E-Mail LAAW
(click here)

Call LAAW:
(800) 944-4485
(877) 944-4485

Law Enforcement Use-of-Force Training

© Copyright 1994 by Michael A. Brave. All rights reserved.

Introduction:

[Author's note: This article does NOT include firearms. Firearms is such a specialized area, that a future article will specifically address that issue. Also, this article is opinions. Opinions of leading trainers, but nevertheless opinions.]

How much use-of-force training is enough? This is the central question which this article attempts to explore. Through outlining the basic Constitutional law, interviewing several well-known use-of-force trainers, and examining some of today's current training issues, this article will help to shed some light on this important issue.

Use-of-Force Training - The Constitutional Standard:

The United States Supreme Court has dictated that law enforcement officers MUST be trained in their core tasks. (City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, et al, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989)). Meaning, if a law enforcement employer is "deliberately indifferent" to the Constitutional rights of its citizens in the training of its officers, and this "deliberate indifference" is the "moving force" behind a person's Constitutional rights deprivation, then the employer may be held accountable.

What does all of this mean? How about an example: the Chief of Police of Smalltown gives Smalltown Officer Smith an electronic restraining device - stun gun. The Smalltown P.D. does not have a (written) use-of-force policy (the Chief does not want to be held accountable to a written policy), and does not provide any training on the use of the stun gun. Smith goes on patrol one day and uses his new department-issued stun gun on a suspect to extract information. Depending on what parts of the body the stun gun was used on, the device probably worked very well in extracting information. Officer Smith got his confession, the suspect went to jail, and everyone was happy. Until, the suspect talked to his attorney. In addition to getting his client released from jail, the attorney, of course, brought suit against Officer Smith, the Smalltown Chief of Police, and the City of Smalltown for numerous violations of his client's (the suspect's) Constitutional rights.

You see, the suspect was a "seized" "free citizen" and was therefore protected by the "objective reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under this standard, Officer Smith's actions had to be in conformance with the "objective reasonableness" test. Obviously, Smith's actions WERE NOT "objectively reasonable" - Smith used UNreasonable (or excessive) force. In using the UNreasonable force, Smith violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be "free from unreasonable seizures." (Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)).

Therefore, can it be said, that Smalltown was "deliberately indifferent" to the Constitutional rights (Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonable" seizures - use of force) of the suspect by failing to properly train Smith? And, was this lack of training the moving force behind the suspect's Constitutional rights deprivation? The answers to both of these questions is "YES." This example of "deliberate indifference" resulting in a person's Constitutional rights being violated is exactly the type of claim included under Canton.

Other Standards:

While law enforcement agencies strive to avoid federal Constitutional rights liability, they also try to avoid state action liability, media scrutiny, community chastisement, prosecutor criticism, etc. While the Canton Constitutional standard is the principle standard that if violated can give rise to large court judgments, the Canton standard is only one of the training standards that we need to be concerned with. We also need to keep in mind that individual state's laws may set standards that must be followed; an agency's use-of-force policy may create a standard that the agency must abide by, the manufacturer's specifications for a use-of-force tool may create a standard, and others.

Bottom Line:

We need to provide our officers with sufficient training (also direction and supervision) to: (1) keep our officers safe during the incident; (2) provide the officers with sufficient information to make informed (legally correct) decisions; (3) be sure that the officers will use the least intrusive means (the least use of force to accomplish their lawful objectives); and (4) facilitate their competent rendition of the incident facts in their reports and their testimony.

One note needs to be clarified here. Under the "Constitutional standard" an officer IS NOT required to use the least intrusive method of applying force. Assuming we are talking about a Fourth Amendment seizure of a free citizen, the officer's force must be within the range of "objective reasonableness", but it need NOT BE the least intrusive, or minimum. (Graham; Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir. 1993); Krueger v. Fuhr, 991 F.2d 435 (8th Cir. 1993); Bella v. Chamberlain, 1994 WL 195519 (10th Cir. (N.M.) 1994); Dyer v. Sheldon, 829 F.Supp. 1134 (D.Neb. 1993); and Powell v. Fournet, 846 F.Supp. 1443 (D.Colo. 1994).)

