Pepper Spray – Part III (Effective Deployment).

    Once you’ve chosen the pepper spray product that best suits your circumstances, the next step is becoming proficient with it.  Anyone who has chosen to use pepper spray as their feature self-defense tactic needs to know its effective deployment and performance characteristics.  As I mentioned in the previous article, many pepper spray manufacturers make inert models of their products (filled with water or some other non-active substance) that you can use to become familiar with the product’s effective range, spray density and spray distribution.  


   It’s well worth the investment in time and money for the practice and mental rehearsal so you don’t have to be stumbling through it and figuring this stuff out in an actual tactical situation.  Knowing the intricacies of your pepper spray product’s performance will also lend itself to a higher level of confidence in your ability to deal with an assailant.  Confidence helps to avoid panic.  I’ve heard a few stories about people armed with pepper spray who, due to the stress of the situation, have panicked in the face of an assault and failed to deploy their pepper spray or failed to deploy it effectively.  (Similar to what some inexperienced and mentally unprepared hunters experience known as ‘Buck Fever.’  The body performs some of the required physical activity, but the cognitive aspects of the exercise just disconnect.)


   The second element of proper deployment of pepper spray is preparedness.  There are two aspects of preparedness:  (1) Situational preparedness and; (2) physical preparedness.  Situational preparedness might also be called ‘situational awareness.’  Situational awareness alludes to knowing where and when you are most likely to be accosted.  I think everyone understands the basic precautions they should take to avoid being assaulted – don’t park in dark or isolated areas of a parking lot; don’t move about isolated areas alone – move in groups; know where the higher crime trends are in your community and avoid them if possible; etc., etc.  


   It also encompasses the concept of observing and evaluating your surroundings and all of the tings and people in it – a threat assessment, if you will.  I would describe the mindset as paranoia’s 3rd cousin once removed.  Identify anyone in the environment that you feel could be a threat.  Casually track their gaze in reference to where you are and in reference to where you are moving and your immediate destination.  Track any movements they make and note if their movements appear to be furtive.  If any movement does appear to be furtive, or if someone’s gaze appears to be untypical or unusual, consider that person a threat.  If any aspect of a person’s behavior or appearance seems uncharacteristic or unusual, consider that person a threat.  Begin mentally rehearsing a response to an assault.


   The second aspect of preparedness is to be physically prepared to deploy your pepper spray when it’s needed.  Pepper spray, no matter how potent and no matter how practiced you are with its use, won’t do you any good when it’s sitting in the bottom of your pocket or your purse.  


   When you find it necessary to move into an environment in which you might be vulnerable, your pepper spray should be maintained in your hand at a casual ready.  Many manufacturers of pepper spray products for the civilian markets make models that attach to key rings so that people automatically have them in their hand when moving to and from their vehicles.  My personal favorite is a model that attaches with a belt clip and is very similar to the size and dimensions of a cellular telephone – it provides rapid and easy access without actually having the unit in your hand.


   Should it become necessary to actuate your response plan, point the nozzle of the canister at the assailant’s target area (the muzzle area of the face) and spray a one- to-two second stream making necessary adjustments to the impact area of the stream.  (A one or two-second stream is usually sufficient, but it never hurts to be generous in this situation.)  Be prepared to change targets if there are multiple threats.  As well as spraying the assailant(s), simultaneously scream and yell as loud as you can.  Besides drawing attention to you and your situation the loud screaming and yelling will contribute to the sensory overload your assailant(s) are undoubtedly experiencing.


   One of my favorite pepper spray products is the Tornado 5-in-1 Pepper Spray unit.  Besides delivering a 10% OC solution (about the same potency of the product issued by most police agencies), the unit sounds a 125dB alarm and activates an extremely bright LED pulsating light that attracts attention to you and your assailant and drives your assailant deeper into sensory overload.  The unit provides a little more output to help deliver you from harm.


   Once the assailants’ aggressiveness has been neutralized and their mental focus has shifted to obtaining relief from the OC exposure, that is your opportunity to get away from the assailant(s) and get to help.  Don’t stick around in close proximity to the assailant(s).  Don’t hang around to watch the assailant(s) suffer and admire your handiwork.  Repeated applications of the pepper spray aren’t likely to prolong the assailant(s) debility or intensify the effects. 


