Correction to April 15, 2021 Memorandum “Resolution No. 20200611-095 – Redefining ‘Resistance’ and Considering Alternative Tactics and Tools to Prevent the Need for Lethal and Less-Lethal Munitions”

Redefining Resistance
and Considering
Alternatives
City of Austin | April 2021
FRUNGFUGRED
OF
OFFICE OF
Redefining "Resistance" and
Considering Alternative Tactics and
POLICE OVERSIGHT
Tools to Prevent the Need for Lethal
FOUNDED
1814
and Less-Lethal Munitions
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Methodology
4
Defining What Constitutes Resistance
5
Comparative Analysis- How Other Police
Departments Define Resistance
7
Alternative Tactics and Tools to Lethal
16
and Less-Lethal Force
How Domestic and International Tactics
24
Compare to Current APD Practices
Recommendations
26
Conclusion
30
Appendices
31
Introduction
In the wake of the 2020 protests responding to the killing of George Floyd, Austin City Council
passed Resolution 95, which expressed a clear intent to reform APD's use-of-force policies and
practices.¹ One of the provisions within Resolution 95 directed OPO to research and make policy
recommendations on the following two topics: (1) how to better define what constitutes
"resistance" and (2) tactics and tools that can serve as alternatives to lethal or less-lethal
munitions.2 This directive demonstrates Austin City Council's commitment to developing APD's
use-of-force policies to provide officers with better guidance and reduce unnecessary uses of
force. This memo responds to that directive.
The purpose of this memo is threefold:
1.
Compare the way APD discusses what constitutes "resistance" in its policies with
the way other comparable police departments in the United States do the same;
2. Identify tactics and tools utilized by domestic and foreign police departments to
avoid the need for lethal or less-lethal munitions and compare these findings with
current practices outlined in APD's General Orders; and
3. Offer recommendations to address areas of concern.
LQ
COMPARE
IDENTIFY
RECOMMEND
1 Resolution 20200611-095, "Use of Force," Austin City Council (June 11, 2020).
2 Resolution 20200611-095, "Use of Force."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
3
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives|APRIL 2021
Methodology
This memo is the result of two main forms of information gathering and analysis.
First, OPO examined the General Orders to determine how they discuss and define
"resistance." OPO then compared APD's discussion and definition to that of fifteen other
domestic police departments. The departments examined represent the following cities:
Atlanta, Baltimore, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Fort Worth, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans,
Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle. Factors that OPO
considered in selecting these cities included: region; whether the cities or their police
departments were of comparable size and/or budget to Austin; and whether the cities'
police departments recently demonstrated a significant shift in policy, either voluntarily or
as the result of a federal consent decree.
Second, OPO drew from academic writing, news articles, books, policing manuals, and
training resources to identify well-recognized tactics and tools capable of remedying the
need for police to use lethal and less-lethal munitions. This research involves an
examination of tactics and tools utilized by both domestic and foreign police departments
with special attention given to nations that utilize unarmed policing. This memo compares
the tactics and tools identified in this research to current practices discussed in the General
Orders and APD training documents.
Based on the results of this research, OPO offers recommendations for improvement to
relevant APD policies and practices. As the findings of this memo demonstrate, however,
reducing APD's use of lethal and less-lethal munitions will not be accomplished with the
changes outlined in this memo alone. While this memo describes crucial next steps, what is
required is a change in culture that is demonstrated through policy; training; and clear,
consistent, and continuous messaging from the highest levels of the department down to,
perhaps most importantly, the first-line supervisors. The findings from this memo should
serve as a foundation to support further efforts to reform APD's use-of-force policies and
practices in order to improve APD's relationship with the community it endeavors to serve.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
4
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
DEFINING WHAT CONSTITUTES "RESISTANCE"
Austin Police Department
In 2008, APD began using the Dynamic Resistance
Response Model (DRRM), which "combines a use-of-
force continuum with an application of four broad
categories of suspects.
