Control Holds

The ultimate goal of any use of force by police is to establish control. At its lowest level control might be achieved merely through officer presence or verbal persuasion. Most citizens, upon seeing a police officer, cease engaging in criminal activity, at least while the officer remains on scene.

On the other end of the control spectrum would be the use of deadly force, or force likely to result in death or serious bodily injury.

As police officers, we commonly find ourselves on a middle ground of sorts. In other words, it might take more than arriving on scene and giving verbal commands to take the belligerent drunk into custody but we're probably not going to have to shoot him.

To take a suspect into custody or overcome resistance, many police officers are taught joint manipulation techniques or control holds. Unfortunately, many of these techniques are not nearly as effective on the street as they seem to be in training. This can be mainly attributed to unrealistic expectations and insufficient training.

Unrealistic expectations

During the 1970s there began a transformation in police defensive tactics in this country. Techniques based on traditional Asian martial arts such as Aikido and Jiu-jitsu became prevalent. Not surprisingly, the notion of an officer using a suspect's own force against them as opposed to conking them over the head with a "billy club" was appealing to police administrators. This "gentler" approach to suspect control would help to reduce the number of allegations of excessive force and subsequently minimize the department's exposure to civil liability.

Instructors of many of these martial arts-based systems claimed that since the control holds they advocated were based on leverage rather than strength, they would enable even meek and mild "Officer Friendly" to take down super-sized villains with relative ease. Best of all, this would be accomplished without injury to the officer or the suspect.

Well, police administrators and officers alike soon realized that many of the control holds that worked so well on the mat didn't fair nearly as well on the street. This often resulted in an officer reverting to what they were most familiar with. If the officer were a high school wrestler, he would likely attempt to wrestle the suspect to the ground. A former football player might resort to tackling a suspect, while a golden glove boxer would probably punch the suspect in the face with a clenched fist.

In situations where control holds were ineffective, many officers resorted to using a relatively high level of force such as striking the suspect in the head with an improvised weapon (such as a flashlight) or a clenched fist in order to get the upper hand. Ironically, this phenomenon can actually result in departments increasing their exposure to civil liability. What's the solution? Use the right amount and type of force at the onset.

Why do some of the control holds that appear so effective in training fair so poorly on the street? Here are a few factors to consider: