Use of Force Procedures for US Law Enforcement & Private Security- By, Richard Garrity

““The Art of Restraint”The Art of Restraint”
Use of Force ProtocolsUse of Force Protocols
Lethal & Non LethalLethal & Non Lethal

Use of Force ProtocolUse of Force Protocol
This presentation is
proprietary information and
can’t be copied or reproduced
in any fashion without consent
from the publisher owner,
Richard Garrity

Use of Force ProtocolUse of Force Protocol
“Force is legitimate
where gentleness avails
not”. Pierre Corneille

Leading the front lines:Leading the front lines:

A growing partnership:A growing partnership:

Private SecurityPrivate Security-- Playing a biggerPlaying a bigger
role in Public Safety everyday~role in Public Safety everyday~

Mission & Purpose:Mission & Purpose:
The primary purpose of this
training exercise is to:
1. Insure first, the safety of the Officer
2. Insure the safety of the public
3. Insure the safety of the suspect (if necessary)
4. Reduce costly liability when applicable
5. Diminish the possibility of criminal charges or
civil liability to the personnel involved

Introduction:Introduction:
The purpose of this comprehensive training
module is to give public law enforcement and
private security personnel proper guidelines on the
Use of Force, both lethal and non-lethal. It is vital
that this training presentation be viewed as a
supplement to your existing training and should
not be construed as replacement for said training.
Use of Force guidelines should always be universal
in spirit and in actual current written procedure.

This presentation will mainly
deal with several tools utilized
and deployed by
Police & Security:
1. The Taser Gun- stun gun
2. The nightstick- baton
3. Use of Force discretion

Additionally, this presentation will focus on
several key areas of legal interpretation and
previous cases of prior incidents involving Use
of Force, both justifiably & non justifiable.
1. The color of authority
2. Lack of oversight- training
3. Costly liability concerns
4. Federal Court Intervention- 2009

This presentation will not address
directly, the use of service issued
firearms. This training module is
more focused on the use of non-
lethal service issued weapons that
very well can be lethal if not utilized
properly or discriminately.

Moreover, the intent of this
presentation is to give the
Officer a more clear & decisive
situational direction as to when
to actually use Taser guns,
nightsticks, pepper spray, or an
automatic pepper ball gun.

More in depth procedural
guidelines regarding the
deployment of the pepperball
gun can be referenced from
“Use of Force Guidelines Part 2-
Pepperball Gun & Urban Riots”

Because police officers are charged with
enforcing the law and maintaining public
order, they are frequently placed in fluid
situations where they must attempt to manage
or control an otherwise free citizen. Whether
an encounter leads to an actual arrest or
merely a temporary detention for questioning,
these intrusions are often unwelcome and met
with determined resistance and resolve. It is
instinctive to resist.

It is not uncommon for such police
intervention to be resisted by the
citizen or citizens involved. When this
happens, officers frequently need to
use forcible means to control and
perhaps arrest the persons in
question. It is then that the critical
question is raised.

Just what justifiable forcible
means to control someone is
warranted? It can be a very grey
area, and this training module
will attempt to shed more light
& clarity on the subject.

POLICY:POLICY:
The primary duty of police officers is
to protect the public, themselves and
other officers. Less lethal force and
control options may assist officers in
performing these duties, but are not
intended to substitute for the use of
deadly force when it is reasonable
and necessary.

POLICY:POLICY:
There is neither a requirement
nor an expectation that officers
attempt to use or exhaust less
lethal options in situations
requiring the use of deadly
force.

Where do we start?Where do we start?

Crossing the Line:Crossing the Line:

Liability & Consequence:Liability & Consequence:

The need for comprehensive training
programs for peace officers in the
appropriate use of force is a matter of
common sense and good management
practice. Not surprisingly, the United
States Supreme Court in City of Canton v.
Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989),

noted that a municipality which fails
to train its officers in those essential
functions of their jobs may be held
civilly liable for subsequent acts of
misconduct by employees violating
constitutionally protected rights of
citizens. There is prior case law*

A majority of police administrators
universally agree that inappropriate use of
force by peace officers can drive a wedge
between peace officers and the
communities they serve. History has
recorded how incidents of misconduct in
the application of force can spark
widespread civil and deadly unrest.

Assessing the appropriateness of
use of force and the parameters
of a use of force training program
necessitates a careful
examination of state (not local)
and federal legal requirements.

While it is expected that training
academies and law enforcement
agencies will choose to use various use of
force training models with differing
numbers of levels of force, they must
ensure that their model and instruction
comply with the general standards
established by state and federal
guidelines concerning appropriate use of

Use of force, both lethal and non
lethal, must be reasonable when
at all possible. When an Officer’s
safety or the public is at risk, the
level of force needed can
reasonably be escalated to control
the suspect and or situation.

It must also be stated that use of force is
always on a case by case basis.
Sometimes, excessive force is needed to
bring a suspect in. Sometimes, to varying
degrees, more force was needed than
what was expected. Really, how do you
measure what level of force was needed?
Especially if you were not there?

The Bottom Line: You can’t do
what you want. You, the Officer,
the purveyor of justice, were hired
to jealously adhere to guidelines,
procedures, and use of force
protocol. For every action, there is,
a reaction.

For those paying close attention,
there is always a consequence for
those reactions, to actions. We live
in a different world today. As the
old proverbial saying goes:
“This is not your Father’s LAPD
anymore”.

Liability- Rodney King, L.A.Liability- Rodney King, L.A.
Lessons learned from “The Incident”

Liability & the TaxpayerLiability & the Taxpayer

Liability- Rodney KingLiability- Rodney King
In the aftermath of the infamous 1991
videotaped beating of Rodney King in Los
Angeles, questions about the prevalence
and type of police misconduct and Use of
Force persist to this day. This very incident
only served to undermine and negatively
impact police departments across the
country.

Subsequent acts of police wrongdoing
have contributed to increased citizen
distrust of the police and civil liability
for police agencies. In 1994, a civil jury
found the city of Los Angeles liable for
3.8 million dollars in damages.

The incident also led to sweeping changes
in the LAPD with drastic federal oversight.
Use of Force guidelines were dramatically
overhauled and several Officers involved
were sentenced to federal prison. Up to 8
LAPD Officers and 2 California Highway
patrol Officers were present during the
sustained beating in which 56 baton blows
were administered and two Taser shocks.