"3
The four categories of
No information
suspects are as follows: not resistant, passively
resistant, aggressively resistant, and deadly resistant. 4
about the Dynamic
The DRRM was developed, in part, with the goal of
Resistance
helping officers to prevail against allegations of
excessive
use of force.5 Because the DRRM assumes all
Response
officers will not use physical force unless against an
individual unless they encounter some form of
Model
resistance, the model focusses more on the public's
actions and less on officers' actions in any given
situation. 6 Thus the phrases "resistance response" or
"response to resistance."
The General Orders do not define or discuss the four levels of resistance outlined in the
DRRM. 7 Rather, the General Orders categorize types of force into four levels, but tdo not tie
those specific levels of permitted force. 8 As a result, while APD may use the DRRM, the
General Orders neither reflect it nor discuss it. 9
This is troubling. The absence of this information prevents officers, decision-makers, and
the public from being similarly informed about how the DRRM is utilized in APD's day-to-
day operations and administrative investigations.
3
See Manley, Brian. "Use of Force and De-Escalation Policies." Received by Mayor and Council Members, Official Distribution Memoranda Search, City of
Austin Communications and Public Information Office, 8 July 2020, http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=342897(Note: APD
erroneously referred to the Dynamic Resistance Response Model as the "Dynamic Response to Resistance Model" in its July 2020 memo); see also
Charles Joyner and Chad Basile, J.D., "The Dynamic Resistance Response Model: A modern Approach to the Use of Force," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
76, no. 9 (2007): 15, accessed March 12, 2021, https://leb.fbi.gov/file-repository/archives/sept07leb.pdf
4 Joyner and Basile, "The Dynamic Resistance Response Model: A Modern Approach to the Use of Force," 15.
5 See Joyner and Basile, "The Dynamic Resistance Response Model: A Modern Approach to the Use of Force," 15. ("A major failing among current use-of-
force models is the emphasis on the officer and the amount of force used. This places officers in a weak position during accusations of excessive force as
the focus is on the officer's actions, rather than on the suspect's. The DRRM emphasizes that the suspect's level of resistance determines the officer's
response and delineates suspects into one of four categories: not resistant (compliant), passively resistant, aggressively resistant, and deadly resistant.")
6 Joyner and Basile, "The Dynamic Resistance Response Model: A Modern Approach to the Use of Force," 15.
7 See Austin Police Department. "211.2.4 Level 4 Force Incidents." Austin Police Department General Orders. 3 March 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf (describing individuals "actively resisting arrest beyond the initial or reflexive
stiffening or pulling away of a person's arm(s)").
8 By categorizing types of force into four distinct levels, APD's policy meets the technical and academic definition of a force continuum. The DRRM,
however, is a type of force matrix. A force matrix outlines both levels of force and levels of resistance and "instructs officers that they can use certain
types of force against certain types of resistance." Seth W. Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," in Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary
Readings, ed. Geoffrey P. Alpert, Roger G. Dunham, and Kyle D. McLean (Waveland Press, 2021), 321-345.
9 See Austin Police Department General Orders, 27 Jan. 2021, https://austintexas.gov/page/apd-generalorders. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
5
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives 2021
Image 2. Visual Representation of the Dynamic Resistance Response Model 10
No definition of
"resistance"
DEADLY
RESISTANCE
The General Orders primarily
as toom
discuss "resistance" within the
use-of-force section: General
NO RESISTANCE
(COMPLIANCE)
Order 200 Response to
verbal commands
Resistance. 11 However, despite
meme presence
firm grip
sturt gun
frequent use of the word
control holds
pressure points
personal weapons
"resistance" within APD policy
PASSIVE
AGGRESSIVE
language, the term is not
RESISTANCE
RESISTANCE
defined in General Order 200 or
anywhere else in the General
Orders. 12 General Order 200.3
Typical configuration of the dynamic resistance response model
with traditional use-of-force options
directs officers to use
"objectively reasonable" force
that "appears necessary under
the circumstances."13
The phrase "objectively reasonable" in General Order 200 comes from Graham V. Connor, a
1989 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the question of whether
a particular use of force is "reasonable" must be judged from the perspective of a
reasonable officer "in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard
to
their underlying intent or motivation. "14 This standard comes from protections against
unreasonable seizures in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 15
Read generously, the direction to officers in General Order 200.3 vaguely and indirectly
identifies resistance as any behavior that, depending on the circumstances, an officer could
reasonably view as necessitating the use of physical force. 16 This is the closest that the
General Orders come to defining the term "resistance."
