exposed over the other?

Officer Action: Wiggle — this is a motion of rotating your hips from a 3-9 position to a 12-6 o'clock position.

2. What is the goal of the officer?

The primary goal of the officer while in a good, stable ground defense position is to keep the cutting edge of your palms
higher than your eyebrows, tuck your chin in to protect your neck, and ensure your elbows are tightly brought into the
chest area. This position will limit the subject's ability to get high up on the chest. Make sure that both of your feet are
bent at the knees and are flat on the ground.

Officer Action: Assume the ground guard position protecting your face, throat and weapon.

3. What are the officer's use of force options?

Going to the ground is usually when all standing efforts have been exhausted. The use and practice of deadly force
options need to be addressed and practiced by the officer. This should cover everything from their impact weapon,
firearm, and even empty hand techniques.

Officer's Action: Disengage, control, or deadly force if necessary. Remember to practice your force options.

4. At what stage is deadly force authorized?

The decision making process for any officer during a high risk situation or encounter is quick and often provides the
officer with little to no time.

Officer Action: When the officer feels their life is in imminent danger. We refer to this as the "30 second rule," which is
the amount of time that 85% of the officers on your department would have the mental and physical endurance to
identify and act on a survival level of proficiency, to survive a physical encounter.
Best practice for prisoner escort Today's Top Stories

Friday, February 20,

By Gary T. Klugiewicz 2009

Prisoner escort is an aspect of officer survival that is often overlooked, and with very
tragic consequences. It is part of the job that we do every day: Police officers escort
• Civil Liability
prisoners from the arrest scene to the squad, from the squad to the jail, from the jail Seminar for
to court, and back again. Administration
and Line Officers
Correctional personnel move prisoners constantly inside and outside of the jail, to
and from court, the hospital, and prison. We do it so often, without incident, that we
• Mo. sheriff helps
forget how dangerous and career-ending a prisoner escort “gone wrong” can be. with inmate
Nationally, we have seen the end results of poor tactics used on prisoner escorts, i.e., release
officers injured or killed, prisoners escaping, the public endangered, legal
consequences, bad press, and unneeded job stress. • Calif. inmate
paralyzed in Taser
Let’s review some of the components that make up “tactical” prisoner escort incident sues
procedures:
• Colo. fugitive
sentenced in life-
1. Check on prisoner’s background / threat level along with destination along / changing crash
route of travel prior to escorting the prisoner anywhere. Remember that a two-
officer escort is usually safer (when both officers stay alert) than a single officer • Budget crunch
escort because the officers can then apply the contact / cover tactic.
impacts prison
2. Check the restraints: The type should be based on the prisoner’s threat level. time
Make sure that they are in working order. Remember that a leg ironed prisoner
is moved most quickly and efficiently if placed in a wheel chair.
MORE ARTICLES
3. Apply the restraints properly and double-lock the restraints if that feature is
available. Remember: Handcuffs are temporary restraining devices that can be Featured Columnists
slipped if not applied properly—handcuffs need to be “just snug,” while
traditional leg irons need to be applied more loosely—especially if the prisoner is
expected to walk during the escort. Also, don’t assume that a leg ironed prisoner
can’t run—they practice running with a short rope tied between their feet. I am
not kidding—my department lost one this way. Legal
4. Search the prisoner properly for weapons, instruments of escape, and other Issues and
contraband. Remember that a thorough, complete search, including the crotch Concepts
area and shoes, is needed to insure that the prisoner is not allowed to hide
items that can be physically and legally dangerous to you. with Dr.
5. Evaluate the prisoner’s current physical condition / emotional state. Remember Darrell L.
that the best place stop a problem is before the escort begins. Trust your “gut” Ross
feelings and get more help prior to beginning the escort.
• Lessons learned
6. Once you begin the prisoner escort, while focusing on external threats, always
pay close attention to your prisoner, what the prisoner is doing, and what your from death in
prisoner is focusing on. detention by
alcohol
7. Stay close to the prisoner. Remember to walk behind the prisoner and adopt a intoxication
“hands on” approach to escorting a prisoner in order to avoid attempts by the
prisoner to assault you, flee from you, or fall down (which can lead to injuries to
the prisoner and a “beef” for you). • Use of force and
the mentally ill
8. Watch for suspicious actions. Remember that you have to be watching to see a
problem developing—tragic war stories often begin with these words, “I never
saw it coming. . .”
9. If the prisoner is ever out of your direct supervision / sight, search the prisoner •
again and check the restraints. Remember: “Trust is a wonderful thing, but it has
no place in law enforcement.” Don’t trust others with your safety. You can’t
check your prisoner or his/her restraints too often. Checking your prisoner and
his/her restraints is like an insurance policy—how much of a deductible can you
afford. Specialized
Training &
10. Remember when most escape attempts occur—near the end of the prisoner
Tactics
escort / transportation. You are starting to relax because you are almost safe
while the prisoner is often getting agitated because s/he is almost back inside a
secured facility. Here is the most dangerous time. In addition, when taking off with Dave
the restraints, don’t relax too soon. Officers can be assaulted after the restraints Young
are removed.
• Establishing gear
protocol

• K9 for use in
CERT and SORT
The use of less lethal weapons in corrections, Part 2 – Chemical
Agents
Part 2 of 4
Read full series

The use and effects of OC on individuals and the application

of riot control chemical agents on mobs in the streets have
been recently addressed in two excellent articles by Dave
Young on CorrectionsOne, and one by Steve Ijames on
PoliceOne. This article will address the employment of
blended agents (CS and OC) and the application of all
chemical agents in correctional disturbances and cell
extractions.
In 1998, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department started
replacing personal use OC with a CS/OC blended
agent manufactured by Aerko International called
Freeze Plus P. We also used the Aerko aerosol grenade, Clearout, as well as Aerko's handheld Mark IX canister called
Deep Freeze. All these products are room temperature aerosols that come out clear and thus do not present visibility or
decontamination problems like straight CS agents.