10 uniformed personnel, highly
trained & skilled professionals should
have been able to clearly take King
into custody, an unarmed man. But
alas, as we will discuss in detail later
on, they didn’t know how to get their
hands dirty, or didn’t want to.

The Christopher Commission federal
internal report found that a culture
existed within the LAPD that tolerated
or supported officer excessive use of
force. Its conclusions validated
accusations from members of the Los
Angeles ethnic community and general
public that had charged officers with
abuse for years.

Data collected by the Christopher
Commission revealed that a core group
of forty-four officers had generated
repeated citizen complaints but had
failed to be effectively disciplined by
the department. This mgt. oversight
failure very well may have led to one of
the deadliest riots in United States
history, April 1992.

Rodney King: The PCPRodney King: The PCP
DefenseDefense
In the 1991 incident, a Taser supplied by
Tasertron to the Los Angeles Police
Department failed to subdue Rodney King
– even after he was shot twice with the
device – causing officers to believe he was
on PCP. Its lack of effectiveness was
blamed on a faulty battery.

Rodney King: The PCPRodney King: The PCP
DefenseDefense
However, this does explain, in part,
why to some degree, numerous
Officers resorted to extreme baton
blows believing he maybe on PCP or
another controlled substance. But,
regardless, they should have been
able to take King down by shear force

Liability- Excelon SecurityLiability- Excelon Security
In 1989, a security officer of the Excelon
Detective & Security Agency in Boston, was
patrolling the exterior premises of the main
Boston Public Library in Copley Square. The
Security officer came across a homeless
man who was sleeping on a granite bench
attached to the library.

The Security Officer told him he
was trespassing and ordered him
to leave. The homeless man
ignored his commands as the
Security Officer was wearing a
civilian winter coat.

The security officer then grabbed the man
and swung him as hard as he could onto
the sidewalk. The homeless man suffered
a broken arm and multiple abrasions from
the violent encounter. The incident made
the local news and embarrassed the City
of Boston. The City had hired the company
to provide protection services to the site.

The security company was found liable
for 75.000 thousand dollars and the
security officer was charged with
assault & battery. The security officer
had a previous felony record but was
not properly screened or vetted during
the hiring process.

Liability- Boston PoliceLiability- Boston Police

In the Spring of 1988, in a highly
publicized incident, a Boston Police
Officer pulled behind a city cab parked
next to the Lafayette Mall in downtown
Boston. The Officer ordered the cab to
move. The driver refused, stating he was
not blocking traffic. The Officer then
pulled out her service issued 9mm glock
pistol and pointed it at the driver’s head
and ordered him to move or else.

The entire incident was caught on
video surveillance. When the
Boston Police officers discovered
there was a security camera
mounted on the roof, they
demanded that Security Forces
Inc. turn over the tape.

SFI refused and would not open the re-
enforced door to the security operations
command center. The Massachusetts State
Police ended up taking possession of said
video tape that purportedly captured the
entire incident. The consequences of this
act? The police officer, a 10 month rookie,
was immediately fired and the other
Officers who tried to take possession of the
tape were suspended.

A few bad applesA few bad apples

To Serve with IntegrityTo Serve with Integrity
It is imperative that before we
proceed any further with this Use Of
Force presentation, that we point out
that the majority of Law enforcement
and Private Security personnel
conduct themselves in a professional
and prudent manor. That is a fact.

Approximately 600,000 local, state, and
federal peace officers and approximately
1.7 million private security personnel patrol
and enforce every day, various laws and
regulations & execute use of force protocol
without serious incident or gross violation
of such protocols.

A few bad apples will always give any service
industry, a black eye. Sometimes it simply cant be
foreseen, anticipated, or controlled. Police &
Security personnel who blatantly abuse or engage
in excessive force or gross violation of use of
force, only tarnish the image of all personnel who
wear the uniform and this further enforces
perceptions and stereotypes of sworn personnel
by a public they are protecting. It is, counter-
productive.

Many times justified Use of Force incidents will
be vilified by the media and certain segments
of the public. What seems more often than not,
you just cant win no matter what you do in the
daily performance of your duties and
protecting life. You feel alone and
unappreciated. Sometimes, tasering or
clubbing a citizen is necessary dependent of
the circumstances and level of resistance or
violence that the Officer is faced with.

More often than not, the
public does not see what
happened before use of force
was used, nor do they
understand the gravity of the
situation.

Doing the right thing.Doing the right thing.
When faced with scrutiny over Use of
Force incidents or allegations of excessive
force, if you believe, truly believe that you
acted within the scope of your authority,
that you made an attempt to stay within
the spirit of such protocols, then never
have shame or doubt about your actions
if you know that they were lawful and
reasonable.

Doing the right thing.Doing the right thing.
Sometimes, justifiable acts
of use of force will be met
with punishment or public
resentment. The only thing
you can do, “Is deal with it”.

Doing the right thingDoing the right thing
You can write all the policies &
procedures about Use of Force, but
ultimately, it is all about common
sense. It is not always black &
white in transparency, it always
comes down to right and wrong.

Serving with distinctionServing with distinction
A Baltimore Police Officer, circa 1980’s

The power of oneThe power of one
Police officers, Deputy Sheriffs, Federal agents,
and Special Police (Security personnel with
restricted powers) are able to wield
considerable official power in areas such as
arrest, search, and seizure. Broad discretion is an
inherent element in police officers’ decision
making that contributes to the circumstances
under which they choose to take enforcement
actions.

Often, these actions involve the use
of different degrees of force and
methods of handling evidence.
Discretion and reaction are key to
how a difficult situation can be
resolved with the least turmoil.

It should also be duly noted that Police and
Security personnel are not social workers
either. Although great strides have been made
over the last 20 years in terms of community
policing and forging a stronger partnership
between local law enforcement and the public,
Police officials still have to be on constant
guard against disorder. Many times there
actions are not agreeable with media outlets or
the public.

Some citizens feel they should be walking around
the beat shaking hands and being Mr. Friendly.
Big ole smile on their face. No. Although a Police
or Security Officer should always be professional,
helpful, and courteous, they are not running for
Mayor. They have to be firm, hard, no nonsense,
and deliberate with their mission at hand:
To deter crime and protect the public with due
diligence and uncompromised integrity.

