The Wisconsin Law Review has published a paper titled, “The Invisible Rules That Govern Use of Force” authored by Ion Meyn. Having just read the sixty-five page report, it is filled with errors, misquotes, and bias as it challenges the policies of law enforcement agencies.
The problems:
(1) The article uses the phrase “rule-resistance” countless times to reflect what it says is the improper acceptance of the Graham standard which is a United States Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and its decisions are binding throughout the United States.
(2) The article relies on training provided by a privately owned Texas company called Lexipro, which it calls the leader in American law enforcement training, and ignores training provided by Calibre Press, Inc., a privately owned company based in Illinois who have trained hundreds of thousands of police officers over the past five decades. It also ignores the Institute of Police Technology and Management (University of North Florida), Southern Police Institute University of Louisville), and Texas A&M University who all offer training, and have for decades, to a national audience. The article uses selected comments made by police trainers, which sound ominous because they are taken out of context.
RULE RESISTANCE
The article alleges that police agencies refuse to write specific rules for the use of force by officers, citing the Supreme Court decision in Graham, v Connor as their basis. Since the case is binding on all law enforcement agencies, their policies are required to be consistent with the ruling. It For a rule to be effective is must cover the potential variables. Human behavior is subject to too many variables to work in that context. For whatever reason(s), it would appear that the only behavior that needs to be regulated is on the police.
The Graham Standard demonstrates that actions involving police are fluid and constantly changing. Unlike the people who require a committee to buy paper clips, decisions on actions are made in just a few seconds with limited available information. The people making those decisions cannot be fairly judged in the vacuum of a climate controlled room of lawyers. Graham is clear in stating that the basis for review must be what a reasonable police officer would do in a like circumstance. “Reasonable” in this context is an objective standard, while “necessary” is a subjective term. Think in terms of driving a car and approaching a traffic light. Is it necessary to apply the brakes as the vehicle approaches the intersection? Is it reasonable to allow the vehicle to slow in case the light turns red? Use of force is the opposite. The force used can be reasonable, but not necessarily necessary. Is it necessary to shoot a person who has a gun but is not shooting at you? The answer is that the level of deadly force is a reasonable response, but whether it was necessary is open to varying opinions.
The article cites a case in Madison, WI. and argues that the intense investigation of the person shot was not equally applied to the officer. The article states: “The MPD initiated an investigation to assess the reasonableness of force and to assist the District Attorney in any criminal inquiry.137 MPD bias was stark; in its investigation of Heimsness, the department only attempted to find dirt on Heenan.138 The MPD reviewed Heenan’s social media accounts; not those of Heimsness. The MPD reviewed Heenan’s phone use; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD reviewed Heenan’s credit history; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD reviewed security footage of Heenan making recent purchases; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD tested Heenan for drugs and alcohol; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD interviewed Heenan’s family members, friends, employers, and co-workers regarding Heenan’s recent conduct and any propensity for violence; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD searched Heenan’s bedroom to assess his mental state; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD searched Heenan’s car; not so as to Heimsness. The MPD looked for citations issued against Heenan; the MPD did not look for any complaints as to Heimsness.139” It would appear that the author sought to have the officer treated as a criminal and is absurd.
TRAINING
The article cites the training and videos of Lexicon are cited to indicate that police agencies use hard and fast rules for the use of force in training of officers. The article cites quotes from police trainers such as Mike Gardner, a retired police officer from Cincinnati, Ohio and the Warren County, Ohio Sheriff’s Office, which Gardner claims was not accurately interpreted.
Law enforcement agencies across the country are making their simulators available to members of the community to attempt to place them in the position to make split-second decisions. The problem is that a majority of the most vocal have no desire to actually become informed. They would rather snipe and exhibit contempt for the people who protect and serve them.
To read the complete paper – The Invisible Rules That Govern Use of Force (ssrn.com) Reach your own conclusions.