Also (under the Constitutional standard), the "objective reasonableness" of the officer's use of force will be judged at the MOMENT the force is used based upon the "totality of the circumstances" as known by the officer - at the MOMENT the force is used. (Graham; Ford v. Childers, 855 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1988); Sherrod v. Berry, 856 F.2d 802 (7th Cir. 1988); Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774 (4th Cir. 1993); Greenidge v. Ruffin, 927 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1991); Powell v. Fournet, 846 F.Supp. 1443 (D.Colo. 1994); and James v. Chester, 1994 WL 198899, (D.So.Carolina 1994).)

Keeping the Constitutional standards of use-of-force training in mind, let's now look at a small part of the trainers' wisdom:

Use-of-Force Training Realities:

Microscopic Scrutiny:
Ed Nowicki (Police Training Specialist and former Director of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET)) points out that law enforcement is no longer being scrutinized under a magnifying glass, we are now under a microscope. Because of today's intense scrutiny, Ed points out that we must prepare for the worst, from there it can only get better.

Administrative Training Limitations:
Mark Dunston (Director of the North Mississippi Law Enforcement Training Center, Tupelo, Mississippi, and a Captain with the Tupelo (MS) Police Department) states that use-of-force training is usually limited by the P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Board, agency administrators, the budget - as dictated by the governmental council, and various state statutes. And, all too often the minimum standards end up being the maximum training that the officers receive. As Chuck Mader (Deputy Chief, Bloomingdale (IL) Police Department) reiterates "Why does the minimum tend to become THE standard?" While keeping these limitations in mind, Ed Nowicki, states that any use-of-force training program must be "administratively feasible and cost effective."

Traditional Firearms Emphasis:
John Peters (President of the Defensive Tactics Institute, Inc. (DTI), Albuquerque, New Mexico) states that unfortunately today, as 20 years ago, primary emphasis in most training programs is on firearms, which has traditionally been thought of as deadly force. However, statistically non-deadly force is used much more often. In most agencies, it is the non-firearms area of competency that is left to get stale. Also, Chuck Mader points out that firearms "qualification" should NOT be counted as use-of-force training, as it often is.

Community Use-of-Force Needs Assessment:
As emphasized by Bruce Siddle (Director of the PPCT (Pressure Point Control Tactics) Management Systems, Inc., Millstadt, Illinois), since Canton requires us to provide training in an officer's "core tasks", we must first do a department needs analysis in order to provide a basis from which to build a community relevant training program. As Bruce points out, communities vary dramatically, a small rural community may have not had a violent assault on an officer in a very long time, while an impoverished inner-city area may have numerous violent assaults on officers daily. In some communities any assaults may be caused by alcohol intoxication while in other communities violent assaults may be precipitated by illicit drug use.

Use-of-Force Instructor - Not A Specialist:
The future of use-of-force training is that an instructor will be a well-rounded "use-of-force" instructor, and not limited to just firearms, defensive tactics, etc. Bruce Siddle uses the analogy of the military's close quarter battle specialist. Even though each specialist does have specific expertise, each member of a team are cross-trained in the other disciplines. Dave Smith ((aka "Buck" Savage), of the Law Enforcement Television Network, Carrollton, Texas) also notes the" importance of a use-of-force instructor and not just firearms or DT instructors."

Trainers Must be Open Minded:
John Peters believes that some trainers have evolved into what they once fought against: trainers whose philosophy is "my way or the highway." John states that, some trainers today are looking to reinvent the wheel with the primary purpose of getting their name in neon signs when in fact if they took a good training program and implemented it properly they would get the recognition they are seeking and be much more respected by other trainers and their trainees.

Bruce Siddle also emphasizes this issue by pointing out that one problem in use-of-force training is the "protect our turf mentality." Here, an instructor is overly protective, or overly-sensitive, of his/her techniques or system, lacking the confidence for close scrutiny or open mindedness.

A Lack of Sufficient Use-of-Force Alternatives:
Officers must have sufficient use-of-force alternatives to allow them sufficient choices in an attempt to minimize the amount of force they may have to use in a given incident. If an officer only has a firearm and his/her hands, the officer may more quickly choose the firearm. If an officer only has a firearm, a baton, and his/her hands, the officer may overuse the baton.

Are We OVERTRAINING in "Sensitivity Issues"?
As Bruce Siddle points out "are officers' survival skills being short-circuited because of a fear of sensitivities?" Are male officers backing away from searching females because of a fear of "sexual harassment" scrutiny? Even when the officers may be placing themselves, and others, in potential jeopardy by shying away from frisking/searching the female? Also, Bruce points out that it is important to separate "good communications skills" from "good sensitivity skills."