Serving with distinctionServing with distinction
Metro Police staying alert, Boston, 1978

It is imperative that each
individual Officer build a strong
and trusting repore with the
district he or she is assigned. But,
they are not there to make friends
either. There is a fine line and it
can be a delicate one at that.

The color of law:The color of law:

Definition:
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal
power to act but which may operate in
violation of law. For example, though a police
officer acts with the "color of law" authority to
arrest someone, if such an arrest is made
without probable cause the arrest may actually
be in violation of law. In other words, just
because something is done with the "color of
law” that does not mean that the action was
lawful or justified.

Officials charged with violation of color of law:
1 Neshoba County, Mississippi Deputy Sheriff and
the Sheriff (1965)- Murdered civil activists
4 LAPD Officers (1994)- Rodney King incident
The China Lake murders- Tulare, CA. Officer- 1984
NYC cop(s) who stole dead victims property-1993
2 Detroit Officers- the Malice Green incident- 1992
Miami Officer Fausto Lopez , 120 MPH- arrested

When police or private security forces act
outside their lawful authority and violate
the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked
with investigating such instances and
prosecuting such matters. Excessive force
and unreasonable use of force can fall
under violations of the color of law
definition.

A security officer who violates
the color of law while acting
under the direction of a sworn
police officer, can be held
responsible for civil and criminal
charges just as equally.

Federal Guidelines:Federal Guidelines:

FBI Definition:FBI Definition:
According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, their definition of “color of law”
is as follows:
U.S. law enforcement officers and other
officials like judges, prosecutors, and security
officers have been given tremendous power by
local, state, and federal government agencies—
authority they must have to enforce the law
and ensure justice in their perspective
jurisdictions and our country.

These powers include the authority to
detain and arrest suspects, to search and
seize property, to bring criminal charges, to
make rulings in court, and to use deadly
force in certain situations. Preventing
abuse of this authority, however, is equally
necessary to prevent widespread disorder
and preserve the health of our nation’s
democracy.

That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone
acting under “color of law” willfully to
deprive or conspire to deprive a person of
a right protected by the Constitution or
U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means
that the person is using authority given to
him or her by a local, state, or federal
government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for
investigating color of law abuses, which
include acts carried out by government
officials operating both within and
beyond the limits of their lawful
authority. Off-duty conduct may be
covered if the perpetrator asserted his or
her official status in some way.

During the year 2009, the FBI investigated 385
color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall
into five broad areas:
•Excessive force; Sexual assaults;
•False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
•Deprivation of property; and
•Failure to keep from harm.
* As excerpted from the FBI official website, Civil Rights section

Guidelines for Private Security:Guidelines for Private Security:

Use of Force Protocols:Use of Force Protocols:
• When faced with a clear and
immediate threat of imminent
bodily harm, always try first,
to retreat with any people
present, to a secure and safe
position.

•Use of Force is permitted ONLY
when it is absolutely necessary to
protect yourself and others, from
a clear and immediate threat of
bodily harm, and only when all
options have exhausted

•Use only that degree of force that
is necessary to repel an attack or
the threat of an attack. Do not
further provoke or incite what you
perceive to be an impending
attack or threat of attack.

•DO NOT use force to protect
property. There may be special
considerations that apply under
extreme certain circumstances.
Unless directed to, follow
standard UOF policy.

• If able to, always utilize the
911 system for Police
assistance, as your first and
primary method when
confronted with these volatile
situations.

Always notify the dispatch
operations center or Field
Manager if applicable, the
Account Manager, and site client
contact- Manager on Duty (MOD)
if directed to do so.

•Record all incidents involving the
Use of Force on the standard
incident report site forms with
brief reference to such incident(s)
on your daily activity report.

What is a Taser Gun?What is a Taser Gun?

A TASER gun is an electroshock weapon which
uses electrical current to disrupt voluntary
control of muscles. The device functions by
affecting "neuromuscular incapacitation” and
the devices' mechanism "Electro-Muscular
Disruption (EMD) technology". Someone struck
by a Taser gun experiences stimulation of his or
her sensory nerves and motor nerves, resulting
in strong involuntary muscle contractions.

Tasers do not rely only on pain
compliance, except when used in Drive
Stun mode, and are thus preferred by
some law enforcement over non-Taser
stun guns and other electronic control
weapons.
At present time, there are two main police
models in use today, the M26 and X26.

Purpose of a Taser Gun?Purpose of a Taser Gun?
Tasers were introduced as non-lethal
weapons to be used by police to
subdue fleeing, violent, or potentially
dangerous people, who would have
otherwise been subjected to what
they consider more lethal weapons
(such as a firearm).

Since teaming up with police
forces in 1999, Taser has had
widespread success, with a 2009
Police Executive Research Forum
study stating that officer injuries
drop by 76% when a Taser is used.

The Taser fires two small dart-like electrodes,
which stay connected to the main unit by
conductive wire as they are propelled by small
compressed nitrogen charges similar to some air
gun or paintball marker propellants. The air
cartridge contains a pair of electrodes and
propellant for a single shot and is replaced after
each use. There are a number of cartridges
designated by range, with the max. at 35 feet.

Cartridges available to non-law enforcement
consumers are limited to 15 feet. The
electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing
and barbed to prevent removal once in place.
Earlier Taser models had difficulty in
penetrating thick clothing, but more newer
versions (X26, C2) use a "shaped pulse" that
increases effectiveness in the presence of
barriers, such as clothing, light jackets, etc.

The Taser X-26 ModelThe Taser X-26 Model

The Taser M-26 ModelThe Taser M-26 Model

Tasers also provide a safety benefit to police
officers as they have a greater deployment range
than batons, pepper spray or empty hand
techniques. This allows police to maintain a safe
distance. A study of use-of-force incidents by the
Calgary Police Service conducted by the Canadian
Police Research Centre found that the use of
Tasers resulted in fewer injuries than the use of
batons or empty hand techniques. Only pepper
spray was found to be a safer intervention option.

Use of Drive Stun Mode?Use of Drive Stun Mode?
Some Taser models, particularly those used by
police departments, also have a "Drive Stun"
capability, where the Taser is held against the
target without firing the projectiles, and is
intended to cause pain without incapacitating the
target. "Drive Stun" is "the process of using the
EMD weapon [Taser] as a pain compliance
technique. This is done by activating the EMD and
placing it against an individual’s body.