   Once you’ve saved yourself, the next step is to do your very best to see that the assailant(s) wind up in the custody of the law.  That will be your contribution to the community.  Most people who engage in this type of crime are serial criminals.  If they recover from their experience with you and your pepper spray, they will likely find another victim at some point and they may even take precautions and/or change their tactics to try to prevent another OC exposure.  


   Just remember that custody is the function of law enforcement officers.  Your only job with respect to that is to do your best to get law enforcement to the assailant(s).  The arresting officers will see to the assailants’ decontamination.


   
   

Pepper Spray II: How It Works

   In order to be effective, pepper spray must make contact with a person’s or animal’s mucus membranes.  That would be in the eyes, nostrils and/or mouth.  The term ‘effective,’ in terms of pepper spray, refers to creating a definitive dysfunction or serious reduction in a person’s or animal’s ability to continue to assault or attack you.  OC contact will also create a rather intense burning sensation when it contacts exposed skin.


   A former associate of mine (a sublime skeptic), upon being issued a canister of pepper spray, conducted a self-exposure exercise.  He read the instructions and paid especially close attention to the decontamination procedures.  Anticipating the worst (or maybe the best – depending how you look at it) he decided that the best place to proceed with the self-exposure test was in his shower to accommodate rapid decontamination.  So he stripped himself down and jumped into his shower.  He held the canister out at arms length and gave himself a brief burst of the pepper spray – upon which gravity carried the excess OC to exactly where you do not want an irritant to contact you.  Of course he couldn’t see and he had difficulty breathing and his motor coordination was severely limited.  He had great difficulty executing the decontamination procedure, but gained supreme confidence in and respect for the effectiveness of pepper spray.


   My primary law enforcement function from the mid 1980s through the 1990s was oversight and operation of a police training academy that served a population base of approximately 1,250 law enforcement officers.  This was during the period pepper spray was being adapted as a law enforcement tool.  Part of my job was to train and certify most of these officers in the use of pepper spray.  The pepper spray training curriculum at that time included a voluntary exposure exercise.  Of course virtually every officer elected to participate in the exposure exercise for fear of being branded a coward should he or she decline to participate.  And, of course, the lead instructor was expected and elected to frequently participate in exposure demonstrations to calm the fears and nervousness of the student/officers and to prove it was effective and safe to participate.  (I doubt there is another man on earth who has been exposed to pepper spray more than me.)


   Once pepper spray contacts mucous membranes, the effects are as follows:


1.   temporary blindness (involuntary closing and temporary inability to open the eyes – I should stress that pepper spray does not actually alter or impede the physical structure or mechanical operation of the eye or ocular components – it’s just the autonomic reaction to the intense burning sensation);
2.   temporary inability to breath (due to swelling of sinus and mucous membranes in the nose and throat and involuntary interruption of autonomic responses);
3.   due to reduced breathing capacity and compromised oxygen transfer (dilated capillaries), many people exposed to pepper spray report experiencing lightheadedness, disorientation, confusion and loss of muscle control.  This is particularly what gives the assailant’s intended victim that brief window of opportunity to escape.


   People who have been caught totally by surprise by exposure to pepper spray in an actual tactical situation have reported that they thought they were having a heart attack or some type of coronary episode.  (This, however, does not happen in training exercises where participants anticipate and understand the exposure.)


   People exposed to pepper spray also experience massive rhinorrhea – a voluminous discharge (snot) from the mucous membranes of the sinuses.  (We actually used to take photos of the officers participating in our exposure exercises and give the person with the longest hanging snot string a ‘booger’ trophy.)  One of my favorite one-liners in the pepper spray training class was, “… pepper spray impresses the snot out of me.”


   Of the thousand plus officers I’ve had participate in pepper spray exposure exercises, I’ve encountered one person whose reflexes were so quick, we had difficulty getting the pepper spray in his eyes or nostrils.  Of course he was standing there looking at the canister in the instructors hand fully anticipating being sprayed.  I’ve come to the conclusion that no one can avoid pepper spray’s invasion to mucous membranes in the sudden, unanticipated deployment of pepper spray in an actual tactical situation.


   We even had people wearing glasses participate in exposure exercises.  Glasses may serve to prevent the highest concentrations of pepper spray from invading directly into the eyes, but the indirect invasion of pepper spray always proved to be effective in halting the aggressive actions of our test officers.


   The effective deployment of pepper spray does require some minor marksmanship skill, depending on the nature of the pepper spray product you choose to use.  There are generally three types of spray dispensers.   


