USE OF FORCE SITUATIONS and PUTTING C.A.P.R.A. into use as taught by the RCMP
Within the professional law enforcement community, there are five recognized and accepted purposes for which a legitimate use of force might be justified. These five well-defined and established purposes are frequently referred to as the "Rules of Engagement" and are basically categorized as:
Self Defense— a right common to all persons
Defense of Others— a DUTY assigned to police personnel
Effectuate an Arrest— a vested authority granted by law
Prevent an Escape— a vested authority granted by law
Overcome Resistance— a vested authority granted by law
The absolute RIGHT of self-defense applies to everyone including law enforcement officers. The DUTY to defend others is inherent in the law enforcement mission. The authority to deploy objectively reasonable force to effectuate an arrest is found in both federal and state laws along with the prohibition for the arrestee to use force or violence to resist the arrest. Hence, the first three "Rules of Engagement" are rather clear and well understood by professionally trained law enforcement officers. Various court rulings have long established such basic police principles.
That said, the fourth "Rule of Engagement" is a bit more complicated based on the evolutionary nature of case law. Historically, law enforcement officers were granted great latitude and discretion concerning the use and amount of force to prevent an escape or to recapture a fleeing suspect. Over the years, various agencies adopted various standards and individual agencies promulgated a wide array of policies and practices.
It is significant to note that the Charter of Rights requires that all persons be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This applies to all persons regardless of their citizenship, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs or any other distinctive factors. While much of the debate on "Equal Rights" has focused on racial differences, other classes and groups have emerged to claim similar protection.
Historically, an INDICTABLE crime represented a very serious offense that generally exposed a convicted perpetrator to a significant prison sentence or capital punishment. In more modern times, the administration of justice has determined that many Indictable ( Felony in the US) crimes are not life threatening, such as property crimes, and are therefore less serious in nature and less likely to result in a death penalty application. It is because of this underlying legal principle that many authors, scholars and practitioners frequently couch this discussion in terms of the "fleeing felon" rule. This terminology can be and has been misleading because it tends to oversimplify the rather complex calculations now required by an arresting officer in circumstances that are quite often "tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving."
In modern times, the use of force to prevent an escape must be objectively reasonable to the prevailing circumstances. For example, a police officer placing a detainee inside a secured police vehicle in furtherance of a preliminary field investigation is a common and accepted police procedure that affords increased safety and security for both the officer and the detainee. If such a scenario evolves into an arrest situation, then the proper handcuffing of the subject is an expected and proper police procedure. These two basic examples illustrate that everyday, non-remarkable police activities actually include constitutional elements that often to go unnoticed and frequently unreported because most arrests are accomplished with very low to moderate force applications.
A very significant point to be observed and understood here is that all arrests involve some use of force . A motorist detained during a traffic stop and placed in the rear of a police vehicle and later arrested for outstanding traffic warrants is an example of a common escalation of force calculated to prevent an escape.
In a more remarkable case, police officers engaged in a potential high-risk foot pursuit of an ARMED and DANGEROUS robbery suspect came upon a residential backyard scene in which the suspect was attempting to vault a wooden fence to evade arrest. If permitted to get over the fence, the suspect would have gained a significant tactical advantage over pursuing officers as well as the opportunity to force an entry into a residence or commandeer a vehicle. Four of the pursuing police officers FIRED at the fleeing suspect, causing him to fall wounded and immobilized at the fence line. While all of the involved officers possessed slightly different information and had slightly different perceptions, each officer determined independently that SHOOTING the fleeing suspect was an appropriate response to an obviously high risk and dangerous situation. In short, the four police officers reached a common conclusion based on their background, training and experience.
QUESTION : What is the appropriate and legitimate amount of force to be applied when a suspect flees or attempts to flee?
ANSWER : It depends. Each and every application of force must be objectively reasonable to the facts and circumstances then known to the on-scene arresting officer. Facts not known to the officer at the time or facts discovered at some later time cannot be relied upon to justify any particular use of force.