Do Instructors Attend Enough Training Schools?
John Peters believes that the biggest shortcoming in the training business today is that trainers do not go to enough training schools. It has been John's belief for years that an instructor who attends a defensive tactics course needs to take four or five more to be able to carefully scrutinize the strengths and weaknesses of each program/system. Then, based upon this broadened foundation, the trainer should develop his or her own program. John states that, programs can't be "canned" because each agency has different needs and wants, and this is why he believes that mandatory techniques which are dictatorial in nature by some training firms have moved the industry backward rather than forward.

Use-of-Force Training Basics:

Only WE Play by the Rules:
Bob Bragg (Program Manager - Defensive Tactics, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Academy, Seattle, Washington) clearly points out that in a use-of-force encounter ONLY ONE side has to play by the rules - US. It is difficult to train officers to play by the rules, when our adversaries do not.

No Such Thing as ENOUGH Training:
Chuck Mader and Ed Nowicki accentuate that "there is no such thing as ENOUGH training." Ed would like "more training on everything." Ed gives the example of providing fifteen (15) minutes of training at every roll call. Fifteen (15) minutes per roll call adds up to fifty (50) hours of training per year.

QUALITY - is Far More Important Than QUANTITY:
Mark Dunston points out that quality of training is far more important than the quantity of training. You can have all of the training time in the world, but if the training lacks quality, what have you accomplished?

Gestalt Aspect of Training:
Dave Smith believes that use-of-force training must be from the gestalt perspective - in that the training must be an integrated whole, whose parts cannot be totally deduced from the sum of its parts.

SIMPLICITY - the Key to a Successful Training Program:
Ed Nowicki, Chuck Mader and Bruce Siddle stress that a use-of-force training "system" must be a "SIMPLE" system. Bruce states that the system must be learned quickly and retained with a high level of competence. Bruce states, "if the officer doesn't have confidence in his/her ability to apply the particular force option - the training was a waste of time.”

Ed goes on to say that one of the limiting factors on our training is the level of complexity. Ed would rather have his students know four (4) techniques very well, rather than twenty (20) techniques halfway. Chuck Mader makes the point that instructors must teach at the student's level and NOT at the instructor's level.

Must Get Back to Basics:
John Peters emphasizes that we must get back to basics. We must train officers in the equipment that they carry and use on a regular basis. Most agencies today if you totalled the number of hours spent on firearms training and compared that to handcuff training, there would be a significant difference. The firearms training would far surpass the handcuff training. Realistically, handcuffs are used far more than firearms, yet many administrators take the position that the officer was properly/thoroughly trained at the academy and additional training isn't necessary. John uses the analogy that: very few people would go to a cardiologist who received his "training" in medical school and then never received any update training for 20 years. Yet in law enforcement, many non-contemporary police executives believe that once an officer is out of the academy (s)he is trained for life.

Ed Nowicki stresses the need to provide more training at the lower levels of force, training at the "control without injury" level.

We Must Train for the Unanticipated:
Dunston states that we train for the 95% of what we do. But, we must also be trained for the out of the ordinary, if our officers are to survive a violent confrontation.

Training Must be Realistic:
Chuck Mader and Ed Nowicki strongly stress the need for realistic training because we live in the "real world", and not the gym. Ed makes the point that the training must be in a safe environment and within reasonable time constraints. Dave Smith notes that resistance does NOT occur in a vacuum, and we need to concentrate on realism.

Today's Recruits Are Not The Recruits of 20 Years Ago:
In the past most officer recruits had prior military training, had participated in contact sports, had studied martial arts, and/or were very physically oriented people. As Ed Nowicki teaches, many of today's recruits are "YUCS" (Young Urban Cops), members of the Pepsi generation, young people who have never played contact sports or have never been involved in a physical altercation.

With the current emphasis on diversity, sensitivity, and individuality, coupled with the legislative mandates of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age in Discrimination of Employment Act (ADEA), the consent decrees some agencies are forced to hire under, and other governmental edicts, trainers today must be responsive to the needs of the individual trainees.

Bob Bragg also notes the individuality of the officers. Identifying that everyone is different and has differing needs. Bob states that the amount of training time that a person requires depends, in part, on the persons's previous skills and abilities - a single isolated skill or other training that can be built upon.