   One is a very concentrated stream.  The spray is dispensed in a narrow stream and requires the most skill to hit the intended target (the eyes, nose and mouth area of the assailant).  The advantage of such a dispenser is that it affords greater range and can be deployed without letting the assailant get as close.  Another advantage is that when it is deployed competently, there is less chance that it will affect anyone in the vacinity it is not intended to.  Some dispensers claim ranges of up to 15 or 20 feet.


   Dispensers that produce a less concentrated stream of pepper spray product sacrifice a little range but don’t require the degree of accuracy to make contact with the intended target area on the assailant.


   A third type of dispenser is referred to as a ‘fogger.’  It dispenses the pepper spray product in a finely atomized  mist that covers a larger area.  It is probably the surest way to get the pepper spray to where it needs to be to affect the assailant’s mucous membranes.  But you sacrifice even a little more effective range.


   Many manufacturers of pepper spray products offer inert samples of their various dispensers for sale as well, that allow users to experience the performance of their selected dispenser type so the user knows better what to expect concerning the deployment of his or her chosen pepper spray dispenser.

   Some manufacturers offer pepper spray foams that stick to the assailant’s skin maximizing the contact effects.  Another advantage of the foam is that it’s easier to see where the stream is contacting the assailant and allows the user to make adjustments to his or her immediate point of aim.  


   And some manufacturers offer pepper sprays with UV dyes in the formula that marks the assailant for easier identification later on.


   Probably the most extensive research on the effects of pepper spray was conducted at the University of Helsinki, Finland.  The researchers used 10 volunteer police officers (5 at a time – conducting the tests twice).  They made a battery of scientific measurements and tests of each officer’s eyes just before, immediately after, 1 day after, 1 week after and one month after pepper spray exposure.  


   The results of the research were published in the July, 2000 volume of Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science Journal.  I’ve read the report, but I won’t even pretend to represent to you that I understand it’s scientific techni-speak.  But the conclusion stated that although there were some immediate changes to mechanical, temperature and chemical sensitivity, there were no issues that persisted after a week in any of the eyes examined.  They determined that a single exposure to Oleoresin Capsicum was virtually harmless.


   Manufacturers of pepper sprays promote their products by making potency claims.  They represent potency based on the percentage of Oleoresin Capsicum compounds present in relation to the inert ingredients in the contents of the canister.  Products on the civilian market range from 2% up to 20%.  The pepper spray products carried by police and security officer is generally in the 10% to 12% potency range.  (Note: Many states regulate the potency of pepper sprays carried by civilians to the 5% or 6% range.) Bear spray (developed for outdoor sportsmen, hikers, campers, hunters and fishermen) is usually between 18% and 20% OC concentration. 


   It the nature of our culture to gravitate to the big numbers, assuming that the sprays with higher concentrations of OC will work better.  Manufacturers have known this for ages and market it that way.  Frankly, if I were going hiking in bear country or fishing in an area populated by feral hogs, I’d go for the higher concentrations, too.


   There is another potency indicator that some manufacturers use to promote their pepper spray products.  That’s the Scoville Heat Unit (SHU) rating.  You see, neither God nor Sam Colt were able to make all members of the Capsicum fila equal.  While concentrations speak to quantity, SHU ratings speak to quality.  This index was invented by Pharmacist Wilbur Scoville in 1912.  Some peppers are hotter than others and produce more highly concentrated capsaicinoids.


   If you live in a state that restricts the concentration of OC in your pepper spray, find the products with the percentage of OC concentration allowable and the one with a higher SHU index.

Pepper Spray - Part 1.

   Undoubtedly, the most common and the best known method of self-defense these days is the use of Pepper Spray.  It has proven, many times over to be a very effective means for people to protect themselves against assaults.


   There are numerous reasons that pepper spray has become the most commonly used self-defense method.  But chief among these are:


1. Pepper spray is relatively inexpensive.
2. Pepper spray is uncomplicated and easy to use.
3. Pepper spray is easy and convenient to carry.
4. Pepper spray has a very good reputation (being relied upon as a tool used by various law enforcement agencies for self-defense, to support mechanics of arrest and for crowd control).
5. Pepper spray is essentially safe and relatively harmless.


   You may have heard of pepper spray by the name ‘OC Spray.’  The ‘OC’ stands for Oleoresin Capsicum.  Oleoresin Capsicums are biological substances from a variety of peppers (the same peppers that are used the world over to make spices) that are extracted from the peppers and processed into the irritant agent.  The irritant agent is then packaged with various inert ingredients into a variety of delivery systems for anti-personnel use - self-defense, law enforcement or security.