For example, a police officer effectuates a traffic stop of a vehicle based on a lighting equipment violation. The vehicle yields and pulls over to the curb. The vehicle contains two subjects and a registration check does not indicate any irregularities. At the point that the officer approaches the driver subject, the passenger subject suddenly opens the right-side door, gets out and begins to run away. The officer yells "HALT" and observes that the "running man" continues to flee. This example is not far-fetched from the realities of police work.
QUESTION : What is the appropriate and legitimate amount of force to be applied in response to the circumstances described in the above example?
From a tactical perspective, the use of a police canine seems to be an appropriate and most likely effective response to the "running man" example. Of course, such a use of force would probably result in the arrest of and injuries to the suspect. Following the arrest, medical care and jailing of the suspect, the involved officer will be required to prepare verbal or written reports detailing the incident and justifying the use of force. At some later time, the officer may face an administrative review and even a lawsuit.
QUESTION : Do we (you) have a problem with the above hypothetical use of force?
ANSWER : Absolutely.
The example offered lacks any substantive information to legitimize the arrest of the "running man" suspect or the use of a police canine that has a predictable injury consequence. Even if the suspect was later determined to have run to avoid an outstanding arrest warrant, that fact was not known to the officer at the time of the force application.
The quandary to be addressed here is WHY was the use of DEADLY FORCE to stop the ARMED robbery suspect from jumping over the fence objectively reasonable, and the use of a police service dog to stop the "running man" during a traffic stop patently un reasonable. The answer to this quandary can be found in the federal rulings and state laws defining the police authorities and limitations specific to preventing an escape or recapturing a fleeing suspect.
In the ARMED robbery incident, each of the involved officers had solid knowledge of the violent crimes committed by the suspect and his demonstrated level of resistance to being arrested. Each officer possessed solid information that the subject was ARMED and DANGEROUS and represented a clear and present high risk and threat to their safety and that of the community. Each officer independently concluded that the ARREST should not be delayed even so far as to enter the adjacent property.
In the "running man" scenario, the only articulated probable cause seems to address the driver of the vehicle concerning a minor mechanical traffic violation. There is a lack of any information to connect the passenger to any arrestable violation of law. There is no information to suggest that the passenger represented a threat to the police officer or to the community. As presented, the only reliable information offered is the arrest warrant information that was discovered only after the forceful arrest was effectuated.
From an experienced law enforcement perspective, both suspects qualify for arrest, one being far more compelling than the other. This analysis does not question that a properly trained police officer would respond to both of the described circumstances or that an arrest was to be expected. What is open for analysis and consideration is the intellectual judgment concerning the AMOUNT of force to be legitimately deployed.
The critical factors that must affect your reasoning in such circumstances include:
Only those facts or observations known to the on-scene officer at the time of the force application.
The nature and seriousness of the crime or crimes attributed to the person to be forcefully arrested.
The known history of the person to be forcefully arrested concerning previous levels of violence and/or levels of resistance.
The observed levels of active resistance and the apparent risks to the arresting officers in the immediate scene as well as the expected risks to arresting officers in subsequent scene if the arrest is delayed. This criterion includes any information or observation that the subject is or probably is ARMED or might gain access to weapons.
The observed or reasonably perceived threats to the safety of the community or other persons if the arrest is delayed.
The known status of the offender in terms of active parole, active probation, outstanding arrest warrant or other applicable court order.
The proportionality of the force to be deployed and the reasonable expectation of consequence consistent with the apparent need to effectuate the arrest.
The practical and tactical considerations indicating and supporting the arresting officer's judgment to effectuate the arrest without delay.
The use of force to prevent an escape or re-capture a fleeing suspect will be measured against the objectively reasonable standard applied exclusively to the facts and observations available to the on-scene arresting officer at the time of the forceful arrest. Each incident will be evaluated on its own merits and not to a "20/20 hindsight" standard.
An arrest is essentially a seizure of the person being arrested. The authority to arrest includes the authority to use objectively reasonable force to effectuate the arrest.
