The Use Of The Force Continuum By Police Officers
Force is best understood when it is shown along a continuum according to severity of harm it causes to people. Terrill (2001) explains that all potential acts of force need to be looked at, including physical and non-physical. At the bottom of the continuum, the reputation or possibility of the use of coercion may work well enough to avoid the use of physical force, this is wanted as police want to use as little force to resolve an issue as possible. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) lays out in their review that police should plan and control their tasks to minimise the use of lethal force. This is essentially why the continuum exists, and this will be examined in relation to the use of lethal and non-lethal force below.
The continuum of force is designed to offer support regarding controlling suspects with an appropriate level of force in response to the different levels of resistance they may face. This means that the continuum of force is used to bridge the gap between the vagueness of law and the realities of street practice. This would therefore suggest that the continuum is created to make it easier for officers to translate the difficult law jargon to something that is easily understood on the streets. There are many different forms of continuum that have been created over the years, the most popular being the linear approach. The linear approach to the continuum advises officers to first rely on their presence as the least amount of force and if it fails, moving to increasingly severe types of force to resolve a situation. This should mean that officers start low and gradually work their way up as the situation becomes increasingly dangerous. Police officers often rely on force as they see it as an effective tool to control citizens and gain public respect. Thus, the continuum was created. It may gain public respect from citizens as it may be through fear of the force being used on them. Regarding the use of lethal and non-lethal force, they are on opposite ends of the continuum. For example, at the bottom of the continuum, there will be the least forceful and most changeable action, whereas at the top, there is the most lethal force, which is usually illustrated by using firearms. Violent encounters involve an observable behavioural hierarchy. The continuum then uses this to determine what is and what is not an allowable level of force that can be used in any situation (Buttle, 2007, p.174).
Most force used by police officers occurs at the lower end of the spectrum, usually in the form of verbal force. However, officers are often urged to use a level of force that is just above the level of resistance that they encountered. Although, the HMIC report mentions that the officers should apply non-lethal methods before resorting to lethal force because they should only use force when other methods have proved ineffective, and when force is used, it should be exercised with restraint (HMIC, 2011, p.79). Whether the force used is lethal or not, there is still potential for accidental serious, or even fatal, injury. This is because no weapon system is universally effective and officers may need to use a combination of tactics to diffuse the situation. Where force is placed on the continuum is probably easiest explained by mentioning that an explicit threat is more forceful than a command, a firm grip is more forceful than a command and explicit threat, a takedown manoeuvre is more forceful than a command, explicit threat and a firm grip, and finally, striking with an external mechanism is more forceful than all of the above. Police force comes in many varieties and multiple types of force may be used during one encounter. This includes verbal force, which involves commands and threats, and physical force, which involves restraining, pain compliance techniques, takedown manoeuvres, striking, and the use of any external mechanis. According to Pate and Fridell, handcuffing is the most frequent use of force, and the next frequent was bodily force. This shows that most force is not lethal and low on the continuum.
Newburn (2008) believes that the easy availability of lethal weapons for the use of officers symbolises clear inequality of power between the police and public. Although, the British police continue to be incredibly lightly armed compared to police in other areas, but over the past two decades, appearance has changed to become more armoured and weapon based. The British tradition is still that there is an unarmed police force, however, gun crime is on the increase and more armed officers are needed to counteract such threats (Glass, 2007, p.298). Regarding the continuum of force, as the police in the United Kingdom are still relatively unarmed, force tends to be on the lower end of the spectrum. In areas such as America, where firearms are used daily, it would be found that lethal force is more prominent. In 1986, the British police service silently abandoned unarmed uniform and became semi-armed which allowed nationwide ability to quickly deploy lethal force to situations. Taking this all into consideration, Dr. Waddington mentions that the routine arming of police officers would not demonstrate a ‘protective talisman’, meaning that the use of firearms does not necessarily mean that officers are automatically protected simply because they are more armed. Relating back to the continuum, this shows that the use of force, especially lethal, tends to be linked to officers being armed.
When navigating the continuum and being cautious on which form of force is best to use in a situation, officers are in search of a ‘magic bullet’, something that causes immediate weakness of an offender or crowd whilst avoiding serious injury or even death. This would be perfect if it was the case; it would mean that officers could use more powerful weapons that are seen to be on the higher end of the continuum, but the impact it would have on a person would be on the lower end of the continuum.