   Not much is known about the history of Oleoresin Capsicum as an anti-personnel agent before the 1960s.  There is some anecdotal evidence that in the 400s BC, the Chinese ground Cayenne Peppers into fine powder, packed it into balls, wrapped in rice paper and then launched it at enemy soldiers to degrade their combat effectiveness.  About the same time, the Japanese soldiers supposedly carried it in boxes to be blown into the faces of enemy soldiers during combat.


   The contemporary OC agent delivery system was developed in the 1960s at the University of Georgia by Professor James H. Jenkins and Dr. Frank Hayes (DVM).  It was first marketed to the public in 1963 as ‘Halt Animal Repellant.’  The first big marketing push was to mail carriers, bicyclists, and pedestrians who were sometimes bothered by dogs.  ‘Halt Animal Repellant’ was promoted as, while being very effective on animals, virtually harmless to them and caused no long-term damage.  (Note:  While pepper sprays work very well on the typical nuisance and even wild animals, this writer has seen well-trained attack dogs ‘fight through’ a dose of pepper spray.  This, however, was undoubtedly due to the animal’s dedicated training and fighting nature.  These are not the typical dogs that a typical person is likely to encounter in normal circulation throughout his or her community.)


   In the 1980s, Law Enforcement began looking at Pepper Sprays as a tool to help control resistive subjects and for purposes of crowd control.  Until then, police were using other similar synthetic chemical agents commonly known as tear gas or ‘mace.’  (‘Mace’ was the term that referred to these substances packaged in smaller aerosol delivery systems for use on individuals per arrest situations.  ‘Tear Gas’ was the term typically used to refer to larger munitions packaged as incendiary or explosive devices for use in crowd control and as a tool to deal with barricaded suspects.  ‘Mace’ has since become a brand name trademarked by a company that manufactures chemical agents and munitions including pepper spray.)


   In the 1980s the FBI embarked on a three-year study of pepper spray and determined that it was preferable to (safer than) CN or CS (mace) agents and was suitable for issuance to their field agents.  Local law enforcement agencies followed suit in the early 1990s.  Now, thousands of law enforcement agencies around the world issue pepper spray to their officers.  The pepper sprays typically issued for use in the United State and Canada are similar to the biological agent developed at the University of Georgia in 1963.  The agents that are typically issued to police for use in Europe are one of two different synthetic derivatives similar to biological pepper spray.


   The U.S. civilian sector became interested in pepper spray for self-defense purposes in the 1990s.  Many police officers and police agencies in the United States lobbied their state legislatures to pass laws allowing civilians to legally posses pepper spray for purposes of self-defense.  Pepper spray is legal for civilian use (with some restrictions) in all 50 states.  Generally, it is restricted to possession by persons 18 years of age and older.  Many states also left municipalities with authority to ban its possession by civilians as well.  (Anyone considering carrying pepper spray for self-defense should consult with their local law enforcement agency to ensure they are not in violation of any statute or ordinance in the process.)  A few states prohibit the purchase of pepper spray products through the mail and restrict sales to licensed firearms dealers.


   At the same time states passed legislation allowing civilian access to pepper spray, many states passed companion legislation defining and outlawing criminal use of pepper spray.  This usually involved adding ‘penalty enhancements’ to sentences for crimes when they involved illegal use of pepper spray.  (In other words, if someone used pepper spray in the commission of a robbery, they would be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines for robbery plus given an additional two to five years for the use of pepper spray in the commission of the robbery.)


   Once the civilian population showed interest in pepper spray, the manufacturers began to produce and package pepper spray products specifically for the civilian markets.  They made the canisters smaller and easier and more convenient to carry and conceal.  The law enforcement models carried four or five ounces of pepper spray product and required a holster to carry them on a duty belt.  For civilians, the industry developed canisters that ranged from ½ to 2 ounces of product and they made them pocket and purse friendly (they placed safety caps or covers on them to prevent accidental discharges).  Some manufacturers actually made them to attach to your key ring for convenient access.  They began to make canisters and leather holsters in bright, designer colors including hot pink for those who refused to compromise their sense of fashion even in the act of self-defense.