CS is classified as an irritant. The skin exposed to CS feels like it just received an instant sunburn and when inhaled CS
causes respiratory distress. Added to the inflammatory effects from OC, this combination is a nice double whammy that
has proven far more effective against individuals and large groups than OC alone. The 1999 study by Robert J.
Kaminski, Steven M. Edwards, and James W. Johnson on OC’s effectiveness stated that it was approximately 85%
effective using the most liberal definition of that term. [See, Assessing the Incapacitative Effects of Pepper Spray During
Resistive Encounters With Police, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 22 (1) (1999):
7–29.]

Our experience in Los Angeles indicates that adding CS to OC improves these numbers. There are still situations where
because of the physical design of a facility the use of blended agents is not practical and straight OC in large canisters
is still employed, however. Also, we have seen inmates suffering from mental illness on who blended agents have not
been effective, but for the most part using these products has yielded excellent results.

The LA County Sheriff Department’s cell extraction policy mandates that, except in emergent situations, chemical agents
shall be employed prior to using any other less lethal tools. If an inmate consents to being handcuffed and removed
after the application of a chemical agent, the situation is determined to be a cell removal and not a cell extraction. For
LASD force documentation this is a significant distinction, especially for LASD force documentation purposes.

Since the late 1990s, we have employed a number of different chemical agents including OC Foam, OC in a range of
different size canisters and Aerko’s blended agents. By far the blended agents have proven the most effective. Inmates
mask up as we do. This affords them some protection against OC, but is of little use against the smaller CS particles.
What has proven more effective for them is blocking the doors to the cells themselves and preventing the agent from
being introduced.

Ironically, the older facilities with cell bars are far more difficult to barricade against chemicals than newer facilities with
hard doors. Modern jails and prisons with hard doors and no cuffing ports are particularly vulnerable, but even those
with cuffing ports are susceptible to clever inmates who are well prepared. You will have to try what works best for you.

OC Foam
The photo above depicts an incident showing LASD’s first use of a MK 9 OC foam canister. This inmate broke out of
four point restraints. The foam succeeded in limiting his vision but due to his mental illness did not modify his behavior in
any other way. The belief of the deputies was that by using foam there would be no cross contamination so none of
them donned gas
masks. When the
inmate continued
his violent behavior
a 37mm .32 caliber
multi-ball projectile
was fired as the
team made entry
into the cell. All of
the deputies ended
up coughing on the
OC powder that
was atomized by
the smoke from the
black powder in the
munition. The effect
was not
incapacitating for the team, but they did learn a valuable lesson.

Large Canisters of OC
High volume canisters of OC are best used against crowds and in dorm disturbances, but they can be used in cell
extractions but only for area treatment. There is a twelve foot stand off distance for direct application on the MK 46 you
see being used in the cell extraction above. The concern is that a direct application of the agent to the face might result
in hydraulic needling and embed pepper particles in the eye. Though this has never happened, if you spray an inmate in
the face with a MK 46, you run that risk. A one second burst from a MK 46 dispenses four ounces of agent. If you
choose to use a MK 21 or MK 46 in a cell extraction aim well over the inmate’s head.

Encapsulated Munitions
Both Pepperball launchers and FN 303s can be used on individual targets to deliver kinetic energy, but for the purpose
of this article only their application as chemical weapon launching platforms will be discussed. The maximum effective
range of a Pepperball launcher for area treatment is 150 feet. The FN 303s maximum effective range against an
individual is 50 meters. Though the manufacturer does not have a maximum effective range for area treatment, suffice it
to say it is considerably longer than a Pepperball gun. The simple pros and cons between the two platforms as they
relate to their use for area treatment are: the FN 303 will give you more range and accuracy, but it has a fifteen round
magazine as contrasted with the Pepperball gun that has a hopper that can hold up to 160 rounds; the other big
difference is cost. Both the FN 303 and its ammunition are significantly more expensive than Pepperball launchers and
rounds.

Though encapsulated munition launchers can be used for area treatment, unlike certain large canisters of aerosol
agents, there is no formula to determine how many rounds will be necessary to achieve the desired effect. It is like
adding salt to your food; apply to taste. There is a psychological effect caused as rounds go whizzing over inmates’
heads and break against walls and ceilings or begin kicking up clouds of powder around their feet that cannot be
matched by aerosol agents. This is one advantage to their use.

When employed in a cell extraction, make sure to fire at the ceiling or against walls significantly over inmates’ heads and
let the powder rain down on them. You do not want to accidentally shoot someone in the eye. Used properly,
encapsulated munitions can be very effective for you. We have used them with great effect in dorm disturbances and
cell extractions in
LA County jails for
almost eight years.

CS/OC Blends
The incident dated
4:01:28 PM (right)
shows the direct
application of a
burst from an Aerko
Deep Freeze
canister. The
inmate being
sprayed tried to cut 4:01
a deputy with a
shank through the cuffing port in his cell. This 1998 incident is noteworthy for a couple of reasons. This two-man cell is
in a facility that opened in 1995. It has modern air handlers and the ability to vent air directly outside. The inmate who
attempted to shank the deputy told his cellmate what to expect based on his previous experience being extracted at
Men’s Central Jail, a facility built in 1963 that at the time had extremely limited ability to use blended agents because of
air handler issues. The inmate expected OC and used a towel as a mask against it. The blended agent was applied
through a tube in the Clearout canister as depicted in the two pictures on the right. The inmate with the shank yelled out,
“Death before dishonor,” as soon as the chemical began to be inserted in the cell.