10 Joyner and Basile, "The Dynamic Resistance Response Model: A Modern Approach to the Use of Force," 15.
11 See Austin Police Department. "200 Response to Resistance." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
12 See "200 Response to Resistance." Austin Police Department General Orders.
13 "200.3 Response to Resistance." Austin Police Department General Orders.
14 Graham V. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 387 (1989).
15
Graham, 490 U.S. at 387.
16 See "200 Response to Resistance." Austin Police Department General Orders.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
6
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering gAlternatives|APRIL 2021
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS - HOW OTHER POLICE
DEPARTMENTS DEFINE RESISTANCE
Modern police departments generally use one of two approaches to formulate a use-of-
force policy: (1) the "just be reasonable" approach or (2) the "continuum" approach. 17
Departments that utilize the "just be reasonable" approach require officers to adhere to the
constitutional standard outlined in Graham V. Connor. 18 As described above, this standard
considers whether the force used by officers was objectively reasonable in light of the facts
and circumstances confronting them at the time of the incident. 19 The General Orders
reflect this approach. 20
The "Just Be Reasonable" Approach
A perceived benefit of the "just be reasonable" approach is its flexibility; officers can use
their discretion. The lack of clear guidelines, however, is also the greatest weakness of this
approach. In particular, this approach does not give officers any guidance about what
constitutes "reasonable force" when confronted with varying degrees of resistance. 21 As
the
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) stated in its 2016 report titled Guiding Principles
on Use of Force, Graham "outlines broad principles regarding what police officers can
legally do in possible use-of-force situations, but it does not provide specific guidance on
what officers should do."22 In the same report, PERF stated that departments should "build
on the legal foundation established by the Supreme Court and implement best policies,
practices, and training that provide more concrete guidance to officers on how to carry out
the legal standard." "23
Out of the fifteen domestic police departments studied by OPO for this memo, nine appear
to follow the "just be reasonable" approach in structuring their use-of-force/response-to-
resistance policies. ²4 Four of those police departments (Baltimore, Charlotte, New Orleans,
17 Seth W. Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," in Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, ed. Geoffrey P. Alpert, Roger G. Dunham,
and Kyle D. McLean (Waveland Press, 2021), 321-345.
18 Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
19 Graham, 490 U.S. at 397.
20 See Austin Police Department. "200.3 Response to Resistance." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
21 See Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
22 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force," Critical Issues in Policing Series, March 2016,
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) describes itself as an independent
research organization that focuses on critical issues in policing.
23 Police Executive Research Forum, Critical Issues in Policing Series, March 2016.
24 Cities following this approach include Atlanta, Baltimore, Charlotte, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis, Portland, San Jose, and Seattle. Here, OPO is
using the "continuum" approach to refer to departments who pair specific levels of force with specific levels of resistance. This is sometimes called a
"force matrix." Importantly, "force continuum" and "force matrix" are often used interchangeably. See Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence,"
321-345. While the Memphis Police Department asserts that it utilizes a use-of-force continuum, its use-of-force policy does not meet the definition of a
"continuum" for purposes of this analysis; it instead falls under the "just be reasonable" approach.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
7
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
and Portland) include definitions for varying degrees of resistance in their use-of-force
policies. 25 The definitions are as follows:
Passive Resistance
For all four departments, "passive resistance" is the lowest form of resistance.