Testing:
Ed Nowicki states that use-of-force training must include proficiency testing. This testing must include both the cognitive skills and the motor skills. Ed also noted the importance of reviewing the exams with the students to clear up any misunderstandings or misconceptions.

Training Logistics:
Bob Bragg emphasizes that use-of-force training should not occur all at once. There should be adequate break times and rest periods. Bob explains that the training and conditioning should be continuous (over a large number of days).

Importance of Being Positive:
Mark Dunston points out that instructors should NOT tell the officers what they CAN'T do. Rather it is very important for the instructor to emphasize what they CAN do, and why!

In What Use-of-Force Alternatives Should an Officer Be Trained?

Use-of-Force Tools:
Ed Nowicki made the observation that use-of-force equipment is neither good or bad - it depends on HOW the equipment is used - in realistic applications.

Almost all of the trainers believed that officers should be equipped with an impact tool and a chemical aerosol, most of the trainers recommending oleoresin capsicum (OC). All of the trainers who discussed the issue stated that a law enforcement agency should NOT take away batons just because the agency has issued OC. There are times when OC is not appropriate, or malfunctioning or empty, and in these incidents the officers need another tool, usually the impact tool.

Impact Tool:
Most of the trainers were reluctant to express a preference for side-handle, straight, or expandable batons. Without expressing a preference, Ed Nowicki did state that he believes that simple impact tool striking techniques can be initially taught in four (4) hours (minimum) with four (4) hours annual update. However, the PR-24 requires a minimum of sixteen (16) hours of initial training, and eight (8) hours annual update.

Bob Bragg believes that it is important in impact tool training to teach movement, pattern, and theory that can be transposed over to a flashlight as an impact tool. Bob's program requires a minimum of eight (8) hours of initial training with a four (4) hour annual update.

Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR):
Jim Lindell (President of the National Law Enforcement Training Center (NLETC), Kansas City, Missouri), and Mark Dunston, stressed the need for the LVNR. Jim has twelve (12) hours for initial training, eight (8) hours for post academy, and four (4) hours for in-service. Both Jim and Mark place the LVNR at a low-level of force - at the control and restraint level.

Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Aerosol:
Chuck Mader places OC on the continuum just above verbalization and just below empty hand.

Ed Nowicki notes that his system has four (4) hours of initial training with four (4) hours of update training every two (2) years. Ed also states that, if administratively feasible, officers should be sprayed, with OC, in training. Ed makes the point that officers, who carry OC, will be sprayed in the field. It is important for the officers to know how OC is going to effect them. Ed says that, the time to find out your reaction to OC is in the training environment - not during the fight. Ed also believes that officers should experience OC in training because if officers refuse to be sprayed it sends a negative image to the public. The public gets the message that if the police won't be sprayed, this stuff must be really bad. Also, Ed believes that officers who experience OC in training are more compassionate and understanding toward persons who the officers spray in the field.

Bob Bragg also has a training program with a four (4) hour initial time investment, with a one (1) hour annual update.

Defensive Tactics:
Defensive tactics was the area of most confusion. Each of the trainers had their own ideas as to exactly what falls into this category. Most of the trainers included basic empty hand self-defense striking techniques, control techniques, escort techniques, handcuffing/restraint, and weapon disarm/retention. Because of some of the trainer's comments, I will deal with handcuffing and weapon disarm/retention as separate issues outside of this category.

Ed Nowicki believes that it requires a minimum of thirty-two (32) hours of initial training, and eight (8) hours annual update, for unarmed tactics. But, "in a perfect world, we would have 100 hours." Ed's numbers include body mechanics and handcuffing.

Bob Bragg's defensive tactics program contains hair pull control and take down techniques. Bob also includes simple kicking techniques. Bob's kicking system is designed to include kicking with a handgun out of the holster for situations that include a crazy individual coming out of a car in a t- shirt and shorts and the officer is standing with his/her gun out of the holster. Bob's kicking system also includes some ground kicking skills.

Firearm Disarm/Retention:
Bruce Siddle believes that firearm disarm/retention should be taught at the range by whoever instructs the firearms portion of the training. Mark Dunston states that disarming and retention are all too often covered in a cursory manner, because there is a feeling that it (being disarmed or being within arm's reach of an adversary's gun) is not going to happen to them. [See, Parker v. District of Columbia, 850 F.2d 708 (D.C. Cir. 1988).]

