Things like pepper (oleoresin capsicum) spray and EACDs (electronic assailant control devises, i.e., stun guns and Tasers®) seem to be suffering from a smidgen of disreputability these days among the public. The media occasionally carries a news report here and there about police use of pepper spray or an EACD by police that they characterize (or mischaracterize) as abusive and otherwise inappropriate. The latest was about a Feb. 22 incident in Lakewood, CO. where a Lakewood Police officer used pepper spray to gain control of an 8-year old boy (Aidan Elliott) who was “misbehaving.” (“Misbehaving” was the reporter’s term for it.)
Of course, the boy and his mother were featured on NBC’s The Today Show (and on a few other morning news talk shows) so they could tell America how bad police are, how bad pepper spray is, and how police should do their jobs differently. The true facts of the matter indicate that, by the time police were called to his school, Aidan had destroyed a TV and thrown chairs at his teachers and fellow students. He had armed himself with a foot-long piece of wooden trim that was described as ‘knife-like’, and he was threatening to kill his teachers and fellow students. His teachers (who had dealt with Aidan’s ‘misbehavior’ many times before) were concerned enough to abandon the classroom to Aidan, and evacuate the other students to an office and barricaded the door. Aidan commenced to use the now-empty TV cart as a battering ram to breach the office door to gain further access to the students and teachers he had just threatened to kill. This is when the teachers decided it might be a good idea to ask the police to deal with Aidan. (Incidentally, this was the third time Lakewood Police had the honor of going to Glennon Heights Elementary School to deal with Aidan’s ‘misbehavior.’) When the police arrived, they first attempted verbal de-escalation tactics but Aidan wasn’t having any of it. He challenged the police to “come and get him”, called them a variety of names he obviously learned from his video games, and told them he would kill them, too. (Aidan lunged at the officers stabbing at them with his improvised edged weapon.)
One of the officers produced his pepper spray and issued a verbal warning to Aidan that he would be sprayed if he did not put down his weapon and surrender to police custody. Aidan (disrespectfully) declined and reiterated his challenge and threats to the officers. He armed himself with a cardboard box to use to deflect the pepper spray. It worked … once. The second shot of pepper spray came close enough to the intended target to effectively neutralize Aidan’s assaultive behavior.
The point of the story is that, when all was said and done, the media attempted to place the police and their use of pepper spray on public trial and vilified both to create a general perception that this use of pepper spray was somehow inappropriate and bad. The real injustice in this is that this artificially generated negative public impression it creates may prevent some people from procuring pepper spray for a very legitimate use in their own self-defense.
The liberal media regularly pulls similar antics with EACDs (stun guns and Tasers®).
As of late there seems to be a new fad of field incursions at Major League baseball and football games. As a result there is a proliferation of video showing people getting ‘tased’ by police or security guards as they run across ball fields. Know that journalists seem to know very little or nothing at all about the police use of force or the medical research behind tools like pepper spray and Tasers®. I guess I wasn’t really surprised by the media’s ridicule of use of Tasers® in such circumstances as excessive. What do they expect police to do in order to establish and maintain control of these idiots?
Just about every newspaper article I’ve ever read about police use of EACD says something like; “ … police Tasers® have caused 300 deaths.” I won’t argue that 300 people may have died relatively soon after being tased. But the way the media likes to present the statistic would seem they want you to believe that the Taser® itself was the primary cause of the death. The fact is, if you read autopsy reports, you will find only one that actually says being tased resulted in death -–and that finding is contested and is under further investigation. All the other deaths are attributed to pre-existing physical issues exacerbated by the physical stress of resisting the police. But here again, casting the use of EACDs in a universally unfavorable light may defer a regular person’s decision to purchase one for the very legitimate purpose of self-defense. God forbid that a person should fall victim to an assault in the interim.
The standard point the media tries to make seems to be that “… there was only one of him/her and there were three (four or five) cops. Couldn’t they just handle him without a Taser® or without pepper spray?” The answer is, “Yes, of course they could have.” But what civilians (and particularly the media) don’t consider is that physical intervention by multiple officers greatly increases the risk of injury to the suspect and to officers and to innocent bystanders that are not bright enough to get out of the way. Things get very unpredictable when there is a ‘dog pile’ and the fragile limbs of a violently angry person are forcibly manipulated against his or her resistance. This is when muscle tissues and ligaments can be torn or strained and joints can be sprained, dislocated or even broken.
This is especially true for children, for elderly people and people who are mentally ill. The most extreme case I am aware of is the ‘tasing’ of a 70-year old woman who was holding police at bay in her kitchen with a butcher’s knife. Police ultimately used a Taser® to take her into custody. She suffered no injuries and no post-tasing physical repercussions.
