Not too long ago I taught a use-of-force class, and was fortunate enough to have some really sharp officers as students. During one of the sessions, we got to talking about force and control options including what they had and what they wished they had, technology-wise.
As part of the general discussion, I asked the class (rhetorically) how many of their departments included transition drills in their training. When they looked at me sideways, I explained that - to me - a transition drill was one in which an officer has to move from one level of force (or weapon) to another, under stress. The example I gave was moving from an aimed firearm to a non-lethal weapon, such as an electronic control device (ECD).
During one of the breaks, an officer approached me and said that he had asked his department to let him incorporate similar drills into their mix, and he was told that it wasn't necessary, and there wasn't time. Later, I couldn't stop thinking about his comments.
Early and Simple Weapons
Most departments equip their officers with some sort of non-lethal technology nowadays, even if money is scarce. Not everyone has the latest and greatest ECD, but most everyone has some sort of baton, and usually an aerosol weapon. In fact, officers have probably had various impact weapons at their disposal since the first night watchman or Town Crier pinned on a badge.
Along with a firearm, a nightstick or baton (or sap or billy-club) made up the only armament for many generations of officers. Eventually, departments started practicing their shooting skills, but it took quite a bit longer before officers started getting any appreciable training with their "stick". Perhaps bosses believed that it didn't take any skill to hit someone with a club so training wasn't necessary. At any rate, many decades passed before impact weapon training systems became common.
Even then, there wasn't a reduction in the amount of firearms training in order to begin training with the baton - both types of training (using the term a little loosely here) were continued.
The New Age
Along came aerosol weapons, in the form of OC sprays (we're not ignoring earlier products here; just skipping a discussion of them because they weren't that effective, and fell into dis-use). Many departments jumped on-board the new technology as less harmful than hitting someone with a stick. Additionally, and more problematically, some department administrators got the idea that if they adopted an OC weapon they could cut back on defensive tactics and baton training, and some even moved toward dropping their issued impact weapons all together.
From a purely administrative standpoint, the idea made sense. Less harmful and easier to train with, therefore less likely to cause a lawsuit and cheaper to adopt and implement - what's not to like?
Next came electronic control devices. Here some administrators remained concerned regarding all the negative media hype, but others saw the usefulness of the new tools and took the time to do their research. Many adopted ECDs, and more continue to do so.
Following the earlier pattern, some departments still manifest the thought process that they can cut back on other training and use-of-force options, because now they have the newest and best tool. Again, the savings in training time seem to be a no-brainer.
The Technology Problem
The primary problem with this view of technology is that no single tool is the answer. Nothing works all the time, and officers need alternatives for different situations, and back-up options when one of their tools fails. They must be trained in the use of all those tools, and in the decision-making skills that are required to choose among them.
Officers also need training in the skills required to transition from one weapon to another, which sometimes means transitioning from one level of force to another. Consider this scenario:
A fleeing, stolen vehicle is coming to a halt. The driver exits the vehicle and starts to walk quickly away. Officers leave their vehicles and draw their firearms, ordering the suspect to stop. He does not, and begins to jog away from them. One of the officers is armed with an ECD. As he pursues the fleeing suspect, he needs to re-holster his firearm and draw his ECD, and then fire it at the suspect.That is a technology transition, and it's a pretty awkward one. If we haven't trained him to perform those skills, we increase the possibility that he will either continue to run with his gun in his hand, will drop his gun while trying to re-holster on the run, or will try to draw his ECD with his support hand, and then use it while he has his firearm in his strong hand. Each of those possibilities greatly increases the risk to the officers and the suspect. Training in the appropriate skills is absolutely necessary.
The Greatest Danger
Another disturbing trend is one in which some departments have cut back or eliminated their defensive tactics training programs (usually due to budgetary constraints), and have begun to rely upon their non-lethal weapons almost exclusively. The thinking here seems to be that the technology can solve most, if not all, of the suspect management problems faced by officers. This can lead to over-dependence on OC and ECDs by officers. What happens when neither of those tools is the appropriate response to resistance, or when one or both of them fail to function as expected?
Money is tight, and time is the scarcest resource of all. Still, departments should make every effort to provide officers with technological options for managing behavior, and the necessary training for using those options effectively and safely. Along the way, officers should remember that no weapon, tool or technique works every time. Technology has helped to keep officers, and suspects, safer but we can't allow it to become a crutch.
Stay safe, and wear your vest!