Passive Resistance is when a non-assaultive person fails to comply with the
member's commands without attempting to flee. Passive Resistance may
Baltimore
include, but not be limited to, going limp, standing stationary and not moving
based upon lawful direction, and/or verbally signaling an intention to avoid or
prevent being taken into custody. 26
Non-violent, noncompliance to lawful orders when a subject does not pose
a
Charlotte
continuing threat to the safety of officers. This type of resistance creates little to
no risk of immediate danger. Purely passive resistance may still support the use
of some level of control of the subject. 27
Behavior that is unresponsive to police verbal communication or direction (e.g.,
ignoring or disregarding police attempts at verbal communication or control;
going limp; or failing to physically respond or move) and verbal resistance (e.g.,
verbally rejecting police verbal communication or direction; telling the officer
New Orleans
that he or she will not comply with police direction, to leave alone, or not bother
him or her). Bracing, tensing, linking arms, or verbally signaling an intention to
avoid or prevent being taken into custody constitutes passive resistance. Passive
resistance, including verbal statements, bracing, or tensing alone does not
constitute active resistance. 28
Portland
A person's non-cooperation with a member that does not involve violence or
other active conduct by the individual. 29
25 San Jose Police Department. "L 2629.5 Limited Use of 37 MM Projectile Impact Weapon for Crowd Control." San Jose Police Department Duty Manual:
Policies, Rules, Procedures. 3 Feb. 2017 hhttps://www.sipd.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=314.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021. The San Jose Police
Department provides a definition for "assaultive resistance," which it defines as "acts of violence against persons, or intentional destruction of property
resulting in major property damage." Given that San Jose only defines one type of resistance, it was not included in the tables with the departments that
define multiple levels of resistance.
26 Baltimore Police Department. "Policy 1115 Use of Force." Baltimore Police Department Active Policies. 24 Nov. 2019.
https://www.baltimorepolice.org/1115-use-force. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
27 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. "Directive 600-019 Response to Resistance." Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Directives. 11 Sept.
2020. https://charlottenc.gov/CMPD/Documents/Resources/CMPDDirectives.pdf./ Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
28 New Orleans Police Department. "Chapter 1.3 Use of Force." New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual. 1 Apr. 2018.
https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-Force-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
29 Portland Police Department. "1010.00 Use of Force." Portland Police Bureau Directives Manual. 19 Jan. 2020.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/751998Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
8
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
Active Resistance
Baltimore and New Orleans define "active resistance" as the level of resistance that
immediately follows "passive resistance."
Active Resistance is when a person moves to avoid detention or arrest but does
not attack or attempt to attack the member or another person. Attempts to leave
the scene, fleeing, hiding from detection, physical resistance to being handcuffed,
Baltimore
or pulling away from the member's grasp are all examples of Active Resistance.
Verbal statements, bracing, or tensing alone do not constitute Active Resistance.
A person's reaction to pain caused by a member or purely defensive reactions to
force does not constitute Active Resistance. 30
Resistance exhibited by a suspect that is between passive resistance and
New Orleans
aggressive resistance (e.g., attempts to leave the scene, flee, hide from detection,
or pull away from the officer's grasp). Verbal statements, bracing, or tensing
alone do not constitute active resistance. 31
Defensive Resistance or Physical Resistance
In contrast, Charlotte and Portland use the terms "defensive resistance" and "physical
resistance" to describe the level of resistance that follows passive resistance.
Defensive Resistance:
Charlotte
Measures a subject is actively taking to prevent being taken into custody. These
actions may include, but are not limited to, twisting, pulling, holding onto fixed
objects, running away, or preventing handcuffing. 32
Physical Resistance:
Portland
A person's physical attempt to evade a member's control that does not rise to the
level of active aggression. 33
30 Baltimore Police Department. "Policy 1115 Use of Force." Baltimore Police Department Active Policies. 24 Nov. 2019.
https://www.baltimorepolice.org/1115-use-force. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
31 New Orleans Police Department. "Chapter 1.3 Use of Force." New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual. 1 Apr. 2018.
https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-Force-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
32 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. "Directive 600-019 Response to Resistance," Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Directives, 11
Sept.
2020. https://charlottenc.gov/CMPD/Documents/Resources/CMPDDirectives.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
33 Portland Police Department. "1010.00 Use of Force." Portland Police Bureau Directives Manual. 19 Jan. 2020.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/751998Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
9
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
Active Aggression
Baltimore, Charlotte, and Portland define "active aggression" as the level of resistance that
immediately follows "active resistance" / "defensive resistance" / "physical resistance."