This can be done without an air cartridge in place
or after an air cartridge has been deployed.
Guidelines released in 2011 in the U.S.
recommend that use of Drive Stun as a pain
compliance technique be avoided. The guidelines
were issued by a joint committee of the Police
Executive Research Forum and the U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services.

The guidelines state "Using the Taser
gun in drive stun mode to achieve pain
compliance may have proven limited
effectiveness and, when used-
deployed repeatedly, the drive stun
mode may even exacerbate the
situation by inducing rage in the
subject or suspect."

Electrode skin entry:Electrode skin entry:

The power of pure voltage:The power of pure voltage:

500 Volt Shotgun:500 Volt Shotgun:

The barbed electrodeThe barbed electrode

~100 Foot range~~100 Foot range~

Unjustified Taser use:Unjustified Taser use:

What is wrong with this picture?What is wrong with this picture?

According to the analysis of the first 900 police Taser
incidents by the Houston Chronicle, no crime was
being committed and no person was charged in 350 of
those cases. In addition, it has been reported that the
Houston Police Department has "shot, wounded, and
killed as many people as before the widespread use of
the stun guns" and has used Tasers in situations that
would not warrant lethal or violent force, such as
"traffic stops, disturbance and nuisance complaints,
and reports of suspicious people."

In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, police found that
25% to 30% of the situations in which a Taser was
employed met the criteria for the use of deadly
force. Although Tasers were originally proposed as
alternatives to lethal force, they have entered
routine use as a way to incapacitate suspects or as
a "pain compliance" method at times when the
use of firearms would not be anywhere near
justifiable or an operational tactical option.

“There are less draconian tactics that
can and should be used in those
situations where a Taser was deployed
in order to achieve compliance," said
George Kirkham, a former police
officer and Florida State University
criminology professor.

They include reasoning,
commands, guiding with open
hands and "pressure pain
compliance" - pressing sensitive
areas, such as the jaw, and other
sensitive pressure points of the
human body.

Professor Kirkham further states:
"Officers are taught these measures
that are lower on the force continuum
in training. We have pictures of people
who won't let go of a steering wheel,
and when pressure is applied, their
hands come off and no harm is done."

Getting your hands dirtyGetting your hands dirty
Instead, Police are skipping up the use of force
continuum through impatience and lack of
training. They have become it seems, lazy and
revert to the Taser to acquire what they
demand immediately, compliance. A motorist
“resisting” your verbal commands is not a
reason to Taser them. It seems that many law
enforcement officers have forgotten how to
“get their hands dirty”.

Critics claim that risk-averse police officers
resort to using the Taser in situations in which they
otherwise would have used more conventional,
less violent alternatives, such as trying to reason
with a cornered suspect or utilizing the less
dangerous, however effective pepper spray to gain
the desired control they seek. As well, tasers may
and are being used without warning to surprise
suspects before being arrested.

As Police Officers and private security, it is
expected that from time to time, you will engage
in hand to hand combat. It is part of your duty.
Sometimes you will have to get physical with a
subject in order to gain control or that desired
“compliance”. When meeting resistance to verbal
commands, there are other tools at your disposal
that are far less drastic than the Taser. Pepper
spray for rowdy, agitated, or verbally threatening
subjects is a far better alternative.

Facts: Taser use soarsFacts: Taser use soars
From October 2001, when Boca Raton Police
(Florida) added Tasers to their arsenal, to last
December 2004, 19 police agencies in Palm Beach
County and the Treasure Coast adopted the Taser
gun. Their use soared from 82 firings in 2002, to
226 in 2003, to 712 last year. Law Enforcement
officers are becoming complacent and dependent
on the Taser, therefore deployments of said Taser
and civil lawsuits are rising dramatically.

Just plain stupid…Just plain stupid…
The death of a black man shot multiple
times by Florida Coconut Creek police
officers firing Taser stun guns was ruled
a homicide this month by the Broward
County medical examiner’s office. The
death led to the resignation of the police
chief, Michael Mann, in March.

It was revealed afterwards that
three of the four officers involved
were not certified in Taser use. The
family of the victim has asked the
United States attorney general for
an independent investigation.

A Boynton Beach police officer stopped a
man for riding a (non-motorized) bicycle after
dark with no headlight. When the man
dismounted and started to run, the officer
shot him with a Taser. The officer took the
man and his bike to the police station, issued
him a citation, then released him to ride his
bicycle into the night - with no headlight.

April 3rd
, 2013, Springfield, Illinois-
A police officer threw an 8 month pregnant
woman to the ground and then proceeded
to taser her. The woman and a male
companion were being combative in a
parking lot and would not follow the
officer’s commands. So, the procedure at
that point was to taser her?

On 9 April 2008 on BBC 1, the program “Traffic
Cops” showed London Police surprising a
pedestrian by shooting him with a Taser
without warning, before arresting him on
suspicion of theft. The suspect had no weapon
and was talking with a bystander and posed no
threat, when officers leapt out of a car and
tasered him. The suspect was later found to be
an innocent pedestrian.

“The police maintained that it is
lawful to make use of the Taser
before making an arrest, in case
the suspect is not cooperative”.
“In case” the suspect is not
cooperative?

November 22, 2011,
Scotland Neck, North Carolina, Roger Anthony, 61,
died a day after being tasered while he was cycling.
Police had been called after the deaf man had
fallen off his bicycle. The caller said Anthony
appeared drunk, and may have hurt himself. When
the Police arrived, Anthony was unresponsive to
questions by the Officer (as he could not hear) and
was tasered. Even if the man could hear, why was
he tased??

March 18, 2012, Honeymoon Island, Florida-
James Clifton Barnes, 37, was struggling with
police officers, but in handcuffs when tasered by
Kenneth Kubler, a marine deputy. He stopped
breathing, and died a few days later.
You never, ever tase any suspect while in
handcuffs, as if you do, the suspect has no free
movement of their hands to cushion the blow to
their head when they fall to the ground.

Pinellas County, Florida 2011Pinellas County, Florida 2011

Poor judgement….Poor judgement….
September 2011, Pinellas Park, Florida,
Danielle Maudsley, 19, in a persistent
vegetative state, after falling and hitting her
head following being tasered. She was
fleeing handcuffed, and FHP officer Daniel
Cole tasered her from behind without
warning, in lieu of physical contact. Minor
drug & traffic charges were her crimes….

