# P1 Exclusive: The ART of Articulation



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

By Brian Willis and Darren Leggatt
Every law enforcement trainer understands that simply doing what is right and using only force that is reasonable and necessary is not always enough. Officers must also be able to explain to an investigator, a judge, a jury, or any court of enquiry that what they did at that moment in time was reasonable and necessary based on the totality of circumstances. It is my experience that in the majority of incidents where officers use force to control subjects, their actions are both reasonable and necessary. 
It is very common, however, for officers to struggle when they are asked to explain and justify their actions. In the past we would see them use generic statements in their documentation such as: "The subject resisted arrest and force was used to subdue him." When interviewed, they would use such eloquent explanations as: "He was an asshole." A quick review of the index in the law books fails to turn up the word "asshole" and it is not listed as a subject behavior category in any use-of-force model that I am aware of. 
In lethal force cases, some officers simply state, "He had a knife." The mere fact the subject had a knife is again an insufficient explanation to justify a shooting. Another generic response in lethal force situations is "I feared for my life so I shot him." That fear is an important part of the big picture, but only a part. 
Laura A. Zimmerman, Ph.D. of Klein Associates/ARA made similar observations in her 2006 paper titled Law Enforcement Decision Making During Critical Incidents: A Three-Pronged Approach to Understanding and Enhancing Law Enforcement Decision Processes. In that document she states:

"After actual incidents, officers often justify their actions by claiming that the suspect was "aggressive" or "hostile" or that the suspect was "acting suspiciously" or making "furtive movements." These non-elaborative descriptions provide little justification for actions&#8230;"
A growing trend in North America is that officers lock into subject behavior categories on a use of force model to explain why they used a specific force response option. The officer states that the subject was assaultive and therefore he was justified in using a baton strike. While a baton may be a very reasonable option there is insufficient information in this explanation to justify it. 
Administrators, trainers, and legal counsels around North America are looking for answers as to why this is happening. These answers are diverse and may vary dramatically depending on whom you ask. Some of the possible answers include: 
1. Officers and agencies have become reliant on the technology such as in-car video cameras, Tasercams®, etc. which takes the story-telling power from the officer and defers it to a tool. 
2. The proliferation of police unions and associations and their leaders who encourage officers to say the absolute minimum. 
3. The 'Hollywood Factor' that results in the current generation of police officer being subjected to a cop show an hour, none of which reflect the reality of use of force events or of the profession. 4. The all too common question in training environments: "What category of subject can we use this with?"
The objective of this article is to provide some observations and present some thoughts and ideas on how we can begin to change this trend. We will begin by determining what we mean by "articulation."

Full Article: http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...1712531-P1-Exclusive-The-ART-of-Articulation/


----------