It took about four minutes for dishonor to set in. This is important to note. Regardless of the setting, cell or dorm, you
need to give the inmates a few minutes to “cook” in the agent before determining whether it is achieving the desired
effect. After four minutes both inmates were both following orders and got down on the ground. At this point neither
inmate was yet directly sprayed with the agent. Once the inmates were both stripped down to their boxers and laying on
the ground, the sergeant directed that the cell door be opened and ordered the inmates to crawl out.

As soon as fresh air entered the cell the CS effects of the agent began to go away. The inmate hesitated to crawl out
and the sergeant ordered that he be sprayed directly. The inmate was quick to crawl out after that. The effects of the
blended agent on the inmate who received direct application lasted for almost an hour. His partner who received only
area treatment exposure was fine within a matter of a few minutes. Once you leave the chemical environment the
incapacitating effects of the blended agent go away rapidly. Inmates must be handcuffed when they are still inside it. If
this is not done, they will be ready to fight again. I was part of a cell extraction team where the decision was made not to
enter the cell because the inmate flooded it with water. Instead he was
permitted to crawl out to the team. Once he left the cell, the fight was on. Go
in and get them.

Using Aerko’s blended agents in a dorm disturbance also is helpful for

another reason. The manufacturer has a very simple formula for determining
incapacitation concentration in time (ICT). All you need to know is the volume
of the room or dorm where you intend to employ the agent. Length x width x
height gives you that number in case you forgot your basic math. Then divide
that number by 6,000. That will tell you how many of the 6.5 ounce canisters
need to be introduced so that within one minute every inmate in the effected
area is experiencing the effects of the agent.

One other thing. There is no need to throw the cans into the area. In fact, this is a bad idea. Inmates will learn quickly
that these cans are cold and will cover them up with mattresses or defeat them in some other way. Simply have your
personnel hold them in their hands, push down the tops and within twenty-eight seconds the agent will be dispensed.
Let the laws of physics work for you. The vapor from the canisters will fill up the space. If you have bars, a sally port, or
cuffing or firing ports into the given area, introducing the chemical should not be a problem. In a pinch you can use the
MK IX Deep Freeze containers. There is almost three times the amount of agent in these.

What to expect
Remember, when we use any less lethal weapons or chemical agents we are trying to create a tactical break in our
adversary’s behavior. If the employment of chemical agents convinces inmates to stop their behavior and follow orders,
that’s great, but be prepared to move onto other tactics.

In a dorm disturbance most inmates are waiting for us to do something so they have an excuse to quit fighting. Most
participate because if they don’t they will be regulated later by their own. You can introduce chemicals quickly while your
team is forming up. This both gives the chemical time to modify the inmates’ behavior and gives you time to put together
a better response. Remember, that when large quantities of chemical agents are employed it is imperative to wear a gas
mask. Chemical agents are an equal opportunity giver. Supervisors are usually the ones most reluctant to don masks,
but though chemicals seem to be only about 85 to 90% effective against bad guys they are just about 100% effective
against us.

Read Part 3: The Use of Less Lethal Weapons in Corrections — Electronic Control Devices

The Use of Less Lethal Weapons in Corrections – Part 3 Electronic

Control Devices
Part 3 of 4
Read full series

People respect and fear electricity. Who has not received a small jolt on a dry day from a door knob or even from the
touch of a loved one? This passing familiarity with electricity has bred contempt. While it is true that groups like Amnesty
International and the ACLU are taking a run at all less lethal weapons, the one that is most often in their crosshairs are
Electronic Control Devices (ECDs).

For that reason we must have a thorough understanding of what these devices do, what they don’t do, and when it is
best to use them.

There are several different types of electronic control devices. Most of them are better suited for a correctional
environment or courts than they are for patrol. The use of ECDs in patrol is almost exclusively about apprehension, but
many ECDs serve other functions. Currently, ECDs can be broken down into the following categories: cuffs and belts,
shields and hand-held devices.

All ECDs generate between 40,000 to 80,000 volts, though this much voltage does not enter the body. To the
electronically illiterate brought up on misleading warning signs that read, “Danger! High Voltage,” this seems like a high
number. But high voltage does not kill. High amperage kills. All these devices generate a negligible amount of
amperage. In that regard they are similar, but the technology in TASER International’s devices is significantly different
from that in all other ECDs.
All less lethal weapons use pain compliance in an effort to modify behavior. The biggest advantage to any ECD is that
its effects end almost immediately after the weapon is deactivated. Impact munitions can cause significant injuries.
Chemical agents are the gift that keeps on giving. It is rare when exposure to an ECD results in more serious injury than
minor skin irritation. And, despite claims to the contrary, they have not been shown in research or field applications to
cause death.

So which ECD should you use? And when should you use it?

Cuffs and belts

These tools are primarily used for prisoner escort and transportation. They are remotely operated and thus provide the
advantage of standoff distance between the inmate and the deputy or officer manning the controls.

These devices deliver pain to sensory nerves. In that regard they are effective. The question is when should you use
them? Every agency sets its own standards for the use of force. Still, when a suspect is already in handcuffs or other
restraints the perception is that he is under control. All of us on this side of the badge know that a person in handcuffs
still poses a potential threat.

Some inmates are so violent they are always transported in manacles, ride in a safety chair and wear a spit mask.
Would you ever apply a jolt from a shock belt or cuff to a man so secured? Unless he is breaking out of those restraints,
I hope your answer is no. Common sense dictates that an inmate in restraints needs to act out in a manner far more
significantly than a non-secured inmate prior to the application of force.

Unfortunately, common sense is not always common. In July 1998 an inmate facing trial for his third strike was seated in
a Southern California courtroom wearing a shock belt. The suspect was speaking out of turn and angering the judge. He
refused to be quiet when ordered to do so. Frustrated with this behavior, the judge ordered her bailiff to activate the
shock belt. The sheriff’s deputy followed the order of his judge and the suspect received an eight second jolt that
stopped his disrespectful behavior. It also effectively ended the shock belt as a tool for my department.