When the gravely injured
woman was laying on the
ground pleading she could not
get up and needed help, the
Deputy never rendered any
aid and called her “stupid”.

This is not the first time Officer Cole
has been a loose cannon with firing on
unarmed civilians. Previously, Trooper
Cole shot an unarmed minister on a
traffic stop as the pastor reached for his
own wallet. When a shaken Cole
realized what he had done, he stated
“Oh God what have I done?”

In 2012 at Royal Palm North Cemetery in
Pinellas Park, Florida near Seminole, the
FHP Trooper shot a cemetery owner,
Clifford Work while searching for a stolen
motorcycle. Cole fired 19 rounds and the
cemetery owner was wounded in the leg.
The Work family is now suing Daniel Cole
and the Florida Highway Patrol.

The next powerpoint slide is a
graphic video of FHP Officer Daniel
Cole taking down a handcuffed
civilian, Danielle Maudsley. The
video must be viewed in full frame
and connected to the internet.

Trooper Daniel Cole- FHPTrooper Daniel Cole- FHP

Acknowledging the problem…Acknowledging the problem…
Recent years have seen a rash of
questionable taser incidents, many of
them not involving strong, aggressive,
potentially dangerous suspects but
children and senior citizens. Increasingly,
security officers in high schools, middle
schools, and even elementary schools
have used tasers to subdue unruly
children.

Tasers have also been wielded on
unarmed suspects and even
“inconvenient” witnesses to a police
action (say, a parent or relative who
repeatedly, but nonviolently,
complains to the arresting officer
and winds up getting zapped).

In 2013, law enforcement agencies around the
state of Florida asked the Department of Law
Enforcement (FHP) for help in 50 use-of-force,
taser, and shooting investigations. A year
later, the requests had more than doubled, to
103. Department officials asked the
Legislature for $1.6 million to hire 14
additional special agents to handle the load.

Just plain smart!!Just plain smart!!
The UCLA PD (University of California-Los
Angeles Police Dept. released its new Taser
policy on December 10, 2007, in light of the
highly publicized taser incident on November
15th
, 2006. According to UCPD Chief Karl Ross,
the new policy is considerably longer, includes
specific definitions of appropriate and in-
appropriate use, and explicitly prohibits use
against a "passive resister".

Richard Farnham- Pinellas CountyRichard Farnham- Pinellas County

Trouble in the PanhandleTrouble in the Panhandle

September 20th, 2004, Navarre, Florida:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan, numerous
Pinellas County Deputies were sent to Santa
Rosa County to assist with emergency assistance
and to prevent looting. One night in the Navarre
area of the panhandle, a retired Air Force
colonel heard some commotion in a home that
was supposed to be locked up as the owners
had fled the hurricane. He was carrying a
shotgun and yelled at the men in

in the home to leave. The colonel could
see flashlights in the home and heard the
men. When the men would not respond,
the colonel fired a warning shot into the
ground in his vicinity. A neighbor of the
colonel, Daniel Thompson, a retired New
York City Police Captain heard the shot
and rushed outside with his handgun.

Both men stood there as the
two perpetrators rushed out of
the home screaming at them to
drop their weapons and did not
identify themselves.

As the men approached they screamed that
they were Sheriff’s deputies. The colonel
immediately put down his shotgun and
Thompson had the handgun in his back pocket.
Both men laid down on the ground, where upon
Thompson threw the gun to the side of him,
both men complying completely. Farnham ran
up and kicked him (Thompson) in the head,
dislocating a vertebrae in his neck. He kicked
him several more times.

Farnham then ordered Thompson to
turn over."He looked at him and
smiled: You want to feel what it's like
to be shot?” Farnham then shot him
with the Taser. Thompson who was 61
years old with a heart ailment was
rendered unconscious from the
beating and use of the taser.

Additionally, Farnham also hit
the man's wife, leaving her
partially blind in one eye. This
occurred when the wife tried to
defend her husband from the
brutal assault.

Scene of the incident….Scene of the incident….

The Sheriff of Pinellas County decided
to award Mr. Farnham with a medal of
bravery for the apprehension of 2
“dangerous” vigilantes. The FBI and
the US Justice Dept. had other ideas.
In February of 2007, Farnham was
found guilty of gross violations of
Thompson’s civil rights.

On April 20th, 2007, Richard
Farnham resigned from the
Dept., and on May 29th, 2007,
the “hero” Richard Farnham
began serving a 1 year sentence
in federal prison.

The one persistent question that
Federal prosecutors repeatedly asked
Richard Farnham was, what were you
doing in the house? Federal
prosecutors asked where his service
shoes were the night he was in the
house (to compare prints on the
kicked in door).

He stated he disposed of them
for “medical reasons”. It was
quite clear to all concerned that
Deputy Farnham was looting
the home. Pinellas County did
not ask that question, at all.

The costs of indiscriminate:The costs of indiscriminate:

What was the financial burden to the
taxpayers of Santa Rosa and Pinellas
County for the excessive use of force by
their law enforcement?
Edgar Knowling, the retired Air Force
colonel was awarded 55,000 dollars when
Santa Rosa County decided to settle out of
court to avoid a trial.
$$$$$$$$$$

Retired New York City Captain, and
severely injured Daniel Thompson,
has an undisclosed federal lawsuit
pending in Florida against both
counties. The expected settlement
will be in the millions.
$$$$$$$$$$

The Point of No Return:The Point of No Return:

The case against Lisa Steed, Utah HP:

During her 10 years as a Utah state
trooper, Lisa Steed built a reputation
as an officer with a knack for nabbing
drunken motorists in a state with a
long tradition of tea totaling and some
of the nation's strictest liquor laws.

Steed used the uncanny talent,
as one supervisor once
described it, to garner hundreds
of arrests, setting records,
earning praise as a rising star
and becoming the first woman
to become trooper of the year.

Steed joined the agency in 2002, and
during her first five years, she earned a
reputation as a hard-worker whose
efficiency led to high arrest totals. By the
time she ascended to trooper of the year
in 2007, she was held up as one of the
agency's top stars. In 2009, Steed became
a member of the DUI squad.

