On Wednesday, July 1, 2020, the Richmond Community Police Review Commission will “Consider the “8 Can’t Wait” recommendations, RPD’s adoption or non-adoption of same and discuss and vote on recommendations.”
(1) Objective goal: Require de-escalation
RPD Response:
- Failing to require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, through communication, maintaining distance, slowing things down, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force.
This specific language isn’t currently in our policy manual however, management and the Richmond Police Officers Association are in the meet and confer process regarding language that includes de-escalation in our use of force policy.
Current language in our Policy Manual:
300.3.2 FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF FORCE
When determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, as time and circumstances permit. This can be a related to “slowing things down.”
(a) Immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others. This can be related to the question of distance.
(h) The availability of other options and their possible effectiveness. This addresses the consideration of other means
of resolution.
(k) Potential for injury to officers, suspects and others. This addresses the potential minimization of the actual use of force.
HOWEVER, it is specifically addressed in the section dealing with mental illness.
418.3 OFFICER CONSIDERATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Any officer responding to or handling a call involving a suspected mentally disabled individual or an involuntary mental illness commitment should consider utilizing the following as time and circumstances reasonably permit:
(a) Any available information that might assist in determining the cause and nature of the mental illness or developmental disability.
(b) Conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques.
(c) Language that is appropriate for interacting with a mentally disabled person.
(d) If circumstances permit, alternatives to deadly force.
(e) Any available community resources that can assist in dealing with a mentally disabled individual.
Does Richmond Meet the criterium: No, RPD acknowledges the specific language is not in the policy manual, but nevertheless insists it is compliant.
Examples of written policies that meets this objective criterium:
San Francisco
"Officers shall, when feasible, employ de-escalation techniques to decrease the likelihood of the need to use force during an incident and to increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance. Officers shall when feasible, attempt to understand and consider the possible reasons why a subject may be noncompliant or resisting arrest. A subject may not be capable of understanding the situation because of a medical condition; mental, physical, or hearing impairment; language barrier; drug interaction; or emotional crisis and have no criminal intent. These situations may not make the subject any less dangerous but understanding a subject’s situation may enable officers to calm the subject and allow officers to use de-escalation techniques while maintaining public and officer safety. Officers who act to deescalate an incident, which can delay taking a subject into custody, while keeping the public and officers safe, will not be found to have neglected their duty. They will be found to have fulfilled it.”
Albuquerque
"When circumstances allow, in their interaction with subjects, officers should use advisements, warning, verbal persuasion, and other tactics in an atempt to resolve the incident." O.5. And "Officers are expected to recognize their approach to citizen interactions may influence whether a situation escalates to the need to use force.”
Oakland
"Members are required to de-escalate the force when the member reasonably believes a lesser level or no further force is appropriate."
"To the extent possible and without ever compromising safety, members are required to use verbal commands to accomplish the police objective before resorting to physical force. Members shall consider the possibility of any language barriers, noise, other distractions, or disabilities which may impair or frustrate the members effort to courteously and clearly communicate with the person.”
(2) Objective goal: Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
RPD Response:
2. Prohibiting officers from using maneuvers that cut off oxygen or blood flow, including chokeholds or carotid restraints, which often result in unnecessary death or serious injury.
We do not use any language with the word “choke” in our policy.
300.3.4 CAROTID CONTROL HOLD
Richmond officers shall not use the carotid control hold.
Does Richmond Meet the criterium: No, Richmond does not explicitly ban all chokeholds.
Examples of written policies that meets this objective criterium:
San Antonio
“D. A lateral vascular neck restraint (LVNR) shall not be used unless deadly force is authorized‚Ķ[defines this restraint as] The lateral vascular neck restraint (LVNR), commonly known as a sleeper hold, or carotid chokehold, is a general term for a grappling hold that critically reduces or prevents either air (choking) or
blood (strangling) from passing through the neck of an opponent. The restriction may be of one or both and depends on the hold used and the reaction of the victim.”
San Francisco
“Officers are prohibited from using the following control holds:
a. Carotid restraint;
b. Choke hold--choking by means of pressure to the subjects trachea or other means that prevent breathing.”
San Jose
The "Carotid Restraint" may be used when other control techniques have failed or are inappropriate and deadly force may become objectively reasonable if the "Carotid Restraint" is not used."
"The chokehold is prohibited as an authorized control technique to overcome resistance and shall not be used for this purpose. However, a chokehold may only be used by an officer as a deadly force option" (See: http://www.sjpd.org/images/Chokehold_Policy_2016-002.pdf)
(3) Objective goal: Duty to Intervene
RPD Response:
3. Failing to require officers to intervene and stop excessive or unnecessary force used by other officers and report these incidents immediately to a supervisor.