   The industry also responded to various state legislation to make sure that citizens could obtain a pepper spray product that met the legal requirements or restrictions placed on them by state laws.  The State of Michigan was the most restrictive (in terms of the OC concentration of pepper spray product available to civilians – 2%).  But the industry developed a product that met those criteria.  Wisconsin passed the most complex legislation regulating both volume and concentration (10% maximum based on volume of inert ingredients), minimum and maximum range of the unit, certain container appearance and labeling criteria, trigger safety specifications, etc.  You almost have to be a chemist attorney to fully comprehend pepper spray requirements/restrictions in Wisconsin.  But the industry has you covered with products that meet even Wisconsin’s legal model.

Another Case Study

Jonathan Villareal - Another Case Study in the Use of Non-Lethal Force in Schools.

Derby student says cops used Taser, broke his arm because of sagging pants


BY FRED MANN
The Wichita Eagle


Mike Hutmacher/The Wichita Eagle | Buy this photo
Derby high school student Jonathan Villarreal claims two Derby Police SROs beat and tazed him and broke his arm because he refused to pull up his pants. Photographed Thursday, Apr. 28, 2011.
DERBY — A Derby High School sophomore said today that he was hit by a Taser and had his arm broken by two school resource officers for refusing to pull up his pants.
The Derby Police Department said it will investigate the incident. The officers work for the department.
The teen and the Police Department offered differing accounts of what happened.
Jonathan Villarreal, 17, said he was walking with friends to the bus after school on Wednesday when one of the officers ordered him to pull up his pants. He told them he could wear them how he wanted because school was out, he said.
Villarreal said he had pulled his jeans low on his hips, as is fashionable among some young men, after leaving the school.
He said one of the officers, a man who was larger than him, pulled him to the ground by the neck and told him to stop resisting arrest. Villarreal denied he was resisting.
Both officers kneed him in the back and neck while he was on the ground, he said.
Because they were physical with him, he struggled to get up, but was pushed back down, he said.
At one point as he tried to get up, Villarreal said he felt his arm break when he was pushed back down.
After Villarreal tried three times to get up, one officer fired a Taser at his chest, he said. Although he was wearing a heavy coat, he still felt an electrical shock, he said.
Villarreal said the officers handcuffed him in spite of his complaints about pain in his arm, and kept him handcuffed until paramedics arrived and ordered the cuffs removed.
During the altercation, he said, an officer struck him in the eye, which was swollen shut.
Villarreal was taken by ambulance to a hospital, treated and released.
Derby Police Chief Robert Lee said Villarreal used profanities when the officers asked him to pull up his pants.
Lee also said the officers tried to escort Villarreal back inside the school to the office, but he refused to go.
At one point during the struggle, Lee said, Villarreal stood up and took "an aggressive stance," which led to the Taser attempt.
Three students who witnessed the incident supported Villarreal's account during a news conference this afternoon at the Sunflower Community Action offices, 1407 N. Topeka,
Lee said his department will investigate, as is normal procedure, to see whether the use of force was appropriate.
He said he also has notified the student's family about how to make a formal complaint with his department.
Lee said he expects the department will present the case to Sedgwick County juvenile authorities in the District Attorney's Office, who would make a decision about filing any charges.
Villarreal's family is looking into legal action, according to Emira Palacios, of Sunflower Community Action.


Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/04/28/1827093/derby-teen-says-officers-injured.html#ixzz1KwKD9z6X

* * * * *

   This incident is, and will continue to be, an extremely unfortunate circumstance for everyone involved.  The repercussions will be far-reaching and expensive. But let’s examine each element of the story as we know it from the news report.


Part I:  Defining the incident.


   Jonathon Villarreal claims the SROs (Student Resource Officers) tazed him and broke his arm because he refused to hike up his ‘sagging’ pants.  The way this is stated in the news report, Villarreal implies that these were punitive actions by the police as punishment for non-compliance with the school’s dress code.  I’m sure he (and his attorneys) like to convince a jury that the police actions were punitive.


   A more accurate rendition of the facts and circumstances would be: Jonathon Villarreal sustained his injuries in the course of resisting two police officers who were attempting to take him into custody after they arrested him.  (Whether or not the arrest was justified and lawful, and whether or not the specific techniques used to effect the arrest were appropriate and appropriately executed is the business of the review board investigating the matter.)


Part II:  “Sagging.”