The lack of a thorough and complete police report, one that includes the officer's observations, perceptions and reasoning, is quite often the primary reason that "good police work" results in successful litigation against the officer and the agency. The point to be made here is that "good police work" can be obliterated in court if the arrest report fails to fully document the incident and satisfactorily explain the officer's reasoning, judgment, conclusions, decision making and the action taken. More simply stated the court and/or the jury wants to know WHY the officer took a particular action
CAPRA
Principles Underlying the Model
Recognizing the inevitability of the volatility and stress involved in situations of potential violence; and recognizing that a number of factors ranging from the threatening behavior of some individuals to the vulnerability of potential victims may aggravate the stress involved in the situation, the following principles apply to determining whether and how to intervene in a policing situation:
1. The primary objective of any intervention is public safety.
2. Police officer safety is essential to public safety.
3. The intervention model must always be applied in the context of a careful assessment of risk.
4.
Risk assessment must take into account: the likelihood and extent of life loss, injury and damage to property.
5. Risk assessment is a continuous process and risk management must evolve as situations change.
6. The best strategy is to utilize the least amount of intervention to manage the risk.
7. The best intervention causes the least amount of harm or damage.
capra and risk assessment
As a police officer, your role in an intervention is to ensure that the public is safe. Police safety is essential to public safety. If something happens to you, you will not be able to help others. In order to decide the level of intervention that is appropriate, you will have to assess the level of risk to the public and yourself and the potential for reducing it. This assessment should include both how likely it is that someone or something might be hurt or damaged and how or whether the police officer should intervene given the seriousness of the harm or damage that might be caused. These are often difficult decisions and the more adept you become at assessing risk, the more readily and appropriately you will respond under urgent circumstances.
The Incident Management/Intervention Model displays CAPRA on the cap of the police officer. This is because risk assessment is a problem solving strategy and the assessment should be done in light of client needs and potential partners. The model displays only the levels of resistance of the suspect. All other SITUATIONAL FACTORS, for example, criminal record, weapons, size and number of police officers vs. suspects, presence of bystanders, would be taken into account as part of CAPRA.
There may be seven key stages at which
you will assess risk when responding to incidents:
Information gathering
En route
Arrival
Approach
Entry
Interior
Exit
Not all stages apply to all situations; each situation must be analyzed individually.. For example, in some cases, situations may occur on encounter, so the "En route" and "Arrival" stages would not be involved. In others, you may intervene in a situation which is occurring outside so the "Entry", "Interior" and "Exit" stages would not be involved. The table below presents a list of common factors to consider at each of the seven potential stages of an incident. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive and each situation must be analyzed individually. The table also presents the response options available at each stage. All options are available to a police officer at each stage and selection of an option would depend on the level of risk to the public and the police. Finally, the table presents police responsibilities at each potential stage of an incident.
Since situations evolve, you should be continually assessing risk. The behaviours you are responding to and situational circumstances may change. The reasonableness of the option selected, therefore, may change at any point in the intervention.
Categories of resistance of individuals:
In the inner portion of the Incident Management/Intervention Model, potential levels of resistance of suspects are noted. The following defines the expected behaviours of individuals displaying each of the levels of resistance included.
1. Cooperative :
There is no resistance. The person responds positively to verbal requests, commands or activation of a police vehicle's emergency equipment.. The person willingly complies.
2. Non-Cooperative :
There is little or no physical resistance. The person does not comply to the officer's request. This can be done through verbal defiance with little or no physical response or failing to pull their vehicle over and stop when an officer activates the police vehicle's emergency equipment. This may include: refusal to leave the scene, failure to follow directions, taunting officers, and advising others to disregard officer's lawful requests.
3. Resistant :
The person demonstrates resistance to control by the police officer through behaviours such as pulling away, pushing away or running away. This can include a situation where a police officer activates a police vehicle's emergency equipment and the suspect fails to stop and attempts to evade apprehension by driving evasively.
4. Combative :
The person attempts or threatens to apply force to anyone, e.g. punching, kicking, clenching fists with intent to hurt or resists, threats of an assault. In the case of a person operating a vehicle, they attempt to collide with the police vehicle, another vehicle or a pedestrian.