Be careful when and how you use these devices. Also, be mindful that though delivering pain to sensory nerves is
almost always effective against law enforcement personnel in training demonstrations, focused aggressors can fight
through pain. Be prepared to

follow up your use of these

devices with control techniques
or other tools.

Shields
The electronic shield comes in
one of two types: convex for riots
and concave for capture. In other
words, concave electronic
shields are for pushing and
convex shields are for pinning.
Shields are typically seen as
defensive. Having an electronic
component to a shield gives it an
offensive bite. However, the use
of any shields, whether equipped
with an electronic capability or
not, is limited.

The Nova Electronic shield

produces 75,000 volts at 17 to
22 pulses per second. Throttling
the shield produces a crackling,
popping and arcing that has a
wonderful intimidating factor.
This may be the tools strength
against less than committed
inmates. You throttle this a time
or two with a fully suited up
extraction team nearby and you may not need to do the extraction. The problem comes when you actually enter the cell.

If an inmate is so focused that they do not care what less lethal tool you employ, then one shield is a lot like any other.
And in a cell extraction the role of the shield is primarily to drive an inmate against a wall and then pin him while the
takedown team moves in. Once the inmate is on the ground the shield is removed. There is no other way to secure the
inmate.
The dynamics of a riot or disturbance in corrections is different than one on the street. Inmates are always confined,
whether it is by a dorm, dayroom, yard or other area. In most jail riots the majority of inmates do not want to be there
and are waiting for the intervention of staff to give up.

If multiple inmates are still acting out when staff appear, you are going to employ less lethal tools that give you the
greatest standoff distance and flexibility. Shields do not give you that. If you use them at all, you are again going to want
to use the convex capture shields so you can both deflect thrown objects and then pin inmates when the tables turn.
Due to the inherently defensive nature of shields the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department almost never uses them during
jail disturbances. I would be
interested to hear what
success any of you have
had with ECD shields in
inmate disturbances.

Hand-held devices

There are a few competing

hand-held ECDs on the
market today, but only
TASER International’s M26
and X26 do more than
attempt to modify an
inmate’s behavior with pain.
Pain is a great motivator. But chemicals, alcohol and adrenalin can reduce pain’s motivating qualities. There is also a
small portion of very scary humans out there who are almost impervious to pain. The M26 and X26 impact both the
sensory and motor nerves. They cause the muscles between the area impacted by the darts to lockup. Probe to skin
contact is not even required for this to occur.

Hand-held TASERs can be used in numerous situations within jails and prisons, but in order for them to be most
effective they must be routinely deployed. Do not lock them away in an armory and only break them out in emergencies.
Some times just removing a TASER from its holster, taking off the cartridge and pulling the trigger in a spark
demonstration is enough to modify an inmate’s behavior and gain compliance before a situation gets out of hand. But
this can’t happen if they are kept in an armory.

Inmate fights and aggression against staff

This one is a no-brainer, but there are a few things to consider. Back and leg shots are best because they involve larger
muscle groups. Also, try to achieve a probe spread of at least four inches to ensure a sufficient lockup of the muscles to
cause incapacitation. If the dynamics of the situation dictate a close probe shot the probe separation may not be wide
enough to cause incapacitation.

If the inmate is not incapacitated and is still a threat, you can apply a drive stun with the cartridge still attached to
increase the effectiveness. This is called a close probe spread with a drive stun follow up because you have two darts in
the inmate and the two contacts on the TASER Cartridge affecting another part of the body. This should increase the
effectiveness and may cause incapacitation.

The further apart the probes strike the inmate the more effective they will be. If you miss with one of the probes, you can
apply a drive stun leaving the TASER Cartridge attached. The attached TASER Cartridge will act like the second probe
completing the circuit and should cause incapacitation. This is called a one probe hit with a drive stun follow up. In this
case push the inmate away from you, reload a second cartridge and fire again.

If two inmates are fighting and are in contact with each other, it is possible to affect both inmates with one TASER
Cartridge. You may need to turn the TASER slightly to ensure that the top dart contacts one inmate and the lower dart
the other. Since they are touching each other the circuit will be completed between them. This is very effective and I
have seen it work on multiple occasions.

Cell extractions
During cell extractions inmates usually don their own makeshift protective gear or cover up with a mattress. This makes
firing the darts problematic. You may need to employ other less lethal tools such as distraction devices to create an
opening to fire the TASER. If this fails, using the TASER with the cartridge removed may be an option.

There are two schools of thought on drive stuns in cell extractions. One employs the cartridge and darts. The other does
not. If you use the TASER without employing the cartridge, you will not be locking up the muscles of the inmate. Unless
you are lucky enough to find a pressure point (not an easy thing to do in a confined space with numerous staff members
and a twisting fighting suspect) all you are doing is applying pain and inflicting a visible injury or injuries to the inmate’s
skin as you wrestle him into submission.

Attempt a close probe shot with a drive stun follow up leaving the cartridge attached.

In this case fire the darts into one of the inmate’s upper legs or thighs, then drive stun the lower portion of the opposite
leg. This should lock up his entire lower body. I prefer this method, but in a recent incident at my jail where numerous
inmates in one man cells were extracted the supervisors on the scene felt the space was too confined and the wires
would come in contact with the extracting deputies. So they opted for drive stuns without the cartridges.

It worked for them and the inmates I spoke to afterward told me that it was very effective. If the situation presents itself,
try both methods and see what works best for you.

Prisoner escorts and transportation

Again, before attaching any ECD to an inmate we are assuming that he is high risk and or extremely recalcitrant and is
handcuffed whenever he is escorted. There are advantages and disadvantages to using the TASER in prisoner escorts
and transportation. The disadvantages are you must be in close proximity to the inmate and there will be trailing wires
attached to him so the fact that he is hooked up to the TASER cannot be concealed. The advantage to using the TASER
is that unlike with other ECDs activating the TASER can cause incapacitation in addition to causing pain.