   The practice of “sagging” (described by the reporter as a practice that is “fashionable among some young men”) started in the prison system.  Wearing your pants in such a manner in prison was a signal to all of the other inmates that your were someone’s ‘prison bitch’- the willing recipient of acts of sodomy – as well as your disrespect for prison rules and prison authority.


   Villarreal and all of the other ‘young men’ who engage in the practice of ‘sagging’ are sending a signal that they enjoy the practice of sodomy and that they enjoy being the ‘catcher’ rather than the ‘pitcher.’  This goes to demonstrate Villarreal’s antisocial attitude toward school rules and school authority.  Therefore, it is no great surprise to me that Villarreal intentionally disregarded the school’s dress code and swore at the school resource officers that suggested to him that he should adjust his pants to bring them into compliance with the dress code.


Part III: The Taser®.


   Evidenced by the opinion section of the newspaper following the news report, many people assumed (at the suggestion of the reporter) that use of a Taser® was, in-and-of itself, excessive force.  I disagree.


   Had the Taser been effective, or had the SROs


   What Tasers® and pepper spray do is ‘soften’ the resisting subject and reduces their ability to resist and fight.  It does this by ‘scrambling’ the electrochemical signals from the brain to the muscles, causing a good degree of muscular dysfunction. Had the Taser been effective, Villarreal probably wouldn’t have been able to muster enough resistance from his dysfunctional muscles to result in his arm breaking.  (Pepper spray causes similar dysfunction due to sensory overload.)


   The use of the Taser® was appropriate in light of the active resistance, and it was a good try on behalf of the SRO.


   The Taser® is an especially appropriate arrest tool in school environments where the general population is young and has not yet achieved higher cognitive development.  Being more prone to bad judgement in relation to authority, the likelihood of encountering combative kids is proportionally higher than with adult populations.


   Also, the younger the kid, the more prone they are to injuries such as Villarreal suffered.  Turning off the kids’ ability to resist and fight significantly reduces the odds of an injury – for both kids and officers.


Part IV: The ‘black eye.’


   There’s no way around the fact that Villarreal suffered an impact to his left eye – and we probably have to assume it happened during his altercation with the SROs.  (It’s possible that it could have happened in association with some other incident, but I’ll give Villarreal the benefit of the doubt on this one.)


   But here again, if Villarreal had chosen to comply rather than to resist and fight, he would have suffered no injuries at all.


   Police are trained to avoid targeting any place on a suspect’s head or face when engaged in physical combat.  But given the dynamics of physical combat, just about anything can happen -–including impacts with unintended targets.  The fact that Villarreal suffered this injury is evidence to me that he was an active resistor dynamically involved in physical altercation with the SROs rather than the passive resistor he claims to be.  It is more likely that Villarreal moved his face into the impact than it is an officer intentionally struck Villarreal in the face.


Part V: Summary.


   I have to admit that I am more inclined to believe the statements of police officers than I am antisocial, antiauthoritarian 14-year olds looking for a payday.  Part of that is due to professional bias and nearly four decades of dealing with juveniles.  But from a practical perspective, police officers have been screened by panels that lend an ear and an eye to their propensity toward honesty and integrity before they are awarded a position of trust in the community.  Police officers are vetted by a variety of character witnesses as well as psychological screening before they are awarded a position of trust in the community.  Police officers are professionally trained and police officers are aware of the potential costs of falsifying reports and would be logically motivated to avoid that.


   14-year old boys with a head start on an antisocial personality disorder are prone to embellishments and contrivances – especially when they are motivated, coached and supported by an anti-authority, anti-police organization such as is Sunflower Community Action.


   The sad fact is that the City of Derby (or their insurance carrier) will likely pay young Mr. Villarreal a fairly sizeable monetary settlement when all is said and done.  I don’t necessarily believe that the SROs did anything all that drastically wrong, but what they did could have been done differently and probably better.  (Of course I’m Monday morning quarterbacking with the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.)  But unless Villarreal did something that isn’t detailed in the news article that warranted the arrest, the better option for the SROs would have been to disengage and file a formal complaint with the school administration for Villarreal’s violation of the dress code and his subsequent abhorrent behavior.  Hopefully that would have lead to a two or three-day suspension for him.  (Hopefully, he will still be served a suspension or even an expulsion behind this incident in as much as he and his behavior were the precipitating factor.)