5. Person who shows the potential to cause grevious bodily harm or death :
The person acts in a way which would lead the police officer to believe could result in grievous bodily harm or death to the public or the police:
knife attack
baseball bat
use of firearm
•In the case of a person operating a vehicle, they collide with the police vehicle, another vehicle or a pedestrian.
Response Options
The following are options available to police officers depending on the outcome of their risk assessment.
Officer Presence (white)
Your presence at a situation may itself impact on how it unfolds e.g. your presence may cause the suspects to cease the activity, e.g. stop making noise. Your presence may provoke a situation, e.g.'s drunken behavior at a party may turn violent or when you attempt to check a vehicle it could result in the driver panicking and trying to flee.
Verbal Intervention (blue)
crisis intervention techniques
verbal and non-verbal communication
anger management
conflict resolution
Empty Hand Control - Soft (yellow)
soft physical restraint methods
restraining techniques
joint locks
pain compliance
distractions, stuns, creating imbalance
hand cuffing
Intermediate Devices (fushia)
O.C. Spray (oleoresin capsicum)
CS gas
Conducted Energy Weapon (Taser)
Water Projection System
Empty hand control - hard (orange)
blocks
strikes
carotid control
NOTE :
Policy states that this carotid control will only be used when the life of a member or other person is at stake (Ops. Manual Chapter III.2.I.4.a).
Impact Weapons (purple)
use of police extendable baton
•extended impact weapon (Sock Round)
Lethal Force (red)
use of force which could result in the death of a person
firearms
police motor vehicle
Tactical Repositioning (grey)
Officers can do a tactical repositioning at any point in a situation:
if the likelihood and extent of harm to the public can be reduced by tactically repositioning;
if there is fear of death or grievous bodily harm providing it does not expose others to injury or deadly force;
if seeking assistance will help to ensure public and police safety;
if buying time and gaining distance will help to ensure public and police safety; and
if you have ensured that the scene has been contained and there is little or no potential for harm.
Decision Making Rationale Selecting a Particular Intervention Strategy
While Section 25 of the Criminal Code established protection from liability for a peace officer who, in the course of enforcing the law, finds it necessary to use force, the onus is on the peace officer to justify not only the fact of having used force, but also the degree of force used. The prospect of civil liability also requires the member to bear in mind the notions of negligence and duty of care. A detailed record of all the circumstances surrounding the incident should be kept by the peace officer, in order to document the peace officer's justification and care in using force. The record should include the following:
1. At the time when the force was used, did you believe that the force used as necessary (or were you simply acting on the instruction or suggestion of someone else)? [This is necessary to establish the subjective element that force was necessary. The remainder of the questions/answers serve to establish whether objectively force, and the degree thereof, was necessary]
2. Why did the you believe the force was necessary?
3. Did you fear violence on the part of the disputant? If so, why? What in the disputant's behaviour motivated your apprehension?
4. Towards whom did the disputant exhibit aggressive behaviour?
5. What was the disputant's size compared to you?
6. Have you had any previous encounters with the disputant?
7. Was the disputant in face or in appearance drunk? High on drugs? Agitated?
8. Was there anyone on hand to assist you in subduing the disputant?
9. Was the disputant alone? Were others also posing a threat?
10. Was the disputant uttering threats?
11. Was there escalation in degree or violence threatened by the disputant?
12. The obvious: Was the disputant armed? With what?
13. Did you make your presence known to the disputant?
14. Did you identify yourself to the complainant as a peace officer?
15. Did you state the purpose of your presence to the disputant?
16. What else did you say to the disputant? What was the disputant's reaction to what you said?
17. Was the disputant resisting you? How?
18. What warning did you give that you would use force?
19. How did the disputant react to the warning?
20. What level of force did you use?
21. Was there an escalation in the degree of force that you used? Can you match the escalation in force with an escalation in threat of violence by the complainant?
Despite its length, this list of questions should not be considered exhaustive. It is critical to record in as much detail as possible, as soon as possible after the occurrence of use of force, a full description of the force actually used, and a full description of all the indicators of potential or actual violence which would explain the peace officer's apprehension and justify the resort to force and the degree of force utilized. That is the trade-off in order to benefit from the protection afforded by Section 25 of the Criminal Code .
