PERF and Their Questionable Principles

“If you can keep your head when all about you…

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you…”

If, Kipling

29 January, Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum or PERF, publically unveils their 30 Guiding Principles in their Use of Force: Taking Policing to a Higher Standard.

Self-described as “an independent research organization that focuses on critical issues in policing” PERF has been around since 1976. I’ve known of PERF and their products since before 1992 when I picked up their publication Deadly Force: What We Know written by William Geller and Michael Scott. This book is a clear attempt at restricting officer’s use of deadly force more than the law allows. The authors state in this desk reference, “Generally, the two most promising types of strategies for controlling the use of deadly force by police officers are:

Shrinking the outer limits of discretion to use deadly force (through laws, policies, training, equitable disciplinary systems, the shaping of peer pressure, and other methods…
Strengthening officers’ capacities to exercise self-restraint in using deadly force

The problem with PERF’s notions then and now is that they refuse to accept that, A) Throughout the nation, oftentimes officers withhold their fire when they have the legal right to shoot, and B) The vast majority of shootings occur in situations where deadly force is the correct response! Their recommendations in 1992 and today ignore “…the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation,” as the SCOTUS stated in Graham v. Connor.

We have commented here and reported that in studies such as Restraint in the Use of Deadly Force, and the Washington Post’s review of officer involved shootings involving the deaths of 991 subjects last year, show that 75% of the subjects killed by police in 2015 were: shooting at police or someone else (28%); attacking with other weapons or physical force (16%); or pointed a gun at police (31%).

Over the years I have tried to be a steadfast supporter of the street officer and an extreme advocate of realistic, relevant training repeated on a regular basis. Just last week a former officer from a smaller (under 40 officer) agency stated that his former P.D. only conducted firearms training once a year for two hours. I would submit that since this “training” largely involved qualifications for pistol, shotgun and patrol rifle, there was actually no training conducted.

Truth be told in these shrinking budgetary times, many (most?) agencies have reduced basic and in-service training time, this to the detriment of working police officers. We have been a vocal opponent of this phenomenon. That said, at a time when police officers training is reduced, a private, for profit entity, PERF, recommends restrictions on officers use of force.

Here are the worst examples:

Point #2: Departments should adopt policies that hold themselves to a higher standard than the legal requirements of Graham v. Connor.

Why? Why would PERF recommend further restrictions on officers’ use of force? Political correctness gone amuck? One wonders. Certainly not based on reality? Truth is, that if you surveyed working street officers they would not know when the can use deadly force on a fleeing felon. Most would not shoot even when they had the legal right under Tennessee v. Garner. This extends to supervisors, police management, even firearms trainers as well. I know, for years I asked these groups in use of force investigations and firearm instructor courses I taught throughout my state and this country. In hypothetical scenarios I asked if they could shoot a violent felon who had shot a person in the head in front of them, who then ran, threw the gun down, and was getting away. I even had to correct an attorney who was working for my state’s law enforcement training academy who refused to acknowledge this section of Tenn. v. Garner. In no other section of 4^thor 5^th Amendment law, i.e. Terry or Miranda, do we restrict officers more than the law allows. Why would we on use of force?

Point #3: Police use of force must meet the test of proportionality.

SCOTUS said in Graham, “…the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition…” This whole “proportionality” concept reared its ugly head years ago when force continuums were developed based on the “Plus One” theory. In short this theory allowed the officer to escalate his force one level above the suspect. Fortunately continuums have largely been thrown out since they were used against agencies in civil suits. What the law allows is a range of force options. Everything from officer presence and verbal commands through the Taser and impact weapon strikes can be used against actively resisting subjects depending on the totality of the circumstances.

Point #4: Adopt de-escalation as formal policy.

The facts are simple. The DOJ stats: Contacts Between Police and the Public; October, 2011, which states, “During 2008, about 574,000 persons age 16 or older had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact with police. This estimate represents about 1.4% of those persons who reported face-to-face contact with police in 2008” Considering that in 2011 the number of contacts American police had with citizens was around 63 million, I would point out that U.S. police use de-escalation on a daily basis, even with criminal suspects. Further, the driving force in de-escalation is the suspect. It is the suspect and their level of cooperation or resistance which impacts whether police are able to de-escalate the situation. We agree that more tactical communication training is invaluable to street police officers but regardless, there are LE interactions which cannot be deescalated.

Point #8: Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited.

Deadly threats come in all manner and from all kinds of delivery systems be they projectiles fired from firearms, or 4,000 lb. cars. It is the perpetrator with deadly actions which create the threat of death or seriously bodily injury. Forbidding officers from firing at suspects in moving vehicles denies this threat and possibly prevents an officer from saving his or her own life. Nationwide agencies have reduced the incidence of officers firing at cars but we cannot forbid and officer from using deadly force to stop a deadly threat.

Point #16: Use Distance, Cover, and Time to replace the outdated concepts such as the “21-foot rule” and “drawing a line in the sand.”

Apparently PERF lacked the sophistication to actually read Tueller’s original article How Close is Too Close (1983; SWAT magazine). Had they simply done some research on Google they could read the piece online. From Tueller, (an excellent instructor and retired lieutenant from Salt Lake City PD): “First, develop and maintain a healthy level of tactical alertness. If you spot the danger signs early enough, you can probably avoid the confrontation altogether. A tactical withdrawl…may be your best bet, unless you’re anxious to get involved in a shooting and the consequent legal hassles which are sure to follow. …You should move to cover (if there is any close at hand), draw your weapon, and start to plan your next move. Why use cover…you want to make it hard for him to get to you.” Man, does this not sound a lot like “distance, cover and time” which PERF espouses? But listen to Dennis Tueller, “Sometime, of course, despite your best efforts, you could find yourself the intended victim of some lunatic slasher.” Far from being the recipe for an inside 21 foot kill zone, as PERF intimates, Tueller advanced officer safety on dealing with violent subjects armed with contact weapons. And for that, we have much to be thankful for… PERF’s notions? Poorly researched and dangerous in the extreme.

Wrap-Up

There is much more nonsense in the “guiding principles” I’ll leave you to explore on your own.

You’ll notice that nowhere in the above examples does PERF place any value on officer safety and survival. Indeed, as an example they refer to the suspect’s value in Point #1 – The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of everything an agency does.

Funny, police officers endanger themselves each and every day in this country to protect innocent human life. From rescues of citizens in burning houses and cars, to those innocents drowning in lakes and rivers. Additionally, LEO’s rescue victims from all manner of violent crime including rape, robbery, domestic violence and felonious assault. To place violent and dangerous criminal suspect’s lives above their own is reckless and irresponsible and a price that I’m not willing to ask officers to pay. PERF needs to come down from their political and social policing high horse and possibly pay a visit to a few fallen officer’s families. Let PERF explain their cost focus to those surviving parents, spouses and kids of cops who’ve paid the ultimate price!