Active aggression is when a person attacks or attempts to attack a member or
Baltimore
another person. Strikes, kicks, or attempted strikes or kicks with hands, fists, the
head, elbows, knees, or an instrument, constitute Active Aggression. 34
At this level of resistance, the subject poses a risk of immediate danger to the
officer, another person, or themselves. This aggression may manifest itself
Charlotte
through punching, kicking, striking, or any other action when apparent that the
subject has the immediate means to injure an officer, another person, or his or
herself.³5
A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled
Portland
with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably
indicates that an assault or injury to any person is about to happen, unless
intervention occurs. 36
Aggressive Resistance
Instead of active aggression, New Orleans uses the term "aggressive resistance" for the
level of resistance that follows "active resistance."
Is a subject's attempt to attack or an actual attack of an officer. Exhibiting
aggressive behavior (e.g., lunging toward the officer, striking the officer with
New Orleans
hands, fists, kicks) are examples of aggressive resistance. Neither passive nor
active resistance, including fleeing, pulling away, verbal statements, bracing, or
tensing, constitute aggressive resistance. 37
34 Baltimore Police Department. "Policy 1115 Use of Force." Baltimore Police Department Active Policies. 24 Nov. 2019.
https://www.baltimorepolice.org/1115-use-force. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
35 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. "Directive 600-019 Response to Resistance," Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Directives, 11 Sept.
2020. https://charlottenc.gov/CMPD/Documents/Resources/CMPDDirectives.pdf.. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
36 Portland Police Department. "1010.00 Use of Force." Portland Police Bureau Directives Manual. 19 Jan. 2020.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/751998 Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
37 New Orleans Police Department. "Chapter 1.3 Use of Force." New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual. 1 Apr. 2018.
https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-Force-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
10
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
Aggravated Aggression or Aggravated Resistance
Only Baltimore and New Orleans provide a definition for a level of resistance higher than
"active aggression" / "aggressive resistance."
Aggravated Aggression:
Aggravated Aggression is when a person presents an Imminent Threat of death
or Serious Physical Injury to the member or another person based on the
Baltimore
Totality of the Circumstances. Aggravated Aggression represents the least
encountered but most serious threat to a member or other person. Even when
confronted with Aggravated Aggression, the member is required to make every
reasonable effort to de-escalate and to continuously assess the member's Use of
Force. 38
Aggravated Resistance:
When a subject's actions create an objectively reasonable perception on the part
New Orleans
of the officer that the officer or another person is subject to imminent death or
serious physical injury as a result of the circumstances and/or nature of an
attack. Aggravated resistance represents the least encountered but most serious
threat to the safety of law enforcement personnel or another person. 39
38 Baltimore Police Department. "Policy 1115 Use of Force." Baltimore Police Department Active Policies. 24 Nov. 2019.
https://www.baltimorepolice.org/1115-use-force. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
39 New Orleans Police Department. "Chapter 1.3 Use of Force." New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual. 1 Apr. 2018.
https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-Force-EFFECTIVE-4-01-18.pdf/.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
11
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
The "Continuum" Approach
The second approach is the "continuum" approach. 40 In addition to the constitutional
standard expressed in Graham, this approach supplements this guidance "by providing
more detailed guidance about the circumstances in which officers may use specific force
options. "41
One of the strengths of the "continuum" approach is that it remedies the lack of guidance
seen in the "just be reasonable" approach. 42 Some departments, however, find this method
problematic because it does not take into account how an act of resistance can vary in its
threat level depending on the physical traits of the person committing the act. 43 For
example, an adult of good fitness and muscular build who is physically working to defeat an
arrest presents a different kind of threat than a feeble, elderly adult performing the same
actions.
While in practice APD reportedly follows the DRRM, the General Orders do not reflect this
approach. 44 The General Orders categorize the use of force into four levels, but the levels
only describe types of force. 45 The General Orders do not provide guidance about the
circumstances in which officers may use specific levels or types of force. 46
Out of the fifteen other police departments examined for this report, six departments
(Dallas, Denver, Fort Worth, San Antonio, San Francisco, and San Diego) follow the
"continuum" approach in structuring their use-of-force/response-to-resistance policies. All
six departments include definitions for varying degrees of resistance in their use-of-force
policies. 47 These definitions resemble the definitions of resistance utilized by Baltimore,
Charlotte, New Orleans, and Portland. Furthermore, the departments integrate these
definitions into force continua, often in the form of graphics, that incrementally pair levels
of resistance with permissible police responses. The continua appear as appendices to this
memo.