To use the M26 or X26 as an escort tool you must use the special training cartridge pictured above. This cartridge is
equipped with thick insulated wires with alligator clips at the end. Affix the alligator clips to the inmate and tape them
down to ensure the inmate does not shake them loose. If the inmate begins to resist or attempts to break free, the
TASER can be activated to help achieve control. Hopefully, this activation alone will modify the inmate’s behavior
enough for you to gain control, but again be prepared to go to hands on and the application of some other form of
restraint.

Inmate countermeasures
Inmates who have experience with the TASER may attempt to defeat it in a number of ways. Covering up works in cell
extractions, but is less effective when they are out in the open. Another technique they have tried is whirling towels or
clothing in front of them like a propeller in an effort to deflect the darts and wires. Attempt to flank the inmate with a
second TASER in this situation. But even if one is not immediately available, while an inmate is spinning his makeshift
propeller he is not aggressing you and other staff can respond to your aid.

After a good dart hit is made every effort should be made to end an inmate’s aggressive behavior while the TASER is
still activated. This is referred to as handcuffing under power. When the trigger on an M26 or X26 is pulled the weapon
launches the darts and the device is activated for a five second cycle.

Bad guys have learned this, too. Many have learned to tough out those five seconds and then attempt to defeat the
device by breaking the wires either by rolling or grabbing them before the TASER can be reactivated. The best way to
prevent this is to control/cuff the inmate during the 5 -second cycle, if possible.

Unless you and your partners are calf roping champions this is highly unlikely, however. Keeping the trigger depressed
past the 5 - second cycle extends the cycle until the trigger is released. This should thwart the inmate’s efforts to attempt
this countermeasure, be prepared to justify this non-standard longer cycle in your force documentation.

Guarding against abuse

Some jails and prisons have stopped using ECDs because of allegations of abuses and misuses of them in the past.
These abuses predated the M26 and X26. Both of these devices record their firing data. In the case of the X26, the
date, time and duration of activation is logged.

This data is encrypted and cannot be manipulated. Also, in 2006 TASER came out with the TASER CAM. This infrared
camera is mounted to the base of an X26, can work in zero light, if necessary, and begins recording as soon as the
weapon is taken off safe. These features both guard against claims of abuse and in the case of the TASER CAM can
document an inmate’s behavior prior to the activation of the TASER. I have used the TASER CAM many times without
ever firing the TASER to document an inmate’s actions. All the black and white photos in this article with XCE000139 in
the bottom left hand corner are from my TASER CAM.

Conclusion
ECDs are an effective tool for use in corrections, but even the M26 and X26 are still transitioning tools, not finishing
techniques. Do not expect the application of an ECD to end your problem. You still need to be ready to move in and
secure the inmate to end the behavior that caused you to employ the ECD in the first place. Still, the M26 and X26 are
as close to phasers on stun as we are likely to get in law enforcement. Make sure you employ all ECDs wisely.
The Use of Less Lethal Weapons in Corrections, Part 4 –
Distraction Devices
Part 4 of 4
Read full series

Recently, I was contacted by a couple of agencies who

do not have Noise Flash Distraction Devices (NFDDs)
and are convinced that they are the one tool they need
to add to their arsenals to solve various problems in
their facilities. As those of you who have them know, this
is a wildly optimistic expectation of the capabilities of
these devices.

The truth is that NFDDs have their role to play, but they
need to be incorporated into a larger tactical plan and
there are even times when their use may be
counterproductive. NFDDs can be an effective tool in
dealing with jail disturbances and cell extractions, but
they are not without their detractors and their use comes
with some risk.

Also, all NFDDs are not created equal. Their performance can vary significantly from one manufacturer to another and
from one device to another.

Distraction devices come in two types: those that produce sound and light only and those that also eject either
chemicals or projectiles. For ease of discussion I will refer to these as Flash Bangs and Projectile/Chemical Grenades.

NFDDs have both a physiological and psychological effect on those against whom they are used. No other less lethal
device has the potential to impact all of the body’s five senses like NFDDs. The combination of effects: sound, usually
165 dB or more; light, usually 1.8 candela or more; the smell and taste of smoke; along with the pressure wave of
energy striking the skin; is enough to cause a sensory overload for anyone in the immediate proximity of the blast.

This sensory overload varies greatly from person to person and from device to device. Some people can be frozen in
place for several seconds. Others are merely disoriented. Still others may show little or no effect. The psychological
effect also varies greatly. On one extreme you may have panic, not likely, on the other only mild annoyance.

Regardless of the reaction these devices have on inmates do not expect their use alone to turn all violent inmates into
compliant ones. In keeping with the philosophy for the use of all less lethal weapons, they are still only a transitioning
tool not a finishing technique.

To maximize the effect of NFDDs it is imperative to make a tactical entry immediately after their introduction. The two
most common mistakes when using them in a cell extraction is waiting to see what the inmate’s reaction will be before
taking action or not taking advantage of the inmate’s disorientation to use another less lethal tool.

For example, if an inmate is holding a mattress in front of him, the introduction of an NFDD may cause him to
experience enough disorientation to lower it. This is your opportunity to hit him with a TASER or an impact munition
before making entry. You might not want to use a NFDD in a cell at all. It depends entirely on the design of your facility.

If you have extremely small single man cells with open bars, your team might be more affected by the device than the
inmate who barricaded himself inside. You need to know your physical plant.

A common mistake made in disturbances is attempting to bomb the inmates into submission. This is not only a poor
tactic, but it is dangerous because most of the inmates immediately go to the ground when grenades are employed.
Since the odds on achieving an aerial burst indoors are slim, most grenades explode on the ground. The chance to
cause serious injury to a compliant inmate is magnified when throwing volley after volley of NFDDs into a disturbance
without introducing a tactical team. A team must enter and those still fighting can then be shot with whatever impact
munition you have at your disposal.