This link will take you to the RCMP online learning section for an interactive model of CAPRA:
http://www.rcmp-learning.org/online_courses/capra/capra_img_e.htm
Self Defense— a right common to all persons
Defense of Others— a DUTY assigned to police personnel
Effectuate an Arrest— a vested authority granted by law
Prevent an Escape— a vested authority granted by law
Overcome Resistance— a vested authority granted by law
The absolute RIGHT of self-defense applies to everyone including law enforcement officers. The DUTY to defend others is inherent in the law enforcement mission. The authority to deploy objectively reasonable force to effectuate an arrest is found in both federal and state laws along with the prohibition for the arrestee to use force or violence to resist the arrest. Hence, the first three "Rules of Engagement" are rather clear and well understood by professionally trained law enforcement officers. Various court rulings have long established such basic police principles.
That said, the fourth "Rule of Engagement" is a bit more complicated based on the evolutionary nature of case law. Historically, law enforcement officers were granted great latitude and discretion concerning the use and amount of force to prevent an escape or to recapture a fleeing suspect. Over the years, various agencies adopted various standards and individual agencies promulgated a wide array of policies and practices.
It is significant to note that the Charter of Rights requires that all persons be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This applies to all persons regardless of their citizenship, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs or any other distinctive factors. While much of the debate on "Equal Rights" has focused on racial differences, other classes and groups have emerged to claim similar protection.
Historically, an INDICTABLE crime represented a very serious offense that generally exposed a convicted perpetrator to a significant prison sentence or capital punishment. In more modern times, the administration of justice has determined that many Indictable ( Felony in the US) crimes are not life threatening, such as property crimes, and are therefore less serious in nature and less likely to result in a death penalty application. It is because of this underlying legal principle that many authors, scholars and practitioners frequently couch this discussion in terms of the "fleeing felon" rule. This terminology can be and has been misleading because it tends to oversimplify the rather complex calculations now required by an arresting officer in circumstances that are quite often "tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving."
In modern times, the use of force to prevent an escape must be objectively reasonable to the prevailing circumstances. For example, a police officer placing a detainee inside a secured police vehicle in furtherance of a preliminary field investigation is a common and accepted police procedure that affords increased safety and security for both the officer and the detainee. If such a scenario evolves into an arrest situation, then the proper handcuffing of the subject is an expected and proper police procedure. These two basic examples illustrate that everyday, non-remarkable police activities actually include constitutional elements that often to go unnoticed and frequently unreported because most arrests are accomplished with very low to moderate force applications.
A very significant point to be observed and understood here is that all arrests involve some use of force . A motorist detained during a traffic stop and placed in the rear of a police vehicle and later arrested for outstanding traffic warrants is an example of a common escalation of force calculated to prevent an escape.
In a more remarkable case, police officers engaged in a potential high-risk foot pursuit of an ARMED and DANGEROUS robbery suspect came upon a residential backyard scene in which the suspect was attempting to vault a wooden fence to evade arrest. If permitted to get over the fence, the suspect would have gained a significant tactical advantage over pursuing officers as well as the opportunity to force an entry into a residence or commandeer a vehicle. Four of the pursuing police officers FIRED at the fleeing suspect, causing him to fall wounded and immobilized at the fence line. While all of the involved officers possessed slightly different information and had slightly different perceptions, each officer determined independently that SHOOTING the fleeing suspect was an appropriate response to an obviously high risk and dangerous situation. In short, the four police officers reached a common conclusion based on their background, training and experience.
QUESTION : What is the appropriate and legitimate amount of force to be applied when a suspect flees or attempts to flee?
ANSWER : It depends. Each and every application of force must be objectively reasonable to the facts and circumstances then known to the on-scene arresting officer. Facts not known to the officer at the time or facts discovered at some later time cannot be relied upon to justify any particular use of force.
For example, a police officer effectuates a traffic stop of a vehicle based on a lighting equipment violation. The vehicle yields and pulls over to the curb. The vehicle contains two subjects and a registration check does not indicate any irregularities. At the point that the officer approaches the driver subject, the passenger subject suddenly opens the right-side door, gets out and begins to run away. The officer yells "HALT" and observes that the "running man" continues to flee. This example is not far-fetched from the realities of police work.