Her 400 DUI arrests that year
were thought to be a state record,
and more than double the number
made by any other highway
trooper. She earned special
recognition at the state Capitol.

Steed's career, however, turned. In 2012, while
on the witness stand in a DUI court case,
Trooper Steed acknowledged purposely leaving
her microphone OFF in her patrol car so that
superiors wouldn't know she was violating
agency policy by administering a breathalyzer
before the field sobriety test. A blatant violation
of UHP policy.

By April 2012, her credibility had come into
question so much that a prosecutor said he
would no longer prosecute DUI’s if Steed's
testimony was the only evidence. The credibility
of an investigating police officer is paramount. If
you can't trust the police officer at their word,
there's very little left that you can trust with an
ongoing investigation. It’s the tainted fruit
syndrome.

Today, however, Steed is out of work,
fired from the Utah Highway Patrol, and
she, and her former superiors, are facing a
class action lawsuit in which some of
those she arrested allege she filed bogus
DUI reports, one defendant even stating
he passed the BAC (blood alcohol
content) 3 times and was still arrested.

One supervisor stated previously
that it was his opinion that 400
DUI arrests in one year by a state
trooper was near impossible. His
concern was ignored by UHP
officials.

Lisa Steed, The taser IncidentLisa Steed, The taser Incident
In 2009, a police car dashcam recording caught
her Tasering a man during a DUI stop after he
refuses to get out of his car, saying he'd like to
call a lawyer. The man, Ryan Jones, can be heard
calmly saying, "Ma'am, please don't shoot me
with a Taser," before Steed zaps him and he
begins to scream. When Jones was eventually
tested, his blood alcohol level was a 0.03, well
below the legal limit. The video went viral-

Lisa Steed, The taser IncidentLisa Steed, The taser Incident
The case was settled in November 2011 when
the state paid Mr. Jones $40,000 without
admitting wrongdoing. Again, costly liability to
the state and the state taxpayer because of poor
training and im-proper oversight of a law
enforcement officer on the basic parameters of
when a Taser should be deployed and how it
should be utilized in the field.

Operational Objective:Operational Objective:
You do not Taser any suspect unless
your safety is imminently in danger,
the suspect is exceptionally violent,
the suspect is not controllable, or the
suspect displays a clear and present
threat to the public at large, or
him/herself. Other than that, your
Taser should not be out of it’s holster.

Operational Objective:Operational Objective:
The Taser, a tool, a
valuable tool, is an
alternative to violent non-
compliance or deadly
force. Period.

Excessive Force/ Liability:Excessive Force/ Liability:

Color of Authority:Color of Authority:

Lincoln, Rhode Island:Lincoln, Rhode Island:

In May 2009, Twin River Casino
security cameras captured Lincoln
Police Officer Edward Krawetz
violently kicking a seated, handcuffed
woman, Donna Levesque to the head.
The officer was charged and
eventually convicted of assault and
battery with a dangerous weapon.

Video footage shows Levesque
swinging her leg and making contact
with Krawetzs’ own leg. At trial,
Krawetz stated he “feared for his
personal safety” by the 120 pound
handcuffed woman. The officer was
sentenced to 10 years in prison, which
was suspended by the trial judge.

Undisciplined-Undisciplined- Point of impact:Point of impact:

Officer Edward Krawetz refuses toOfficer Edward Krawetz refuses to
renderrender aidaid to an injured Donna Levesqueto an injured Donna Levesque

Edward Krawetz. Terminated &Edward Krawetz. Terminated &
a convicted felon, for life~a convicted felon, for life~

The cost of discipline,The cost of discipline,
or there lack of:or there lack of:

The City of Boston has spent more
than $36 million since 2005 to resolve
2,000+ legal claims and lawsuits
against the Boston Police Department
over the past decade, with most of the
money going for cases alleging
wrongful convictions, excessive force,
or police misconduct.

The bulk of the expensive payouts,
$31 million, went for 22 cases
worth $100,000 or more, including
nine awards for well over $1
million apiece, according to data
provided by the mayor’s office.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported
earlier this year that the city of
Chicago has payed out nearly half
a billion dollars in settlements
over the past decade, and spent
$84.6 million in fees, settlements,
and awards last year. Disturbing-

Los Angeles paid out $54 million,
while New York paid out a whopping
$735 million, although those figures
include negligence and other claims
unrelated to police abuse. Oakland
Police Beat reported in April that the
city had paid out $74 million to settle
417 lawsuits since 1990.

In theory, the cost of these lawsuits
— which are of course ultimately paid
by taxpayers — are supposed to
inspire better oversight, enhanced
training, better government, and
better policing. It has been a slow and
costly process in terms of correction.

United Nations view:United Nations view:
The United Nations Committee Against
Torture ruled that the Taser gun is a form of
torture, and "can even provoke death." The
group issued the statement in response to
news that Portugal has purchased Taser X-
26 stun guns for its police force. Basically,
the UN thinks that's a bad idea, and a
violation of the UN'S Convention against

United Nations view:United Nations view:
This instructor and this presentation strongly
disagrees with the stance of the U.N. There is
a place for the Taser gun in United States
Law Enforcement weapon arsenal. It is just
how and when it is deployed that is the focus
of this training module. The only “torture”
scenario plausible would be multiple taser
strikes of a clearly non-violent individual.

The Federal Court weighs in:The Federal Court weighs in:

A federal appeals court ruled that a California
police officer can be held liable for injuries
suffered by an unarmed man he Tasered during a
traffic stop. The decision, if allowed to stand,
would set a rigorous legal precedent for when
police are permitted to use the weapons and
would force some law enforcement agencies
throughout the state and presumably the nation
to tighten their policies governing Taser use.

Michael Gennaco, an expert in police
conduct issues who has conducted internal
reviews of Taser use for the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department and other
agencies, said the ruling by the U.S. 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals prohibits officers
from deploying Tasers in a host of scenarios
and largely limits their use to situations in
which a person poses an obvious danger.

This decision talks about the need for
an immediate threat. Some police
departments allow Tasers in cases of
passive resistance, such as protesters
who won't move. Tasering for "passive
resistance” is out the door now with
this decision. Even resistance by
tensing or bracing may not qualify.