The arguments most often voiced for the bombing into submission tactic is that the inmates erected barricades to
prevent the use of directed impact munitions, or supervisors do not want to put their personnel in harm’s way. These
arguments do not fly. If inmates erect barricades, then select the proper rounds to shoot around them or through them.
And we get paid to swim in dangerous waters. Failure to take action out of fear speaks to a failure to adequately train.
We have a duty to protect inmates who are being assaulted by their fellow inmates. Failure to do so opens us up to
litigation.

All tactical situations are unique. I am not advocating a rash entry that does not consider proper tactics and avenues of
escape should the situation dictate a tactical withdrawal. But to stand outside and expect your problem to be solved by
hurling in NFDD after NFDD is not a wise course of action.

ALS Technologies includes the following warning when

describing the use of their sting ball grenade: “Higher power
factors may produce lethal trauma when vital areas are struck
and energy imparted exceeds 90 foot pounds by causing
massive skull fractures, rupture of vital organs, heart
compression and/or serious skin lacerations. Normal use may
result in contusions, abrasions, broken ribs, concussions and
damage to eyes.”

As my agency has unfortunately witnessed on more than one

occasion, NFDDs are also an effective way to remove tattoos.
Second and third degree burns are possible.

Unless NFDDs are the only less lethal weapons you have with
you and the situation you are facing calls for deadly force, I
would strongly recommend against the bombing-into-submission
tactic. The potential for injury inherent in routine use is often
enough to give jail and prison administrators pause in deploying
them to begin with. Employ proper tactics when you have them.

It is also important to determine which NFDD works best for your

facility. What is fine for use in an outdoor yard may be too powerful for use in a cell. NFDDs have between 8 to 15
grams of flash powder and generate sound usually between 165 dB to 174 dB. That is extremely loud.

A 727 jet generating 15,000 pounds of thrust produces 165 dB. And consider this, with every three decibels sound
doubles. Do you really want to throw a NFDD into a confined space that even when tested outdoors at three feet from
the blast generates 174 dB? The reverberations off of the walls will magnify that sound.

If you are not currently using NFDDs, you should procure an Anderson Blasgage from Defense Technologies and test
the various products out there and see what works for you. Also, at 180 dB hearing tissue dies. Just how loud do you
want to get?

Flash Bangs or Projectile/Chemical Grenades - When choosing your NFDDs consider your end state. What do you want
the problem to look like when it is finished? The introduction of all NFDDs against groups will accomplish a few things
for you.

First, they will separate the hardcore players from the peripheral
ones. Keeping the idea of the escalation of force in mind, the
introduction of chemicals should almost always be your first less
lethal move. This may cause a few fringe players to drop out, but
NFDDs will really separate the wheat from the chaff. Most inmates
will hit the deck in anticipation of your entry after their introduction.

The NFDDs will also generate a cloud of smoke. There are pros
and cons to this. Smoke will help keep your chemical agents
airborne longer, especially OC. It will also cause irritation to the
inmates. But it will hinder your visibility and whatever irritates an
inmate bothers staff more. A fire danger exists with all NFDDs. Their
flash temperature is approximately 5,000 degrees.

But which type of NFDD is best? The answer is that depends on

your needs. If you select a chemical grenade, hopefully this is not
the only chemical you will be introducing into your problem.

If the chemical contents of the grenade are intended to augment

what you already introduced, then go for it. But to use chemical
grenades as the only means of disbursing chemicals is probably a
mistake.
LASD statistics show that the majority of the nearly 800 disturbances we have experienced over the last decade were
resolved with verbal commands and chemical agents alone. Only after these fail do we introduce NFDDs. The area
treatment of chemicals is a less significant use of force. Start there then go to the NFDDs with or without chemicals
added!

The truth about sting ball grenades is that they really don’t sting. The balls go every which way and have a very limited
impact. Don’t expect them to knock anybody down. Outside of a cell they are more annoying than anything else. Even
inside a cell, inmates who don protective gear are rarely impacted by them, but the potential does exist that they might
put someone’s eye out.

If I were putting together a tactical team from scratch, I would select a flash bang type NFDD with a decibel level
compatible with all areas of my facility. If I had a fully dedicated tactical team that trained frequently, then I might
consider more than one type of device.

Know your facility and select what works best for you.

The Use of Less

Lethal Weapons in
Corrections, Part 5 —
Impact Weapons
At the high end of less lethal force
options are weapons whose primary
function is to deliver kinetic energy. The problem with these weapons and munitions is that there are
almost too many to choose from.

You have your choice of .68 caliber, 12 gauge, 37mm or 40mm platforms. Some have rifled barrels.
Some are smooth bore. These weapons can fire baton rounds (made of foam, plastic, rubber,
Styrofoam or wood), drag-stabilized, fin-stabilized, pads (rectangular or round), pellets (large or
small), or encapsulated rounds that can be filled with everything from chemical agents to marking
dyes. And most of these rounds can be fired with either black powder or smokeless powder.

It would be easy to get swallowed up in this subject. The easiest way to approach it is to look at
what your needs are and how impact weapons will fit into your overall tactical strategy.

There are really only two types of problems in corrections where impact weapons are likely to come
into play: disturbances and cell extractions. You could add hostage situations, but they are rare and
a unique animal that call for the introduction of deadly force and SWAT tactics which are beyond the
scope of this series. That said if impact weapons are to be used in disturbances and cell extractions,
then what is their role and how do they fit in with the other tools we have already discussed?

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department jail disturbance statistics over the past decade show that
impact weapons are the least likely tool that will be employed. They are used less than ten percent
of the time. Verbal commands and chemical agents along with a show of force end most
disturbances.