Knife Defense and Disarming System:
Most of the instructors have some form of knife defense program. Jim Lindell has a "knife defense and disarming system" which requires eight (8) hours of initial training and two (2) hours of update. John Peters program has four (4) hours (minimum, 8 hours ideal). Bruce Siddle also has a knife program - "Spontaneous Knife Defense."

Handcuffing:
Bruce Siddle considers handcuffing, and the rules that apply to it, to be the number one priority. Bruce states that a lot of subject resistance can be de-escalated by being proficient in handcuffing quickly.

Bob Bragg's handcuffing section requires (a minimum of) eight (8) hours of initial training and a four (4) hour annual update. Bob stresses that handcuffing should not be a single hand skill, the skills must be adapted to either hand. Bob also believes that the handcuffing block must cover handcuffing of subjects who are compliant, non-compliant, combative, and covered under gun (coercive). Bob believes that handcuffing should be absolutely automatic, blind/by touch, and from numerous positions.

John Peters' program requires a minimum of sixteen (16) hours of initial training, and also includes positional asphyxia, and numerous other forms of restraint equipment.

Other Use-of-Force Tools:
John Peters has numerous other use-of-force tool training programs, all of which require four (4) hours (minimum - ideal is eight hours): Kubotan . Kubotai , flashlight, mini-flashlight, personal weapons, electronic restraint device, and ballistic baton.

Use-of-Force Cognitive Skills:

Basic Theory:
Mark Dunston believes that the brain (the "human computer") is the most important use-of- force tool an officer has. If the officer uses his/her brain, (s)he may not have to use a lot of other use-of-force tools. Mark so aptly points out that it is extremely hazardous to teach a use-of-force skill/weapon without teaching the cognitive skills of knowing when, why, and how the skill/weapon is properly used. This equates to being able to freely articulate why the force was used. Mark further states that it is Important to train officers in the PRINCIPLES (and understanding) and where techniques fit into the continuum, and not in the minutia of every little detail. Training can't be all motor-skills, Mark points out, the trainer must also update the cognitive end as well.

Cognitive and Motor-Skills Cannot be Separated:
Bruce Siddle believes that use-of-force cognitive skills need to be interwoven into all other use-of-force training. Dave Smith states that the world isn't divided by cognitive and motor, that you can't just talk about it - you must train it. Dave combines the cognitive with the motor skills because this is how to select a decision in the real world environment rather than putting the officer on the mat and say do this technique.

Bob Bragg takes a counter approach, and believes that the motor skills need to be separated from the cognitive skills.

Confrontation Cognitive Skills:
Bruce Siddle states that officers must understand the principles of distance in order to maintain an adequate perimeter. Bruce also points out that an officer must understand that when a subject's resistance stops, the officers must de-escalate.

Legal Basis for Force:
All of the trainers emphasized a strong need for teaching the legal aspects of use of force. Canton specifically stated that if a city provided its officers with firearms to arrest fleeing felons and then failed to train its officers in the constitutional limitations of the use of deadly force, this failure would be so obvious as to constitute a policy of deliberate indifference. (Canton, 109 S.Ct. at 1205, fn. 10.) The Davis court held that Mason County's failure to train its officers in the constitutional limits of the use of non-deadly force amounted to deliberate indifference to the safety of inhabitants as a matter of law. (Davis, at 1483.)

Officers' Capabilities Under Stress:

Bruce Siddle emphasizes that trainers need to understand, and impart to officers in their training, that an officer's capabilities under stress will vary with his/her heart rate. Officers must learn how to work to maintain a heart rate that will enable them to maintain optimum performance.

Mark Dunston iterates that officers must know what is happening in their bodies. The officers must learn to maintain control, in spite of the bodily effects caused by the stress of the encounter.

Communication Skills:
Most of the trainers emphasize communication/verbalization skills. Chuck Mader very strongly stresses "communication skills." Chuck's definition includes awareness training. Chuck emphasizes verbalization ("how to talk") skills because he states that 97% of all officer encounters are handled with verbalization skills, only 3% include non-verbalization. Chuck's training program includes eight (8) hours (minimum) of initial verbalization skills training, and two to four (2-4) hours quarterly of update training.