QUESTION : What is the appropriate and legitimate amount of force to be applied in response to the circumstances described in the above example?
From a tactical perspective, the use of a police canine seems to be an appropriate and most likely effective response to the "running man" example. Of course, such a use of force would probably result in the arrest of and injuries to the suspect. Following the arrest, medical care and jailing of the suspect, the involved officer will be required to prepare verbal or written reports detailing the incident and justifying the use of force. At some later time, the officer may face an administrative review and even a lawsuit.
QUESTION : Do we (you) have a problem with the above hypothetical use of force?
ANSWER : Absolutely.
The example offered lacks any substantive information to legitimize the arrest of the "running man" suspect or the use of a police canine that has a predictable injury consequence. Even if the suspect was later determined to have run to avoid an outstanding arrest warrant, that fact was not known to the officer at the time of the force application.
The quandary to be addressed here is WHY was the use of DEADLY FORCE to stop the ARMED robbery suspect from jumping over the fence objectively reasonable, and the use of a police service dog to stop the "running man" during a traffic stop patently un reasonable. The answer to this quandary can be found in the federal rulings and state laws defining the police authorities and limitations specific to preventing an escape or recapturing a fleeing suspect.
In the ARMED robbery incident, each of the involved officers had solid knowledge of the violent crimes committed by the suspect and his demonstrated level of resistance to being arrested. Each officer possessed solid information that the subject was ARMED and DANGEROUS and represented a clear and present high risk and threat to their safety and that of the community. Each officer independently concluded that the ARREST should not be delayed even so far as to enter the adjacent property.
In the "running man" scenario, the only articulated probable cause seems to address the driver of the vehicle concerning a minor mechanical traffic violation. There is a lack of any information to connect the passenger to any arrestable violation of law. There is no information to suggest that the passenger represented a threat to the police officer or to the community. As presented, the only reliable information offered is the arrest warrant information that was discovered only after the forceful arrest was effectuated.
From an experienced law enforcement perspective, both suspects qualify for arrest, one being far more compelling than the other. This analysis does not question that a properly trained police officer would respond to both of the described circumstances or that an arrest was to be expected. What is open for analysis and consideration is the intellectual judgment concerning the AMOUNT of force to be legitimately deployed.
The critical factors that must affect your reasoning in such circumstances include:
Only those facts or observations known to the on-scene officer at the time of the force application.
The nature and seriousness of the crime or crimes attributed to the person to be forcefully arrested.
The known history of the person to be forcefully arrested concerning previous levels of violence and/or levels of resistance.
The observed levels of active resistance and the apparent risks to the arresting officers in the immediate scene as well as the expected risks to arresting officers in subsequent scene if the arrest is delayed. This criterion includes any information or observation that the subject is or probably is ARMED or might gain access to weapons.
The observed or reasonably perceived threats to the safety of the community or other persons if the arrest is delayed.
The known status of the offender in terms of active parole, active probation, outstanding arrest warrant or other applicable court order.
The proportionality of the force to be deployed and the reasonable expectation of consequence consistent with the apparent need to effectuate the arrest.
The practical and tactical considerations indicating and supporting the arresting officer's judgment to effectuate the arrest without delay.
The use of force to prevent an escape or re-capture a fleeing suspect will be measured against the objectively reasonable standard applied exclusively to the facts and observations available to the on-scene arresting officer at the time of the forceful arrest. Each incident will be evaluated on its own merits and not to a "20/20 hindsight" standard.
An arrest is essentially a seizure of the person being arrested. The authority to arrest includes the authority to use objectively reasonable force to effectuate the arrest.