Should this prove insufficient a volley of noise/flash distraction devices followed by the limited
introduction of a response team is usually enough to bring the situation to a satisfactory end. In less
than one in ten incidents are inmates still standing after a team makes entry and refuse to
surrender. These inmates are the ones volunteering to be shot with impact weapons. These are
usually the shot-callers. So I like to think of impact weapons as shot-caller removal tools.

The question now is what weapon do you want to fire that is the most reliable and can deliver the
most accurate round. Also, what is the effective range of that round? Some 37mm rounds claim to
be accurate up to 100 meters. This is great if, A: the inmate stands still and waits for the round to
reach him, B: nobody else steps in the way and takes the hit before the round gets there and C: your
personnel train regularly with these weapons and practice taking these long shots, often from
elevated platforms such as guard towers, under stress. For these reasons shots beyond 50 meters
are highly problematic. This is still a long distance and is well beyond what will be required in almost
all indoor problems.

Ken Hubbs’s and David Klinger’s study for the National Institute of Justice on the use and effects of
impact munitions found that 88% of field encounters occur at less than 40 feet and 70% occur at
less than 30 feet. This report was also significant for it showed that in 60% of incidents the firing of a
second round was required to achieve incapacitation. No comparable study of impact weapons in a
correctional setting has been done, but it is likely that the average distances for use in corrections
are similar. Uses in cell extractions are more numerous than those in jail disturbances and no doubt
negate the longer shots taken in yard disturbances. This, of course, is the shortcoming of drawing
conclusions from averages. You know best the situations you are likely to encounter and should
select your weapons and ammo based on the scenarios you most probably will encounter.

Using impact weapons in cell extractions presents a different set of problems. The maximum
effective range is not the primary concern. The minimum safe distance the round can be fired is the
issue? Also, is a shot available in the target area recommended by the manufacturer for that given
round? Most manufacturers are now recommending that center mass shots be avoided and
ordnance be fired waist or below, or at the extremities. The use of impact weapons in cell
extractions is also complicated by the fact that most inmates are aware of our tactics and barricade
their cells and don their own makeshift protective gear. Almost all less lethal rounds will be defeated
by a jail mattress.

There is a temptation to want to shoot the mattress out of an inmate’s hands, but this should be
avoided. If an inmate plays peek-a-boo with his mattress at the wrong moment, the chance of
shooting him in the face arises. The best way to create a shot in the cell when an inmate is holding a
mattress is to introduce a Noise Flash Diversionary Device and then take the shot in the window of
opportunity that is created when the inmate is disoriented and lowers his protective barrier. The
introduction of chemical agents or Pepperball rounds may create this effect, as well, but an NFDD is
more likely to yield positive results.

A Few Things That Are Good to Know

Kinetic Energy
As stated above, the primary function of impact weapons is to deliver kinetic energy. It is important
to understand what kinetic energy is to help do your assessment on which platform and round or
rounds will work best for you. The nice thing about kinetic energy is that it can be reduced to an
easy to understand math formula. KE = (1/2)(M/G)V². M is the weight of the projectile. G is its
acceleration due to gravity, i.e., 32.2 ft/sec. And V is the velocity of the projectile in feet per second
squared. The heavier the object and the faster it is traveling the more kinetic energy it has.

Blunt Trauma, Penetrating Trauma and Fluid Shock

When an impact projectile strikes the body the goal is transfer enough kinetic energy through blunt
trauma to incapacitate an inmate without causing penetrating trauma that may kill him. Remember,
incapacitation means causing a tactical break in an inmate’s behavior. This does not mean turning
him completely compliant. The blunt trauma caused by these rounds will cause some injury. Though,
if fired correctly and from the correct distances, they should not cause penetrating trauma that will
make them lethal.

A round does not need to penetrate the body to kill, however. The energy that is transferred from
the projectile into the body is known as fluid shock. In July 2007 Mike Coolbaugh, the batting coach
for the minor league Tulsa Drillers, was struck and killed by a line drive while standing in the first
base coach’s box. As a result, all major league coaches are now mandated to wear batting helmets
while coaching the bases.

A small or frail individual is far more likely to sustain significant injury due to fluid shock. That is one
reason why aim points are so critical and is also why most manufacturers are recommending the
waist and below and the extremities as targets for munitions instead of center mass when firing
munitions delivering significant amounts of kinetic energy. Fluid shock on high energy rounds fired
center mass can and have stopped hearts. When they strike an inmate in the head
they can have the same result that they did on baseball field in

Tulsa.
Penn Arms
PGL65-40
One fatality resulted in Boston from an FN303 round that was fired indiscriminately
(40mm)
into a crowd of rowdy Red Sox fans celebrating the team’s historic comeback from
a three game deficit against the hated Yankees in the 2004 league championship series. The round
penetrated the eye of sixteen year old girl Victoria Snelgrove, an innocent bystander in the crowd,
and killed her. Some early less lethal shotgun rounds that were not drag stabilized also caused
penetrating trauma.

Some of these rounds are still out there and should be avoided. When fired properly, from the right
distance, with due consideration to aim point, the majority of less lethal impact munitions will be
effective and not lethal.

Trajectory Degradation

Based on the kinetic energy formula above it is clear

that the amount of energy delivered to a target varies
based on the distance a shooter is from an inmate. This
is known as trajectory degradation. Another concern
impact munitions is that some of it can be lethal at or
near the muzzle. It is critical to follow the
recommendations for minimum firing distances given
by the manufacturers. The area where a particular
piece of ordnance is no longer lethal to where it is no
longer effective is called the “sweet spot.” Each
munition has a different “sweet spot” and the “sweet Penn Arms SL-6 (37mm)
spot” of similar rounds can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.

In 2000 the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, in a joint venture with Penn State University’s
Institute for Nonlethal Defense Technologies, conducted testing on 79 different impact munitions.
The results of that study showed that drag-stabilized munitions have the greatest amount of
trajectory degradation and fin-stabilized and rectangular pads were next.