As Bruce Siddle points out, communication skills should be automatic and are used to establish and maintain control of a situation. An officer needs to realize that too much talking (by the officer) may be construed as a sign of weakness by the suspect. While there may be a time to talk, the officer needs to establish command presence and maintain control. If an officer loses control the probability of the officer being injured during the encounter increases. Bruce also notes that the ability to read body language is as important, if not more so, than verbal communications skills. Also, Bruce points out that it is important for officers to keep their egos out of the confrontation. The officers do not need to escalate a situation because they took something the suspect said personally.

Ed Nowicki believes that communication skills need to be interjected throughout all of the use- of-force training. Ed also believes that "If we can effectively use low level force options (primarily communication skills) we may be able to avoid higher levels - the officer should not be a precipitating factor. In Ed's program he teaches how to talk (linguistics), the meaning of voice inflection, the importance of distance (proxemics), how to stand, etc.

Dave Smith looks at communications from an additional perspective. Dave believes that communication skills are anything that accentuates rapport. Dave says that officers need to be trained to build rapport at every level of the encounter. Dave believes that "even when you are kicking the person's a__ - continue to be his friend." Dave also stresses that "after you have kicked his a__ and cuffed him - sell yourself to him."

Report Writing Skills:
Ed Nowicki says that any use of force must be correlated with a report. Ed states that many reports have a lot to be desired. Use-of-force reports need to be thorough and comprehensive. The reports must outline how the force was used, why the force was used, point of view, objective observations rather than perceptions, and most importantly the report must accurately justify the use of force. Ed's use-of-force reporting block initially requires four to eight (4-8) hours (minimum) with four (4) hours annual update. Ed also stresses report writing in all other use-of-force training.

John Peters use-of-force report writing program is sixteen (16) hours as minimum with twenty- four (24) hours in an ideal program.

Vision Training:
Bob Bragg believes that officers should receive training in enhancing their peripheral vision. Bob states that for reactive techniques to be effective - hand/eye coordination must be fast moving.

At the recent PPCT Instructor Trainer Annual Conference in St. Louis, Bruce Siddle had Dr. Hal Breedlove, O.D. on the agenda. Dr. Breedlove gave a two-hour presentation on trained observation and vision and shooting concepts and enhancements. Dr. Breedlove briefly reviewed the mechanics of the human visual system and how it could be improved with practice and specialized techniques.

Retraining/Recertification:

Officer Recertification:
John Peters has found over the last fifteen (15) years that making officers requalify with all of their use-of-force equipment, just like their firearm, helps keep them current and allows the agency to more closely monitor the equipment usage. John gives the example of having officers requalify with their batons, OC, and/or handcuffs after they requalify with their handgun. This method assists officers in maintaining their psycho-motor skills in these instruments. John points out that, should an officer fail minimum requalification, then the officer is scheduled for remedial training, which is recycling the officer back through the minimum course.

Sixteen Hours/Quarter Update Training:
Chuck Mader believes that officers should receive sixteen (16) hours of use-of-force training per quarter. Chuck stresses that this amount of training is only enough if we are starting with competent people. Chuck breaks down the days as the first day is the "gym day." The second day is the "realistic day", where officers must report for training in full duty street dress. This second day is the "simulations day", where officers must learn to be comfortable with their use-of-force tools on the street. Chuck makes the statement that "in 25 years in the business he has never arrested anybody in the gym." Chuck gives the simulations examples of handcuffing exercises in the bathroom or on a staircase.

Frequency of Officer Retraining/Recertification:
Mark Dunston believes that officers should be retrained every 6 months at a minimum.

Instructor Recertification:
John Peters strongly believes that instructor recertification programs are unnecessary. To illustrate this point, John states that no one has been able to document quantitatively on the various impact tools and non-lethal use-of-force equipment why on day 365 a certified instructor is competent and on day 366 (s)he is not. John says that is one reason why his training organization (DTI) allows its graduates to return to instructor schools free of charge as often as they want.

Notes to Administrators:

Mark Dunston wants administrators to always remember that when they scoff at the training, the amount of money for equipment, time off, overtime, etc., these administrators should remember that PUNITIVE DAMAGES are personal and they too can be a part of the "legal food chain." Dave Smith also notes that "liability is ONLY minimized through training."

Conclusion:

Use-of-force training is no longer optional, it is mandatory. A training program should be based upon a department's particular needs. The program must be comprehensive and thorough and based upon current techniques, methodologies, and equipment.

Creating a competent use-of-force training program takes time, energy, and resources. While an effective program cannot be created overnight, it can be created, developed, and matured over a reasonable time.