The lack of a thorough and complete police report, one that includes the officer's observations, perceptions and reasoning, is quite often the primary reason that "good police work" results in successful litigation against the officer and the agency. The point to be made here is that "good police work" can be obliterated in court if the arrest report fails to fully document the incident and satisfactorily explain the officer's reasoning, judgment, conclusions, decision making and the action taken. More simply stated the court and/or the jury wants to know WHY the officer took a particular action
CAPRA
Principles Underlying the Model
Recognizing the inevitability of the volatility and stress involved in situations of potential violence; and recognizing that a number of factors ranging from the threatening behavior of some individuals to the vulnerability of potential victims may aggravate the stress involved in the situation, the following principles apply to determining whether and how to intervene in a policing situation:
1. The primary objective of any intervention is public safety.
2. Police officer safety is essential to public safety.
3. The intervention model must always be applied in the context of a careful assessment of risk.
4.
Risk assessment must take into account: the likelihood and extent of life loss, injury and damage to property.
5. Risk assessment is a continuous process and risk management must evolve as situations change.
6. The best strategy is to utilize the least amount of intervention to manage the risk.
7. The best intervention causes the least amount of harm or damage.
capra and risk assessment
As a police officer, your role in an intervention is to ensure that the public is safe. Police safety is essential to public safety. If something happens to you, you will not be able to help others. In order to decide the level of intervention that is appropriate, you will have to assess the level of risk to the public and yourself and the potential for reducing it. This assessment should include both how likely it is that someone or something might be hurt or damaged and how or whether the police officer should intervene given the seriousness of the harm or damage that might be caused. These are often difficult decisions and the more adept you become at assessing risk, the more readily and appropriately you will respond under urgent circumstances.
The Incident Management/Intervention Model displays CAPRA on the cap of the police officer. This is because risk assessment is a problem solving strategy and the assessment should be done in light of client needs and potential partners. The model displays only the levels of resistance of the suspect. All other SITUATIONAL FACTORS, for example, criminal record, weapons, size and number of police officers vs. suspects, presence of bystanders, would be taken into account as part of CAPRA.
There may be seven key stages at which
you will assess risk when responding to incidents:
Information gathering
En route
Arrival
Approach
Entry
Interior
Exit
Not all stages apply to all situations; each situation must be analyzed individually.. For example, in some cases, situations may occur on encounter, so the "En route" and "Arrival" stages would not be involved. In others, you may intervene in a situation which is occurring outside so the "Entry", "Interior" and "Exit" stages would not be involved. The table below presents a list of common factors to consider at each of the seven potential stages of an incident. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive and each situation must be analyzed individually. The table also presents the response options available at each stage. All options are available to a police officer at each stage and selection of an option would depend on the level of risk to the public and the police. Finally, the table presents police responsibilities at each potential stage of an incident.
Since situations evolve, you should be continually assessing risk. The behaviours you are responding to and situational circumstances may change. The reasonableness of the option selected, therefore, may change at any point in the intervention.
Categories of resistance of individuals:
In the inner portion of the Incident Management/Intervention Model, potential levels of resistance of suspects are noted. The following defines the expected behaviours of individuals displaying each of the levels of resistance included.
1. Cooperative :
There is no resistance. The person responds positively to verbal requests, commands or activation of a police vehicle's emergency equipment.. The person willingly complies.
2. Non-Cooperative :
There is little or no physical resistance. The person does not comply to the officer's request. This can be done through verbal defiance with little or no physical response or failing to pull their vehicle over and stop when an officer activates the police vehicle's emergency equipment. This may include: refusal to leave the scene, failure to follow directions, taunting officers, and advising others to disregard officer's lawful requests.
3. Resistant :
The person demonstrates resistance to control by the police officer through behaviours such as pulling away, pushing away or running away. This can include a situation where a police officer activates a police vehicle's emergency equipment and the suspect fails to stop and attempts to evade apprehension by driving evasively.
4. Combative :
The person attempts or threatens to apply force to anyone, e.g. punching, kicking, clenching fists with intent to hurt or resists, threats of an assault. In the case of a person operating a vehicle, they attempt to collide with the police vehicle, another vehicle or a pedestrian.
5. Person who shows the potential to cause grevious bodily harm or death :
The person acts in a way which would lead the police officer to believe could result in grievous bodily harm or death to the public or the police:
knife attack
baseball bat
use of firearm
•In the case of a person operating a vehicle, they collide with the police vehicle, another vehicle or a pedestrian.