300.2.1 Duty to Intercede- Any officer present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a position to do so, intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. An officer who observes another employee use force that exceeds the degree of force permitted by law should promptly report these observations to a supervisor.
Richmond meets this objective criterium
(4) Objective goal: Ban Shooting at Moving Vehicles
RPD Response:
4. Failing to restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles, which is regarded as a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic.
300.4.1 SHOOTING AT MOVING VEHICLES
Shots fired at a moving vehicle, whether approaching or fleeing, are rarely effective and are generally discouraged.
(a) Unless it reasonably appears that it would endanger officers or the public, officers are expected to move out of the path of any approaching vehicle.
(b) This is not intended to restrict an officer's right to use deadly force directed at the operator or passenger of a vehicle when it is reasonably perceived that the vehicle is being used as a weapon, or firearms are being used, or have been used from the vehicle against the officer or others.
Does Richmond Meet the criterium: No, Richmond does not ban shooting at moving vehicles
Examples of written policies that meets this objective criterium:
San Francisco
Policy Language: Section 2.e: MOVING VEHICLES. An officer shall not discharge a firearm at the operator or occupant of a moving vehicle unless the operator or occupant poses an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the public or an officer by means other than the vehicle. Officers shall not discharge a firearm from his or her moving vehicle.
Los Angeles
Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. The moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an officers use of deadly force. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants.
New Orleans
"300.5.1 SHOOTING AT OR FROM MOVING VEHICLES Shots fired at or from a moving vehicle are rarely effective. Officers shall not discharge a firearm from a moving vehicle or at a moving vehicle unless the occupants of the vehicle are using deadly force, other than the vehicle itself, against the officer or another person, and such action is necessary for self defense or to protect the other person; shall not intentionally place themselves in the path of, or reach inside, a moving vehicle; and, where possible, shall attempt to move out of the path of a moving vehicle before discharging their weapon. Officers should not shoot at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle.
(5) Objective goal: Has Use of Force Continuum
RPD Response:
5. Failing to limit the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance and specific characteristics such as age, size, or disability.
300.3.2 FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF FORCE
When determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, as time and circumstances permit.
These factors include, but are not limited to:
(a) Immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others.
(b) The conduct of the individual being confronted, as reasonably perceived by the officer
at the time.
(c) Officer/subject factors (age, size, relative strength, skill level, injuries sustained, level
of exhaustion or fatigue, the number of officers available vs. subjects).
(d) The effects of drugs or alcohol.
(e) Subject's mental state or capacity.
(f) Proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised devices.
(g) The degree to which the subject has been effectively restrained and his/her ability to
resist despite being restrained.
(h) The availability of other options and their possible effectiveness.
(i) Seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for contact with the individual.
(j) Training and experience of the officer.
(k) Potential for injury to officers, suspects and others.
(l) Whether the person appears to be resisting, attempting to evade arrest by flight or is attacking the officer.
(m) The risk and reasonably foreseeable consequences of escape.
(n) The apparent need for immediate control of the subject or a prompt resolution of the situation.
(o) Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no longer reasonably appears to pose an imminent threat to the officer or others.
(p) Prior contacts with the subject or awareness of any propensity for violence.
(q) Any other exigent circumstances.
Note: the category cited by RPD is not on the 8 Can’t Wait list and is not a use of force continuum. It is interesting
RPD did not follow the 8 listed categories, and instead made up their own in several cases.
(6) Objective goal: Requires Exhaust All Alternatives Before Shooting
RPD Response:
6. Failing to require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force.
Deadly force is authorized only when the officer is protecting him/herself or others from what is reasonably believed to be an imminent threat to life.
300.4 DEADLY FORCE APPLICATIONS
Use of deadly force is justified in the following circumstances:
(a) An officer may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably believes would be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
(b) An officer may use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed, or intends to commit, a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily injury or death, and the officer reasonably believes that there is an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death to any other person if the subject is not immediately apprehended. Under such circumstances, a verbal warning should precede the use of deadly force, where feasible. Imminent does not mean immediate or instantaneous. An imminent danger may exist even if the suspect is not at that very moment pointing a weapon at someone. For example, an imminent danger may exist if an officer reasonably believes any of the following:
1. The person has a weapon or is attempting to access one and it is reasonable to believe the person intends to use it against the officer or another.
2. The person is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death without a weapon and it is reasonable to believe the person intends to do so
Does Richmond Meet the criterium: No. Police Department Policy Manual does not require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force.