Less lethal weapons are weapons that can be used without substantial risk to life (ACPO, 2011, p.29), and tend to sit at the lower end of the continuum. Over time, they have become critical tools for law enforcement individuals when confronting a potentially dangerous situation. It is believed that the least forceful, most effective weapon, is talk and negotiation skills (Newburn, 2008, p.480). On the continuum, this would more than likely be placed right at the bottom. The weapons that are considered less lethal include impact projectile weapons (bean bags, rubber bullets), irritant sprays (CS), and conductive energy devices (tasers). These are placed in the intermediate level of the continuum and the use of these is thought to increase officer safety. Other less lethal weapons that have been allowed for use include police dogs, barriers, and vehicle stopping devices. For less lethal weapons to be the most useful, they need to be able to weaken the thought process of the offender for enough time to allow officers to prevent further action (Downs, 2007, p.358). This shows that officers do not always have to use force at the high end of the spectrum to get the results they want. However, to define certain weapons as ‘non-lethal’ can be misleading because almost every weapon, whether it be on the low or high end of the spectrum, carries some risk. The negative side of less lethal weapons is that minimum force is not always understood by officers as the minimum necessary to achieve what they want (HMIC, 2011, p.82). This could be dangerous as officers could jump the continuum in order to detain an offender simply because they interpreted the phrase differently.
On the higher end of the continuum belongs lethal weapons, which are usually categorised by firearms. The main purpose of firearms in the UK is to protect the public by removing the threat posed to them, and where the force is necessary, the aim is to shoot to stop the immediate threat. This must be avoided if possible but is usually involved in cases where the offender has a weapon themselves and is threatening to hurt others. When discharging a weapon such as a firearm, the aim is to prevent threat to life, and this is achieved by aiming to hit the central body mass, which is the torso. This was not shown in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes as he was shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder at point-blank range. This means that police often do not follow the continuum, or the rules laid out for them to follow, meaning the continuum may be useless regarding more lethal weapons due to the way they are used.
There are several pieces of law that aid the use of force, which help officers navigate the continuum appropriately. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 (s3) mentions that any persons may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 2) mentions that the use of lethal force by police should be necessary and proportionate. In relation to the continuum, these guidelines help as it makes officers understand their force must be reasonable, therefore using the continuum to move up or down accordingly to make the force against the citizen proportionate. In the Code of Practice set out for the use of firearms and less lethal weapons, it sets out the procedures to help with the good practice of firearms, and it applies to any firearm and less lethal weapon available, including conventional firearms, conducted energy devices, and attenuating energy projectiles.
It is suggested by Neyroud and Beckley (2001) that ethical policing can be achieved if officers are trained to use force in the appropriate manner. This is supported by the notion that only highly skilled officers can be competent users of force as they have a wider variety of tactics to employ, therefore suggesting that more skilled officers can navigate the continuum better as their skills allow them to use lower levels of force compared to unskilled officers. Although, it was found by Terrill (2012that trainers gave little advice on when tactics should be used, usually telling officers to “follow the policy”, which is not very clear. It was further found that many officers were not sufficiently trained in determining how much force was necessary. This shows that training is incredibly important when it comes to using the continuum effectively. If officers are not trained suitably, the continuum would not be followed correctly, and the use of force could be lethal.
There are several benefits to the continuum. One of them being that it offers framework for officers accused of excessive force to use for defence. Although officers rarely strayed from the continuum, it identifies when officers do make mistakes (Terrill, 2001, pp.147-151). When this occurs, the officers can use the continuum to justify why they believed the amount of force, whether it be non-lethal or lethal, was correct. On the other hand, however, there are many negatives to the continuum. For example, concern arises when the level of force used is not level with the amount of resistance they are faced with. This means officers will jump the continuum. Jumping the continuum means applying more force than the continuum suggests, refraining means applying less than suggested, and following means using the continuum in accordance. Jumping or refraining in any situation could potentially be lethal and shows how important it is to use the continuum to guide the use of force against another person. It is often found that police officers who work in disorganised neighbourhoods will jump the continuum (Hays, 2011, p.4). The placement of force on the continuum is subjective, therefore suggesting the continuum is not universally effective (ACPO, 2011, p.30). This is because some officers may view restraint as a medium level of force, whereas some may see it as a low level of force. This renders the continuum useless as it cannot be followed in the same way when it is operated through interpretation.
In conclusion, the force continuum gives officers a clearer picture on the type of force that can be used in any given situation through reading the appropriate legal structure. However, despite this, every effort must be made to resolve an issue without resorting to the use of force.