Direct Fire vs. Skip Fire

Some ordnance can only be direct fired. Some can only be employed safely when skip fired. Some
can be used both ways. Does this matter? Skip firing is required for wooden baton munitions. It is
recommended for foam and rubber batons and it maximizes the effect of multiple pellet munitions.
The LASD/Penn State study showed that by skip firing multiple pellet rounds the beaten zone is
halved and saturation is doubled and as much or more energy is generated as direct firing. Rounds
kept a tighter pattern and hit harder. When skip firing at close range there is a risk that ricochets can
hit the response team. Wooden baton rounds fired indiscriminately can cause serious injury. It would
be prudent to avoid them.

Accuracy
Munition accuracy varies widely from round to round. Again the LASD/Penn State study revealed that
56% of the rounds tested could not reliably hit a man-sized target at 25 yards. The most accurate
rounds tested at near range were drag-stabilized. The most accurate at far range were bladder
bullets and sponge rounds. This testing was conducted prior to the availability of the FN303. So the
munitions fired from this very accurate weapons platform were not tested.

37mm vs. 40mm

The oldest impact weapons in our armories are the 37s. These come with a single
shot five or six round magazine. Some have smooth bore barrels others are rifled. TAC700
If your agency has not committed to either platform, go with the 40s. All the Pepperball Gun,
research and development dollars are being spent on 40mm platforms because above, and FN
that is what the Department of Defense wants for the military. Herstal FN303

The 40mm platforms are also more versatile and allow you to fire just about everything through
them. You will need at least two different 37mm platforms to accomplish a mission that can be
accomplished by one 40mm. What you lose with the 40mm is that the size of the magazine will not
permit you to fire eight inch projectiles and the maximum range of projectiles is about 40 yards. But
as was noted above, it is highly unlikely that you are going to hit a moving target while under stress
at distance with a round that travels at only about 325 feet per second.

Pepperball Guns vs. the FN303

Both of these weapons used compressed air to launch their munitions, but their similarities almost
end at this point. The maximum effective range of a Pepperball round against a target is 60 feet
while the FN303 is effective out to 50 meters. A Pepperball round strikes with 10 to 12 foot pounds
of energy. The FN303 round packs a 16 to 24 foot pound wallop.

A Pepperball gun does have a 250 round hopper contrasted with the 15 round magazine in the
FN303, so more rounds are available, but the FN303 is the most accurate of all impact weapons. Its
munitions are fin-stabilized. Pepperball rounds are subject to the elements. The FN303 can also be
outfitted with an EO Tech holographic site to even increase its accuracy.

For area treatment of chemicals the Pepperball gun is the clear winner, but if it is your intention to
deliver kinetic energy on a target the FN303 is the superior weapon. The new generation TAC 700
Pepperball gun provides the option of three preset modes: single, three burst and full automatic.

I would caution against the full auto setting, but the three burst mode is very effective. There are
pros and cons to both weapons platforms as a kinetic energy platform. The deal breaker for the
FN303 for many agencies may be its cost and the bum rap it got because of Victoria Snelgrove’s
death in Boston.

Less Lethal Shotguns

The safe minimum distance for less lethal shotgun munitions is too great for use in cell extractions
or close quarters engagements. This is also the platform that has killed more than any other,
although that had as much to do with the type of round originally used as the platform itself. Still,
due to the long minimum range for the munitions its use in a custodial setting is limited. With this in
mind it would be best to keep these weapons outside and on the street and deploy one or more of
the less lethal platforms described above inside jails and prisons.

Black Powder vs. Smokeless Munitions

Munitions employing black powder have a louder report, produce a bigger kick and generate an
impressive tongue of flame. They are not as accurate as smokeless rounds and cause far more
fouling of the barrel requiring more cleaning. The big bang a black powder round generates is
impressive, but the accuracy of the smokeless rounds makes more sense.

The World in Which We Live

In a perfect world we would have all the response team personnel we want armed with whatever
weapons we deem they need and constantly train them to respond to all our tactical problems. We
all know this will never happen. In the world in which we do live we need to keep things as cost
effective and easy to train as possible.
Simplicity is one of General JFC Fuller’s nine principles of war. Impact weapon platforms and
munition options are numerous. Unless you can afford to keep and train a response team to almost
SWAT levels, do not overwhelm yourself and your personnel with too many weapons and different
types of munitions. One training adage states, “You can train to a higher level than you can
maintain.” Keep this in mind when selecting your impact weapon platforms and munitions.

If you can only afford to purchase and train on one platform, I would recommend the six shot 40mm.
An EO Tech holographic site is also available for this weapon, though the bead site it comes with is
very good. The 40mm offers almost all the different munition options you should need. The 40mm
eXact impact sponge round hits with 80 to 108 foot pounds of energy and is effective out to 120
feet. This round is a great option. For times when you might need to engage multiple targets at
once, or it might be necessary to skip rounds around a barricade, multiple pellet rounds or foam
rounds are also available to accomplish this mission. I would load only one type of munition in a
weapon at one time, however. This will require you to have at least two weapons available, but this
is still your most cost effective option.

If you can afford to purchase and train on additional platforms, consider the FN303 for longer shots.
The Tac 700 version of the Pepperball gun is also another good support weapon because it gives you
the ability to saturate an area with OC in addition to giving you secondary kinetic support, but its
uses as an impact weapon outdoors and at distances is limited.

Remember, in keeping with the overarching philosophy for less lethal weapons use, impact weapons
are only part of a larger tactical plan and their effects need to be reversible over time. The use of
impact weapons may temporarily take down a shot-caller or clear an area of inmates, but some
other tactic must ensue to end your problem and shot placement is critical to ensure that use of
these weapons does not result in serious injury. Take a good hard look at all the weapons and
munitions out there before deciding what works best for you.