Examples of written policies that meets this objective criterium:
Arlington, TX:
"Where the circumstances permit, it is the employee's responsibility to first exhaust every reasonable means of employing the minimum amount of force, including the police employee's physical presence and verbal skills, before escalating to a more severe application of force."
"When police personnel should reasonably perceive that the potential exists that deadly force may be an outcome of any situation, the employee must plan ahead and use reasonable alternatives if time and opportunities permit. "Reasonable alternatives" is defined as an action that may be taken by police personnel that may allow the employee to avoid the use of deadly force. The reasonableness of the action is based on the time available, the opportunity of performing the action, and the facts apparent to the employee before and during the incident. This includes the presence of innocent third persons. Planned and supervised hazardous entry situations are recognized as meeting the requirement of reasonable alternatives.”
San Francisco
Section VI.G: "It is the policy of this Department to use deadly force only as a last resort when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or are not feasible to protect the safety of the public and police officers. The use of firearms and other deadly force is the most serious decision an officer may ever make. When safe and feasible under the totality of circumstances, officers shall consider other objectively reasonable force options before discharging a firearm or using other deadly force.
Dallas
"Deadly force will be used with great restraint and as a last resort only when the level of resistance warrants the use of deadly force."
"At the point when an officer should reasonably perceive the potential exists that deadly force may be an outcome of any situation, the officer must use reasonable alternatives if time and opportunities permit. The reasonableness of the action is based upon the time available, the opportunity of performing the action, and the facts apparent to the officer prior to and during the incident.
(7) Objective goal: Requires Warning Before Shooting
RPD Response:
7. Failing to require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before using serious force such as shooting, tasing, or pepper spraying someone.
300.4 DEADLY FORCE APPLICATIONS
Under such circumstances, a verbal warning should precede the use of deadly force, where feasible.
308.3 ISSUING, CARRYING AND USING CONTROL DEVICES
Control devices may be used when a decision has been made to control, restrain or arrest a subject who is violent or who demonstrates the intent to be violent, and the use of the device appears reasonable under the circumstances. When reasonable, a verbal warning and opportunity to comply should precede the use of these devices.
309.4 VERBAL AND VISUAL WARNINGS
A verbal warning of the intended use of the CED should precede its application, unless it would otherwise endanger the safety of officers or when it is not practicable due to the circumstances.
The purpose of the warning is to:
(a) Provide the individual with a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply.
(b) Provide other officers and individuals with a warning that the CED may be deployed.
If, after a verbal warning, an individual is unwilling to voluntarily comply with an officer’s lawful orders and it appears both reasonable and feasible under the circumstances, the officer may, but is not required to, display the electrical arc (provided that a cartridge has not been loaded into the device), or the laser in a further attempt to gain compliance prior to the application of the CED. The aiming laser should never be intentionally directed into the eyes of another as it may permanently impair his/her vision.
The fact that a verbal or other warning was given or the reasons it was not given shall be documented by the officer deploying the CED in the related report.
Richmond meets this criterium
(8) Objective goal: Requires Comprehensive Reporting
RPD Response:
8. Failing to require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force (e.g., pointing a gun at a person).
The use of the firearm is only an actual use of force when fired…we aren’t threatening to shoot, we are challenging the subject to comply.
300.5 REPORTING THE USE OF FORCE
Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented promptly, completely and accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature of the incident. The officer should articulate the factors perceived and why he/she believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. To collect data for purposes of training, resource allocation, analysis and related purposes, the Department may require the completion of additional report forms, as specified in department policy, procedure or law.
Does Richmond Meet the criterium: No. Officers not required to report when they point a firearm at a civilian in Richmond
Examples of written policies that meets this objective criterium:
San Francisco
While the original policy states that officers are not required to report when they point a firearm at a civilian, unless it discharges, as of December 11 a new department policy has made pointing firearm now a reportable use of force
New Orleans
(i) Un-holstering a firearm and pointing it at a person constitutes a use of force, and shall accordingly be done only as objectively reasonable to accomplish a lawful police objective."
"PR300.4 LEVELS OF FORCE
Force options are grouped in the following four (4) force levels for reporting and investigating purposes only:
PR300.4.1 LEVEL 1
Level-1 uses of force include pointing a firearm at a person and hand control or escort
techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist grip, or shoulder grip) applied as pressure point
compliance techniques or that result in injury or complaint of injury.
Seattle
8300.9. Pointing a Firearm at a Person is Type I Reportable Force
Officers shall document all incidents where they point a firearm at a person. See Section 8.400.
8400.1. Officers Shall Report All Uses of Force Except De Minimis Force