   The cost of this skirmish to Villarreal was the tangible physical damage.  The cost of the skirmish to the Derby Police Dept. (and ultimately to the taxpayer) will be whatever monetary amount they decide to settle the matter for - that, and a fair degree of public trust.  (The Derby School District might also suffer some monetary damages depending if and to what degree they’re responsible for supervising the SROs.)  The SROs will suffer some career impediment behind the incident.  No body comes out of situations like these ahead.

http://www.bestdefensesite.com/catalog_3.html


Addendum - 9 August 2011:  


The Derby Police Department has completed it's internal investigation into the Jonathon Villarreal incident.  As I thought they might, the facts of the matter as relayed by young Mr. Villarreal were significantly different than the facts uncovered by the official investigation.  It seems that Mr. Villarreal's sagging-pants fashion statement wasn't even the cause of the confrontation with the School Resource Officers.  That was just the line he used to suck the Sunflower Action Group and the local media into his little pay-day fantasy bid.  It turns out that the SROs were arresting him for disorderly conduct.  It seems Mr. Villarreal was attempting to incite violence by shouting racial epithets (specifically using the 'N' word) at a nearby group of black students.  Mr. Villarreal was order to cease a desist, but refused.  So the officers determined that his arrest was both appropriate and necessary.  The fact finders determined that Mr. Villarreal violently resisted the officers during the course of the arrest.  


I'm going to assume that Mr. Villarreal will likely proceed with a lawsuit against the Derby Police Dept. and/or the Derby School District anyway.  I'm sure his dreams (and his attorney's dreams) of an enormous payday have evaporated to some degree.  But I'm sure they still see a few thousand dollars in nuisance value just to go away.  The problem with that is that even a small settlement to avoid the more exorbitant costs associated with a trial gives the appearance of an admission of guilt to those who don't understand how the civil legal system works.


There will still be some residual stigma as fall out from this incident because the media's follow-up to an incident is never as prominently published as the original articles. But, at least it's good to see some of the wind taken out of young Mr. Villarreal's sails.

Legal Considerations of Self-Defense

  In a recent article, I wrote about the Police “Use of Force Continuum” describing it in the context of a case study of the Aidan Elliot incident in Lakewood, CO. on Feb. 22, 2011.  Since then, I’ve gotten several emails asking if there is something akin to a “Use of Force Continuum” relative to civilian self-defense.

   The answer is, “No – not really.”  But there are some legalistic considerations civilians should keep in mind.

   The Police “Use of Force Continuum” is a complex series of protocols established to assist officers in deciding when, where and how to defend themselves and to establish control and custody of criminals and assailants.  Civilians need not concern themselves with control and custody – just escape and survival.  The “Continuum” is generally the same across the Law Enforcement discipline with slight variations from agency to agency driven by the implements (tools) of self-defense the agency elects to issue to its officers.  (For police and civilians alike, the implements and tools you carry for that purpose dictate your self-defense tactics.)  Law Enforcement officers are usually not allowed to select self-defense implements other than what the agency issues.  Civilians, of course, have the luxury of selecting whatever implements the market offers – within limits.  

   Civilians must ensure their appropriateness and legal compliance by investigating their state and local laws and ordinances for restrictions on self-defense implements.  For instance the State of Michigan  has placed various restrictions on the composition of pepper spray implements that can be carried and used in that state.  In response, the industry has designed and produced a number of pepper spray implements that meet the perimeters established by Michigan.  The State of Wisconsin  has placed restrictions on both the potency (no more than a 10% OC concentration) and effective range (no more than 20 feet) of pepper spray implements.  Most states restrict the carrying and use of self-defense implements to persons aged 18 years and older.  Civilians should also check to ensure that they are not violating institutional policies as well – such as policies governing self-defense implements at their place of employment or on their college campus, etc.

   Beyond the restrictions on the implements themselves and the age of the user, there aren’t really many restrictions on a civilian’s use of force with respect to self-defense except that it must be “reasonable.”  It doesn’t necessarily even have to be proportional to the level of threat the he or she is facing.  Bur even civilians can’t use lethal force unless they are reasonably certain that they are facing a lethal threat.  

   Other than that, a civilian need only be concerned that he or she can justify using force to defend him or herself.  That is a relatively simple matter as the reasonableness of defending oneself when faced with an assault is almost a given.  The primary issue would be the person’s reason to believe that he or she was truly the target of an assault.  Not only must a person reasonably believe he or she is the intended target of an assault, but also they must be able to articulate those reasons and tell investigators why that belief was reasonable.  The test will be whether or not any average, reasonable person would conclude that he or she was being targeted for an assault under the same or very similar circumstances.