Using an EACD or pepper spray makes things much more predictable and diminishes the risks of injury to everyone involved and in close proximity to the incident. They’re known as ‘softening techniques.’ When the suspect loses a good portion of his (or her) ability to fight with and resist the police, the likelihood of injuries goes way down. And the recovery from the application of either pepper spray or an EACD is generally very rapid and complete.
It’s not entirely unlike establishing a ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya. If Gadhafi can’t bring his forces to the fight, he can’t use them for his nefarious purposes. If a resistive subject can’t bring his or her physical strength, skills or weapons to the fight, the fight is won with a minimum of collateral damage.
One of my assignments as a police officer was as the law enforcement training coordinator responsible for basic training, in-service (skills maintenance) and specialized (professional development) training programs for a body of approximately 1,100 police officers. Once things like pepper spray and EACDs came into the law enforcement arsenal and were added as options to the ‘Use of Force Continuum,’ it was part of my responsibility to train officers in their appropriate use. In so doing, I experienced a couple dozen doses of pepper spray and at least a dozen EACD applications (to a full takedown). This is when I became an ardent advocate of their use in both the law enforcement and civilian realms as defensive tools.
My experience recovering from the application of EACDs was minimal – two or three minutes at the most. (I’d hurt myself worse plugging my toaster into an electrical outlet a time or two.) My experience getting dosed with pepper spray was, likewise, no big deal. With proper decontamination (which was also part of the training) I was completely back to normal within 15 to 20 minutes. Prior to the advent of pepper spray, police used other chemical agents such as CS and CN [CH3CH (OH) CH2CH] (commonly known as tear gas or mace). Recovery from exposure to the old fashioned mace took about twice as long and involved much more discomfort. Some people had bad reactions to the old mace. Some people were actually allergic to it. OC (pepper) spray, being almost entirely an organic substance, produces very few extremely adverse effects in people compared to mace.
Police determine when and how to apply force based on something called the “Use of Force Continuum.” The primary level of force is verbalization. (Verbalization is integrated into all other levels of force – police continue to issue verbal directions and commands as they apply most other levels of force.) If a suspect refuses to comply with an officers’ verbal instructions, he, she or they are authorized to escalate the use of force to a level necessary to gain compliance from the suspect and diffuse the situation. The next lowest level of force is “soft, empty-handed control techniques.” This involves physical contact with the suspect to control his or her arms and hands and legs and manipulating him or her into a position where handcuffs can be applied and he or she can be searched safely. (This level of force was not practical in the Aidan Elliot case because he had a weapon and both verbally and physically indicated his intent to use it on the officers.)
Pepper spray and EACDs were inserted into the Use of Force Continuum between the levels of soft, empty-handed techniques and hard, empty-handed techniques. [Hard, empty-handed techniques are kicks and strikes to less-than-lethal (soft tissue) targets on the suspect’s body.] Hard, empty-handed techniques were also not feasible in the Aidan Elliott case either, as the officers would have had to place themselves within range of Aidan’s weapon. Aidan was what is termed an “active resistor” – that means he was in the process of physically assaulting the police officers with his improvised weapon. The officer(s) employed a less-than-lethal tool to virtually turn off Aidan’s ability to resist. They then established physical control of him and took him into custody. Although I’m sure that Aidan was a bit uncomfortable for 15 or 20 minutes afterward, he was not harmed or injured in any way. Neither were the officers, teachers or the other students.
The moral of this story is don’t put too much stock in the media’s coverage of EACD or Pepper spray use by police or security officers (or anything else, for that matter). The media are not the experts. In fact, they’re barely even what I would consider knowledgeable about these subjects. I became a police officer way back in the day when the standard issue sidearm was the vastly under-powered .38 caliber police special revolver. When it was clear that the crooks had us greatly outgunned, agencies began converting to the more effective .357 Magnum revolvers. The media was desperately opposed to this claiming that police use of such powerful munitions would kill citizens miles away. I read news articles that claimed .357 Magnum projectiles would go through the engine block of a car and kill people on the other side. Not that I had any doubts about the absurdity of it, during one of our firearms training blocks at the Academy, I simulated this claim on film to prove it was wrong. The projectile didn’t penetrate or even crack the engine block. It barely made a dimple. I then (actually before then) knew that I could not trust the media’s interpretation of anything technical or scientific. If they couldn’t get this simple concept right, how could I trust them to get their facts straight on any technical issue?
Of course there are stark difference in the overall philosophies of law enforcement vs. the civilian use of pepper spray and EACDs. While the general principles of use are the same, the ultimate goal of law enforcement use is the control and custody of a non-compliant, resistive criminal. The ultimate goal of civilian use of these is to escape the assault of a criminal.
Good luck out there. Have a plan and keep your eyes open.
No comments:
Post a Comment