Читать книгу Force Decisions - Rory Miller - Страница 6
ОглавлениеThis book is a gift, a peace offering. It is an attempt to communicate across a vast gulf in culture and experience, the gulf that exists between the Law Enforcement community and those whom they protect.
Each day, media outlets all over the country describe events where officers use force. Often, the reporters and the citizens question the need for force at all or whether the type and amount of force used was really necessary. Citizens worry that their protectors—with badges, guns, clubs and Tasers®—are caught up in the rush of power, or perhaps giving vent to anger or bigotry.
The officers are frustrated too. Specialists in dealing with a world that is sometimes very dark and very violent, they feel scrutinized. They feel as if their actions are constantly under a microscope, judged by a populace without any experience or training in a very specialized field.
In this book, I want to show you how officers think about force, not only how we are trained to think of it, but also how experience shapes our beliefs and attitudes.
If you are one of the people who believe that officers are thugs and question each and every use of force, I don’t want to change you. Let me say that again: I don’t want to change you. Sometimes my job requires me to use force on behalf of society, on your behalf. That force should be subject to your scrutiny.
What I do want, if you have objections, is to have those objections based on facts and not emotion. Most people will have a negative reaction to any violence, and some problems (from child-raising to the boardroom to politics and medicine and…) simply don’t have an answer that makes everyone comfortable.
You know what you saw or read. You know how that made you feel. The final data that you need to back up your reasonable objections are knowledge of the rules—to understand thoroughly the legal and policy limits as well as the tactical considerations that the professionals understand.
There are truths and perceptions that frame this gulf. First, the perceptions: We have all been taught that peace is an ideal, and that hurting people is wrong. We have also been taught, in an egalitarian society, that what is wrong for one is wrong for all. And what is wrong to do to someone is wrong to do to anyone.
The truth, however, is harsh. It is this: The only defense against evil, violent people is good people who are more skilled at violence.
HARD TRUTH #1
The only defense against evil, violent people is good people who are more skilled at violence.
Throughout history, civilized people faced with people willing to use violence to attain their goals have tried a number of strategies.
Appeasement has failed. The hope that Hitler would be satisfied with Poland and Czechoslovakia only gave him more time to prepare. Bribery has failed, and paying off terrorists to prevent terrorism has been no more effective than Danegeld—money paid to Vikings to stop plundering. Reason and logic could not prevent the Khmer Rouge from killing every educated person in Cambodia. Simply being a good person couldn’t dissuade the Inquisition.
Ah, but there is always Gandhi…
Not really. Without a relatively free press, a lot of publicity, and an opponent who needed support (both from voters and from trading partners), Gandhi would have quietly disappeared. Where were the Gandhis of Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s Russia, or Ceasescu’s Romania? Prague Spring—an attempt by the Czechs to create “socialism with a human face”—was ruthlessly crushed by the soviets.
The ideal of peaceful resistance only works when backed by the big guns of public opinion and economics, and only then if those two things matter to the person or institution that one is trying to change.
This is a hard truth: In a truly totalitarian environment the authorities cannot only kill, but they have control over who finds out about it (communications and the media) and have control over the means to respond (control of economics, the vote and/or personal weapons). When these factors come together the populace is helpless, and the tactics of peaceful resistance result in death, torture, and the disappearance of family members.
HARD TRUTH #2
In a truly totalitarian environment where the authorities cannot only kill, but have control over who finds out about it and, have control over the means to respond, the populace is helpless.
This is the world: The wolf pack tears at a caribou, slashing at hamstrings, tearing out guts. Raw, primal violence. The caribou will run if it can, but if it can’t, it will respond as best it can with violence of its own, kicking and goring the pack.
A cat toys with a mouse. The mouse may bite you if you try to save it.
Some predators stalk, some run in packs, some lie in ambush. All predators use violence as a strategy, the easiest and safest way to access a resource that they need or want.
Human predators are the same.
If a person can do so safely, it is easier to steal food than to grow it. It is easier to beat the weak into submission than to earn their respect. It is far easier to rape and abandon a woman than it is to raise children. All provided it can be done safely. Society, or someone acting on behalf of society, must make that kind of behavior unsafe.
A peaceful individual is ill-prepared to deal with a violent human being. The tactics of the courtroom, the boardroom, or the mediator simply don’t work on someone who wants something and has no problem injuring someone to take it. A peaceful society compounds this by allowing the peaceful individuals to believe that their worldview is normal. It is a beautiful ideal but for most of human history, and in many places now, and even within individuals in the most civilized of societies, it doesn’t hold true. There are people for whom violence is a natural way to get what they want.
Violence and crime will probably never disappear, for practical reasons. The rarer they become, the less experience and skill potential victims will have to combat them. The less violence and crime happens, the less it factors into planning, and the less people take care to protect themselves.
So the more rare violence is, the more profitable and safe violence becomes.
Crime and violence are usually an individual advantage, but they weaken the connections that keep society going and are a community disadvantage.
Civilized people must come to terms with the fact that only force, or the credible threat of force, could stop a Hitler, a Pol Pot, or a John Dillinger.
It’s often been said, “Violence never solved anything.” The simple truth is that when you are slammed up against the wall and the knife is at your throat, when a circle of teenagers is kicking you as you curl into a ball on the sidewalk, or when the man walks into your office building or school with a pair of guns and starts shooting—only violence, or the reasonable threat of violence, is going to save your life. In the extreme moment, only force can stop force.
HARD TRUTH #3
In the extreme moment, only force can stop force.
That’s the truth, and in it lies the first problem:
Given that only violence can stop violence, and given that a modern, affluent, egalitarian society requires a certain amount of peace and trust to operate, who will be responsible for wielding this violence-stopping violence?