The unanimous ruling, issued Monday by a three-
judge panel, stemmed from a 2005 encounter in
which a former Coronado, Calif., police officer,
Brian McPherson, stopped a man for failing to
wear a seat belt while driving. The driver, Carl
Bryan, who testified that he did not hear
McPherson order him to remain in the car, exited
the vehicle and stood about 20 feet away from the
officer but did not exhibit any threatening moves.

Bryan grew visibly agitated and angry with
himself, but did not make any verbal threats
against McPherson, according to court documents.
McPherson has said he fired his Taser when Bryan
took a step toward him, which Bryan denied.
Bryan's face slammed against the pavement when
he collapsed, causing bruises and smashing four
front teeth. Even if Bryan had taken a step toward
McPherson, this was not justification to taser him.

The appellate court did not rule on whether
McPherson acted appropriately, but simply
cleared the way for Bryan to pursue a civil case
against the officer and the city of Coronado in a
lower court. Based on Bryan's version of events,
though, the judges found that McPherson used
excessive force in firing the Taser, since Bryan did
not appear to pose any immediate threat

In spelling out their decision, the judges
established legally binding standards about where
Tasers fall on the spectrum of force available to
police officers, and laid out clear guidelines for
when an officer should be allowed to use the
weapon. The judges, for example, said Tasers
should be considered a more serious use of force
than pepper spray, a distinction that runs counter
to policies used by most US law enforcement.

““non-lethal” but deadly:non-lethal” but deadly:
Tasers are potentially dangerous because a jolt
of electricity, at just the right moment in the
heartbeat cycle, can trigger ventricular
fibrillation. There are vulnerable periods in the
cardiac cycle, when shocks can cause dangerous
arrhythmias. If you are shocking someone (or a
suspect) repeatedly, it becomes a bit like Russian
roulette. At some point, you may hit that
vulnerable period

““Non-lethal” but deadly:Non-lethal” but deadly:
Tasers do have a place in the inventory of weapons
utilized by American law enforcement and private
security forces. Although this presentation can
seem critical of Taser use, it is the “judgment” of
some when deploying such a weapon that is the
concern and focus. Tasers are actually a brilliant
and proven tool as an alternative to deadly force or
violent encounters where control is critical. A Taser
also offers a second chance for some offenders>

A “Second Chance”A “Second Chance”
An excellent example of positive use deploying a
Taser is a scenario like this: A citizen (who
generally has a good reputation) has a bad
argument with his wife. He is angry. He goes to
the Bar to “drink it away”. He gets drunk and
actually more agitated. He becomes hostile and
belligerent. The Police are called and they try to
calm him down. He produces a knife and wields it
in a manor that is threatening. The man obviously
does not have much sense to him or control. He
wont put the knife down.

Now, historically, in this type of situation, the use
of deadly force could be permitted, however, in
this scenario, the use of a Taser would be more
prudent considering the circumstances. (The man
is clearly threatening, but has not lunged at the
officers). The man was extremely intoxicated and
not in the right frame of mind. The Taser could
easily incapacitate him without the need of
shooting him with a firearm which would most
certainly kill him. Thus, the Taser has given you a
“second chance” at life.

We should also clarify that although a Taser can
easily disable a dangerous suspect without
generally killing him, it is also noted that the
Taser cant save the day in every incident. If law
enforcement officers encounter suspects who
are armed and dangerous or they are being shot
at, then the use of deadly force (firearm) should
be used of course. Tasers obviously have no
place in a heated fire fight or other firearms.

The US Supreme Court weighs in:The US Supreme Court weighs in:

Graham VS Connor-Graham VS Connor-
490 US 386 (1989):490 US 386 (1989):

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE
REASONABLENESS:REASONABLENESS:
Graham v. Connor, in which the Court
determined that an objective reasonableness
standard should apply to a free citizen's claim
that law enforcement or security officials used
excessive force in the course of making an arrest,
investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his
person.This case also established the doctrine
that the judiciary may not use the
Due Process Clause instead of an applicable
specific constitutional provision.

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE
There are two key aspects or rules that must
be followed in order to help in the decision
making process:
• The level of force must be reasonable when
attempting to accomplish your objective,
which is control under the circumstances.
• Once your objective has been achieved, you
must deescalate to a level sufficient to
maintain control.

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE
Violations of these rules could
subject an officer to criminal action
or civil liability. In the context of
making an arrest or other seizure of
a person, the standard “objective
Reasonableness” is applied when
assessing an officer’s actions and
behaviors.

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE
Claims that law enforcement or security
officials have used excessive force in the
course of an arrest, investigatory stop,
detainment, or other "seizure" of a free
citizen are most properly characterized as
invoking the protections of the Fourth
Amendment, which guarantees citizens the
right "to be secure in their persons . . .
against unreasonable seizures," and must be
judged by reference to the Fourth
Amendment's "reasonableness" standard.

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness"
inquiry is whether the officers' actions are
"objectively reasonable" in light of the facts
and circumstances confronting them, without
regard to their underlying intent or
motivation. The "reasonableness" of a
particular use of force action must be judged
from the perspective of a reasonable officer
on the scene.

Taser Use Protocols:Taser Use Protocols:
Tasers were designed for use as an
alternative to deadly force, and as a means
of self-defense for law enforcement officers.
Police Officers are trained repetitively so
they’ll react instinctively in the field. The old
saying is, “Cops will revert to their training
when faced with life-threatening
situations”.

Taser darts penetrate the skin, and therefore may
pose a hazard for transmitting diseases via blood.
U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requirements and the Blood borne
Pathogen Protocols should be followed when
removing a Taser probe. The removal process
may also be addressed in an Exposure Control
Plan (ECP) in order to increase Taser probe

OSHA does not give clear guidance as to how to
remove the probes, the guidelines only state that
the removal must be done safely. Current methods
of Taser Darts include removing the probes by
hand, removing the probe with pliers or similar
tools, or using the D.A.R.T. Pro and X-TRACTOR TIP
Removal System made by Global Pathogen
Solutions. When handling contaminated sharps
OSHA guidelines should always be followed.

Tasers, like other electric devices, have
been found to ignite flammable
materials. For this reason Tasers come
with express instructions not to use
them where flammable liquids or fumes
may be present, such as filling stations
and methamphetamine labs.

An evaluative study carried out by the British
Home Office investigated the potential for Tasers
to ignite CS gas. Seven trials were conducted, in
which CS gas canisters containing
methyl isobutyl ketone (a solvent in all CS sprays
used by the United Kingdom police) were sprayed
over mannequins wearing street clothing. The
Tasers were then fired at the mannequins.

