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:
The individual may verbalize their intention: “I’m going to kick your ass!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
The eyebrows will come down as if to shield the eyes. This makes they look more aggressive.
The nostrils will flare and their breathing will become rapid and deep.
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.
They may start sweating and beads of sweat will form on the forehead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
