Dear Editor,
A recent video clip went viral showing a policeman kicking a businessman in the presence of several of his colleagues in uniform at the Linden Police Station. In addition, the appearance of several other previous documented instances of policemen unlawfully assaulting members of the public has moved me to again comment on the use of force by members of the force.
The use of force is sometimes a necessary part of a policeman’s job, but determining what is reasonable is highly subjective. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) describes force thus, “The amount of effort required to compel compliance from an unwilling subject. This includes physical, chemical, impact, electronic and firearm force. “ The IACP further posited, “A police officer will never employ unnecessary force or violence and will only use such force in the discharge of duty as is reasonable in all circumstances.
“Force should be used only with the greatest restraint and only after discussion, negotiation and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. While the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every police officer will refrain from applying the unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment of any person.”
In the United States of America the landmark case in relation to the use of force is Graham vs Conner (1989). The Court held, “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that the police officers are often forced to make split second judgements in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and are rapidly evolving about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. “ The standard according to the decision is the ‘reasonably objective officer.’ This case is also applicable to members of the Guyana Police Force.
The police use of force is a reactive process. They respond to the subject’s actions or lack of actions. They are several use of force continuum models. The one used by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centre (FLETC) is very instructive. It has 5 levels:
Level 1 is the compliant level where no use of force is usually reasonable. Level 2 is the Resistive (Passive) Level where the subject does not follow the officer’s command. Force options here include guiding or directing the subject through hands on techniques. Level 3 is the Resistive (Active) Level which occurs when a subject actively resists arrest. Level 3 force options include joint manipulation or restraint leverage techniques, pressure points or (pepper) spray with a warning given first under proper circumstances. Level 4 is the Assaultive (Bodily) Harm Level. A direct physical attack on an officer or others. Appropriate force options at this level includes strikes with the hands, fists, elbows or knees, baton strikes and forcefully directing the subject to the ground.
Level 5 is the Assaultive (serious bodily harm or death) Level, where the appropriate response would be deadly force.
Norwicki, a use of force expert outlined three rules relating to the use of force: Rule No. 1
You go home the same way as when you went to work- ALIVE. Rule No 2. You do not go to prison. Rule No 3. You keep your job.
He emphasised that if your use of force is reasonable, you protect yourself, your agency, the community and even the assailant. But, when in doubt remember rule No 1.
Based on the numerous disturbing incidents relative to the unlawful use of force by members of the Guyana Police Force against the general public and vice versa it is pellucid that the police need urgent training/ retraining in the following areas: Anger Management, Conflict Reso-lution, Self esteem, Effectively dealing with people, Policing multi- cultural and diverse communities and Self defence.
May God help the Guyana Police Force.
Yours sincerely,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of
Police
(Retired)