In two of the seven trials, "the flames
produced were severe and engulfed the top
half of the mannequin, including the head”.
This poses a particular problem for law
enforcement, as some police departments
approve the use of CS gas in riot type
situations before the use of a Taser.

Use of Force Continuum:Use of Force Continuum:

Use of Force Continuum:Use of Force Continuum:
As suggested by Instructor Richard Garrity:
1. Verbal, loud commands
2. Pressure Point Pain Compliance
3. Officer Assistance for Compliance
4. Pepper Spray- Pepper Mace
5. Use of an ASP or Baton/Nightstick*
6. Deployment of the Taser gun
7. Deployment of a firearm (verbal or actual)

The dangers of public service-The dangers of public service-

The dangers of private service-The dangers of private service-

Chicago, Illinois

Belfast,Belfast, Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland

Athens, Greece financial riotsAthens, Greece financial riots

Baltimore Police under attack- 2015Baltimore Police under attack- 2015

Boston Police, Busing Riots- 1975Boston Police, Busing Riots- 1975

Los Angeles Police, 1992 RiotsLos Angeles Police, 1992 Riots

Justifiable Taser Use:Justifiable Taser Use:

Seminole, Florida, May 8th
, 2007- While Pinellas
County Deputies were searching the Intracoastal
waters between Indian Rocks Beach and the
Oakhurst section of Seminole for a gun from an
earlier unrelated arrest, the Deputies observed a
man in a Dodge pickup behaving erratically,
yelling, and flailing his arms, The Pinellas deputy
called for backup and two more cruisers arrived.

As three deputies approached on foot,
the man rammed two cruisers, then
smashed into a fence, and then
backed up again. Two deputies fired
at the truck. The pickup managed to
get out from under the bridge and
headed east on Walsingham Road.

Another deputy spotted the truck
and followed it to a residential
area where the vehicle stopped
and the suspect charged the
deputy where upon the deputy
tasered the suspect.

The shock of the taser on the suspect
resulted in his death. Although this is
rare for a taser to indeed take a life,
the use of the device was clearly
justifiable given the circumstances of
the suspect’s behavior and ramming of
police vehicles.

All law enforcement personnel
involved in this were clearly acting
within the scope of their authority
and the color of law. The suspect
brought about his own demise
through the course of his actions.

The Stoughton Brawl:The Stoughton Brawl:

Stoughton, Massachusetts Police Officers
were called to a social club on Porter
street. A fight had broken out at a baby
shower attended by more than 200 people
at a local club, and the fight escalated into a
full scale brawl in a scene that Stoughton
Police Executive officer Robert Devine later
described as “INCREDIBLE CHAOS.”

It took almost an hour for 20 officers from
Stoughton, three other local departments, the
Massachusetts State Police, and the Norfolk
Sheriff’s office to get the situation under control
and arrest 4 people. No one involved in the
incident suffered serious injuries that required
hospitalization, and Devine credits use of the
Taser on one of the subjects as helping diffuse the
situation and control the dangerous brawl.

Had we not had the Tasers, the officers, in my
opinion, would have been justified in using
firearms,” said Devine. “I think their threat kept
the brawlers at bay and assisted in getting control
of the situation before serious injuries were
inflicted on the subjects or even serious injury to
our own officers had we engaged in hand to hand
combat, or the use of firearms, which is what we
want to avoid”.

Los Angeles- Feb. 2011Los Angeles- Feb. 2011

Los Angeles, California police officers
responding to a call of a gun assault
discovered the suspect fighting with
four men at a downtown business. The
suspect refused commands to lay on
the ground and show his hands in full
visibility to the responding officers.

In order to subdue the man, officers
had to use body weight, punches,
and a stun gun numerous times.
Hobble restraints were used to
control the suspect’s arms and legs.
Upon arrival to the hospital, the
suspect died. This was justified.

Summerville, S.C. May 2011Summerville, S.C. May 2011

38-year-old Arthur Lee Thompson Jr., attempted
to steal a computer from Walmart. Officers say
he left the store without paying. A store
employee confronted the man, and officers say
Thompson hit the employee in the face, left the
computer, and drove away in a Jeep. Officers
eventually pulled the vehicle over, and it was at
that point that police say the crime took another
violent twist.

Police say the suspect got out of the vehicle, and
refused to follow the officer's commands to
surrender; in fact, according to an incident report,
the man began throwing punches at the officer,
landing at least one. The deputy responded by
hitting the suspect with his taser, but it had no
affect. Another driver stopped to help the officer,
who police say was attacked a second time by
Thompson. The incident report says the suspect

got into the officer's vehicle. The
other driver and the police officer
attempted to stop him from getting
away, even slamming his car door
on Thompson's leg, but the
suspect was able to speed off.

Eventually, The suspect turns down
a road where it collides with what
appears to be a flatbed truck carrying a
tractor. The officers rush the motor
vehicle and taser Thompson one more
time before being able to finally get him
into custody. Justified.

NYPD police Lieut. defending himselfNYPD police Lieut. defending himself
against Occupy Wall Street thugs, 2012~against Occupy Wall Street thugs, 2012~

NYPD Police & canine unit onNYPD Police & canine unit on
terrorism alert, Times Squareterrorism alert, Times Square

Dallas Police on city patrolDallas Police on city patrol

CaliforniaCalifornia Medal of ValorMedal of Valor recipientrecipient
Ptl. Steve Osman… well done!!Ptl. Steve Osman… well done!!

Officer safety, ultimately, is infinitelyOfficer safety, ultimately, is infinitely
paramount to avoidparamount to avoid ceremoniesceremonies like this:like this:

USE OF FORCE PROTOCOLSUSE OF FORCE PROTOCOLS
Thank you for attending today’s
presentation on
Use of Force protocols~

Use of Force Procedures for US Law Enforcement & Private Security- By, Richard Garrity

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Use of Force Procedures for US Law Enforcement & Private Security- By, Richard Garrity

Similaire à Use of Force Procedures for US Law Enforcement & Private Security- By, Richard Garrity (20)

Plus de Richard Garrity

Plus de Richard Garrity (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Use of Force Procedures for US Law Enforcement & Private Security- By, Richard Garrity