40 Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
41 Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
42 See Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
43 See Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
44 See Manley, Brian. "Use of Force and De-Escalation Policies." Received by Mayor and Council Members, Official Distribution Memoranda Search, City of
Austin Communications and Public Information Office, 8 July 2020,http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=342897;Austin Police
Department General Orders, 27 Jan. 2021, https://austintexas.gov/page/apd-generalorders. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
45 See Austin Police Department. "211.2 Determining the Correct Force Level." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021. ("Each level is defined below by the response to
resistance used in the incident.")
46 See Austin Police Department General Orders "211.2 Determining the Correct Force Level."
47 See Appendices B through F.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
12
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
RECOMMENDATIONS
APD's use-of-force policy exists to "provide officers with guidelines on objectively
reasonable response to resistance," yet the General Orders never define the term or give
examples of behavior that constitutes "resistance." 48 To provide guidance to officers,
decision-makers, and the public, the term "resistance" must be defined.
Defining "resistance" based on a combination of both models
Several of the police departments reviewed appear to combine both the "just be
reasonable" approach and the "continuum" approach by defining various levels of
resistance. APD should add definitions for different levels of resistance to its current policy.
Addressing the deficiencies in the Austin Police Department's current discussion of
resistance not only benefits police officers, but also serves a public interest. APD is a
governmental entity within a democratic system. In a democracy, the people have a say in
how they are governed and policed. 49 Transparency is crucial. Anything that unnecessarily
obscures governmental action or policy chips away at legitimacy. 50 To increase
transparency and trust amongst the public, APD must be upfront about what is expected of
its officers in their interactions with the public, especially on the use of physical force.
Taking the simple step to define "resistance" in the General Orders would increase
transparency and, as a result, help improve community relations and the public's
perception of APD as an institution.
Non-Compliance - Behavior that is unresponsive to an officer's verbal directions
but does not involve a threat or physical hindrance. Non-compliance does not justify
use of force by an officer. Examples of passive non-compliance include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Ignoring an officer's attempt at communication;
Failing to physically respond or move after being given lawful
commands;
Stating an intention to not comply with police direction; and
Stating a desire to be left alone.
48 Austin Police Department. "200.1 Purpose and Scope." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
49 See Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
50 See Stoughton, "The Regulation of Police Violence," 321-345.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
13
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
Passive Resistance - Behavior that does not comply with an officer's verbal
commands and/or physical control techniques without using active conduct to
combat the officer. Passive resistance does not justify use of force by an officer.
Examples of passive resistance include, but are not limited to, the following:
Going limp and refusing to support one's one weight;
Bracing;
Tensing; and
Linking arms.
Defensive Resistance - Behavior involving an active attempt to combat an officer's
physical control techniques. Examples of defensive resistance include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Twisting;
Pulling;
Holding onto fixed objects;
Running away; and
Preventing handcuffing.
Aggressive Resistance - Behavior involving an active physical assault against the
officer. Neither passive nor defensive resistance, including tensing, bracing, running,
or pulling, constitute aggressive resistance. Examples of aggressive resistance
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Striking;
Kicking; and
Punching.
Deadly Resistance - Behavior that, based on the totality of the circumstances, is
capable of causing imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or a third
person.
These five definitions reflect the training that cadets receive at the APD training academy. 51
The proposed definitions for "non-compliance" and "passive resistance" include policies
that make the use of force against these levels of resistance unjustified. OPO recommends
that APD seek community input to finalize the definitions for "defensive resistance,"
"aggressive resistance," and "deadly resistance" to include the types of force that are
justified for each level of resistance.