Response Options
The following are options available to police officers depending on the outcome of their risk assessment.
Officer Presence (white)
Your presence at a situation may itself impact on how it unfolds e.g. your presence may cause the suspects to cease the activity, e.g. stop making noise. Your presence may provoke a situation, e.g.'s drunken behavior at a party may turn violent or when you attempt to check a vehicle it could result in the driver panicking and trying to flee.
Verbal Intervention (blue)
crisis intervention techniques
verbal and non-verbal communication
anger management
conflict resolution
Empty Hand Control - Soft (yellow)
soft physical restraint methods
restraining techniques
joint locks
pain compliance
distractions, stuns, creating imbalance
hand cuffing
Intermediate Devices (fushia)
O.C. Spray (oleoresin capsicum)
CS gas
Conducted Energy Weapon (Taser)
Water Projection System
Empty hand control - hard (orange)
blocks
strikes
carotid control
NOTE :
Policy states that this carotid control will only be used when the life of a member or other person is at stake (Ops. Manual Chapter III.2.I.4.a).
Impact Weapons (purple)
use of police extendable baton
•extended impact weapon (Sock Round)
Lethal Force (red)
use of force which could result in the death of a person
firearms
police motor vehicle
Tactical Repositioning (grey)
Officers can do a tactical repositioning at any point in a situation:
if the likelihood and extent of harm to the public can be reduced by tactically repositioning;
if there is fear of death or grievous bodily harm providing it does not expose others to injury or deadly force;
if seeking assistance will help to ensure public and police safety;
if buying time and gaining distance will help to ensure public and police safety; and
if you have ensured that the scene has been contained and there is little or no potential for harm.
Decision Making Rationale Selecting a Particular Intervention Strategy
While Section 25 of the Criminal Code established protection from liability for a peace officer who, in the course of enforcing the law, finds it necessary to use force, the onus is on the peace officer to justify not only the fact of having used force, but also the degree of force used. The prospect of civil liability also requires the member to bear in mind the notions of negligence and duty of care. A detailed record of all the circumstances surrounding the incident should be kept by the peace officer, in order to document the peace officer's justification and care in using force. The record should include the following:
1. At the time when the force was used, did you believe that the force used as necessary (or were you simply acting on the instruction or suggestion of someone else)? [This is necessary to establish the subjective element that force was necessary. The remainder of the questions/answers serve to establish whether objectively force, and the degree thereof, was necessary]
2. Why did the you believe the force was necessary?
3. Did you fear violence on the part of the disputant? If so, why? What in the disputant's behaviour motivated your apprehension?
4. Towards whom did the disputant exhibit aggressive behaviour?
5. What was the disputant's size compared to you?
6. Have you had any previous encounters with the disputant?
7. Was the disputant in face or in appearance drunk? High on drugs? Agitated?
8. Was there anyone on hand to assist you in subduing the disputant?
9. Was the disputant alone? Were others also posing a threat?
10. Was the disputant uttering threats?
11. Was there escalation in degree or violence threatened by the disputant?
12. The obvious: Was the disputant armed? With what?
13. Did you make your presence known to the disputant?
14. Did you identify yourself to the complainant as a peace officer?
15. Did you state the purpose of your presence to the disputant?
16. What else did you say to the disputant? What was the disputant's reaction to what you said?
17. Was the disputant resisting you? How?
18. What warning did you give that you would use force?
19. How did the disputant react to the warning?
20. What level of force did you use?
21. Was there an escalation in the degree of force that you used? Can you match the escalation in force with an escalation in threat of violence by the complainant?
Despite its length, this list of questions should not be considered exhaustive. It is critical to record in as much detail as possible, as soon as possible after the occurrence of use of force, a full description of the force actually used, and a full description of all the indicators of potential or actual violence which would explain the peace officer's apprehension and justify the resort to force and the degree of force utilized. That is the trade-off in order to benefit from the protection afforded by Section 25 of the Criminal Code .
This link will take you to the RCMP online learning section for an interactive model of CAPRA:
http://www.rcmp-learning.org/online_courses/capra/capra_img_e.htm
Comments