In caste systems throughout the world, there is a warrior caste with the power to make war externally and visit justice internally. In European history, the nobility of the medieval period were professional fighters responsible both for war abroad and for justice on their own lands.
There were problems inherent in this model. What we consider an “abuse of power” had no meaning to the medieval mind. The lord had the power and could use it as he saw fit. Only a more powerful lord could intervene and only as far as he felt the force available to him would carry the day.
Modern societies have been forced to work with both the fact that force is sometimes necessary and the social belief that force is inherently wrong—the “last resort of the ignorant.” The modern solution has been to create professions, soldiers and police, authorized to use force in the name of and for the benefit of society as a whole.
Looked at shallowly, this seems to present a paradox. If a John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer (serial killers and rapists, and Dahmer a cannibal) handcuffs someone and takes them against their will to another place, it is kidnapping. When an officer does it, it is an arrest. When a citizen shoots another citizen, it is usually murder. When an officer shoots someone, it is closely scrutinized, but it is usually an ‘incident,’ not a crime.
The analogy doesn’t hold true all the time. Most of the time, officers are expected to act like citizens—follow traffic laws, respect other people’s property, and not randomly blaze away with their handguns.
But when law enforcement officers are being enforcement officers, it isn’t a ‘most of the time’ situation. The standard social rules, the way that life and people are expected to be, have already failed or started the downhill slide. ‘Most of the time’ people respect each other’s persons and property. ‘Most of the time’ people can be reasoned with and will do the right thing. ‘Most of the time’ you don’t need the cops.
Referees in any sport are not and cannot be held to the same standards as players. They have to do things players aren’t supposed to do, such as confront other players and sometimes eject them from the game.
When you do need officers to respond, it is because the social rules, the way most of us agree things should be, are being ignored. Someone has decided to act the way he wants to instead of the way he should. It is unlikely that the social corrections will work when people are already off the social map.
That’s the ‘why’ of the book. This is what I bring to the table:
For seventeen years, I was a corrections officer and sergeant working booking, maximum security, and mental health units. During that time, I trained corrections and enforcement officers* primarily in force-related skills, like defensive tactics (hand-to-hand fighting and arrest techniques) and force policy.
Working direct supervision corrections (and especially booking) exposes a young officer to a wide variety of ‘difficult people.’ I was told early in my career that two years in booking would result in more experience with hand-to-hand fighting than a career in enforcement. I don’t know if that is true. I do know that I have instructed a group of enforcement officers with 180 years of cumulative experience and had more force incidents than all of them combined.
In the course of my duties, I spent more than a decade on the Tactical Team, much of that as the team leader. We were the ones who got called when no one else felt confident about handling the situation. I was trained (but did not serve) as a Hostage Negotiator. I was, for a time, the sergeant designated to handle problems with mentally ill inmates.
That much exposure was a powerful incentive to understand the rules of force as well as to investigate ways to avoid it.
I have also worked as an Internal Affairs investigator and as a contract advisor for the Iraqi federal corrections service.
In an egalitarian society, the basic rules for how much force is legal are the same for officers as for civilians. The big differences come into play based on when and how force is used. A civilian who can walk away would not (should not, in most jurisdictions) use force, whereas an officer with a Duty to Act may have no choice. In cases of self-defense, citizens need to use force primarily to safely escape. Taking someone into custody requires different skills and entails different risks.
That will be covered in more detail later.
As much as possible I will put you inside the head of an officer—as a rookie at the academy in the first section, to growing into a veteran officer in the third. Every officer has been a civilian. Few civilians have ever been officers. Try it on for size.
This book is divided into two main sections with two smaller sections.
The first, “Training,” shows what officers learn and how they are taught to think about Force. It will essentially be an introductory Use of Force class as it would be taught in many police academies. There will be some differences. Different jurisdictions have different policies. Another instructor might not emphasize what I do. What you will read in section one is almost exactly what you would experience if you were a rookie I was training.
Section two is a bridge. At the Academy, Use of Force is taught in a complicated web of other skills: gathering and preserving evidence, relevant law, driving, report writing, cross-cultural communication, etc.
You won’t get that matrix of skills from a single book or even a dozen. There are a few things officers are taught that do pertain directly to force decisions and some things that will help you, as a civilian, put things in context. There will be an overview of how much time the officers spend on force skills, such as shooting and defensive tactics, at the academy.
Section two will also cover what happens when an officer is accused of breaking the rules. There will also be a short section on how self-defense law differs for civilians, in case you are interested.
The third section, “Experience,” will describe how officers begin to see the world that they live in and how they feel about it.
It is artificial to separate training from experience, and there will be many places where I wish the human brain could read two things at once and blend and contrast them. There are some things taught in training (such as the difference between levels of force and levels of resistance) that often don’t make sense, even to officers, until they come in contact with the real world. There are other issues, such as ‘active shooter’ tactics, where the doctrine flies in the face of experience.
Somewhere in the fog between training and experience, the officer has to make a decision. Sometimes the decision will be made in a fraction of a second on partial information. Sometimes the decision will change the lives of everyone involved forever.
The last section is a short piece about applying what you have read. It will probably hurt your feelings, since in much of it I will talk to you as if you were a suspect. Try to keep an open mind anyway. The easy part will cover what you should have learned. The hard parts will be about why community action fails and what can really be done—which is hard work and risk, not meetings and press conferences—and how you should behave when faced by an officer.
You are already a citizen and have your own experiences and points of view. In the bulk of the book, I will try to put you in the headspace of an officer to give you an overview of his training and a taste of his experience. In the very last section, I will try to let you feel like a suspect. That’s a lot of mind-bending for one book. Get plenty of sleep and drink lots of water.