   Things that would reinforce a person’s conclusion of being targeted for assault are: 

(1) situational awareness of crime trends and incidents in your area; 

(2) location of suspected assailant(s) in proximity to where you are or in proximity to your immediate destination; 

(3) actions or movements of the suspected assailant(s); content and context of any dialogue or utterances made by the suspected assailant(s); and

(4) any furtive actions or movements made by the suspected assailant(s).

   Civilians who reasonably believe they are being targeted for assault are not necessarily required to engage the assailant with verbal tactics, as are police, although it couldn’t hurt.  In the stress of launching an assault, it’s difficult to say that an assailant might not get cold feet, respond to a verbal command and break off the assault.  But, obviously, you can’t count on that, so be prepared to immediately apply the other strategies, tactics and techniques you’ve decided on for your self-defense tool bag.  

   Another advantage of combining verbal techniques along with your other techniques is something we call “perception management.”  When people in close proximity to you and your situation (witnesses) hear you issue commands and instructions and see how the assailant(s) responds (or doesn’t respond) to them, it helps them to understand better whose doing what to whom and why.  Just don’t waste time in the process.  The simultaneous application of verbal tactics along with pepper spray, an EACD (electronic assailant control device – stun gun or Taser®) or any other self-defense tool is preferable to staging and escalating.

   Whatever techniques you use in defense of yourself, once the assault is interrupted to the extent that you can escape, do just that.  Don’t stick around and admire your handiwork.  You don’t want to be there when / if the assailant recovers.  Don’t continue the application of your preferred techniques unnecessarily or experimentally.  Any excess will cast your original ‘reasonable cause to believe you were targeted for assault’ to come under question.

THE MEDIA'S DISSERVICE TO YOUR SELF-DEFENSE

  

   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.

   

What is 'Safer' ?

Rail using Mozart to deter loitering

0 Comments

BY NIGEL DUARA

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. —Just feet from a methadone clinic at a grimy crossroads in far east Portland, Ore., transit officials and police are hoping a touch of class will chase off the vagrants, vandals and ne'er-do-wells that loiter near a busy transit stop.

Since November, the regional transit department has approved the playing of classical music in an effort to ward off the kind of crimes that happen when people just hang around.

A bill making its way through the Oregon Legislature would expand the program to all light rail stops in Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah counties deemed high-crime areas by police or residents.

"Classical music" in this case means opera, chamber music, choral pieces and music requiring a full orchestra. On a drizzly Wednesday morning at a pilot site in Portland, it was Bizet's aria from Carmen, the one that rolls to a slow boil as she tells the audience she only loves those who refuse to love her back.

"L'amour! L'amour! L'amour! L'amour!" bellowed the mezzo-soprano from a speaker boxed by metal bars. On the platform, one man who looked to be in his 20s, decked head to waist in bright red, looked up at the speaker, then looked away.

He boarded the train, as did the rest of the platform.

"There's no one that just hangs around," said Scott Nielsen, who has met the train at the stop for 18 months. Before the music "they wouldn't get on the train, that's how you'd know they were (loitering)."

In many ways, the 162nd Avenue station is an ideal proving ground for the future of "The Marriage of Figaro" and "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" at transit stops.

The whole project was brought to Portland by police Lt. John Scruggs, a stats-happy former neighborhood sergeant who heard of the program working in other cities and thought it was worth a try.

"Here's the thing," he said. "It's crime prevention through environmental design. If you put rose bushes in front of your bedroom window, the burglar is less likely to break in through that window because they don't want to get cut up."

To Scruggs, changing the music is changing the audio environment. "Eighteen-to-25-year-olds are not the big ones into classical music because it's not cool."

Uncultured youth aside, the program has shown early signs of success, though the numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant — the light rail stop had all of nine reported crimes in 2010.

Scruggs didn't pick the music, a transit department project engineer did. And that employee went with a four-song rotation that includes opera, which Scruggs abhors.

"If we create this classical music environment," Scruggs said, "and you don't see these loitering groups of folks, you feel safer.

"You may not actually be safer, but you feel safer."

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/04/03/1791153/rail-using-mozart-to-deter-loitering.html#ixzz1ITd3OMDD


Do you want to feel safer, or do you want to be safer.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Mozart, but I'm just not willing to depend on him to take care of me in a high crime area.  http://www/bestdefensesite.com