On a related note, APD trains on what it calls "preparatory resistance," which is said to
occur when "[t]he suspect is preparing to offer greater resistance or launch an attack
through behavioral cues (verbal, non-verbal, or physical). In response, the appropriate
amount of force would depend on the specific and articulable threat perceived by the
officer.' "52 Of the Texas police departments reviewed, APD appears to be the only one to
51 Austin Police Department. "17.3.0a APD Levels of Resistance Defined." Austin Police Academy Force Options Lesson Plan. 12 May 2020.
52 Austin Police Academy Force Options. "17.30a APD Levels of Resistance Defined."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
14
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
mention this level of resistance. Additionally, the APD training academy lesson plan refers
to this and the five other levels of resistance as "APD levels of resistance.' "53 As a result, this
level of resistance appears to be unique to APD and not required as part of police training
required by the State of Texas.
Officers should be aware of verbal and non-verbal cues. What "preparatory resistance"
proposes, however, is that officers maintain a combative, suspicious state of mind and act
from there. APD has voiced a commitment to community policing, the goals of which are "to
build mutual respect, collaborative partnerships, fair and impartial policing, and
procedurally just behavior with the community
"54
Community policing conflicts with the
idea of "preparatory resistance." OPO does not support the use of "preparatory resistance."
OPO recommends that APD seek community input on this topic as well.
53 Austin Police Academy Force Options. "17.30a APD Levels of Resistance Defined."
54 Austin Police Department. "105.1 Purpose and Scope." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.c Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
15
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
ALTERNATIVE TACTICS AND TOOLS TO LETHAL
AND LESS-LETHAL FORCE
DOMESTIC TACTICS
De-escalation
In the United States, police departments look to
de-escalation strategies as the primary tactical
alternatives to the use of lethal and less-lethal
force. These tactics generally must be used in
concert with one another to truly be effective.
Tactic One: Communication
Also called verbal de-escalation or "Verbal Judo," communication as a tactic focuses on
officers talking and listening to individuals with the goal of defusing tense or dangerous
situations. 55 Proponents of this tactic believe officers can establish trust with individuals by
being kind and compassionate in stressful situations.
56 As a result, officers may easily
obtain voluntary compliance from individuals and peaceful resolutions to tense
situations. 57
Tactic Two: Maintaining Distance
As the name implies, maintaining distance involves officers keeping their distance from
individuals in stressful or dangerous situations. 58 Maintaining one's distance, often behind
a source of cover such as the officer's patrol car, can help officers feel safe in stressful or
dangerous situations, thereby preventing potential uses of force stemming from fear. 59
Further, maintaining a safe distance gives officers the ability to slow down a situation with
the goal of ultimately reaching a peaceful resolution. 60
Tactic Three: Slowing Things Down/The Tactical Pause
This tactic asks officers in stressful situations to wait before acting if an immediate
response is not required. 61 Taking a step back and avoiding hasty action provides "a brief
moment for everyone involved to think. "62 This may allow cooler heads to prevail: officers
and civilians get the opportunity to calm down and hopefully move towards a peaceful
55 George Fachner and Steven Carter. "Final Assessment Report of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department." Collaborative Reform Model.
Accessed March 12, 2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295072851 Collaborative Reform Model Final Assessment Report of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Polic
e Department; "Verbal Judo." Verbal Judo Institute, Incorporated. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://verbaljudo.com/.
56 George Fachner and Steven Carter. "Final Assessment Report of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department." "Verbal Judo." Verbal Judo Institute,
Incorporated.
57
George Fachner and Steven Carter. "Final Assessment Report of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department."; "Verbal Judo." Verbal Judo Institute,
Incorporated.
58
Police Executive Research Forum, "Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies: Critical Thinking, Communications, and Tactics Are Essential in
Defusing Critical Incidents." (2020): 4, https://www.policeforum.org/assets/LessLethal.pdf.
59
Police Executive Research Forum, "Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies."
60 Police Executive Research Forum, "Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies."
61
Christopher L. McFarlin, Integrating De-Escalation Techniques into Policing, Police1, Oct. 17, 2017.
62 Andrew Bell, Policing When Faced with Resistance: When to Use De-Escalation Tactics, American Military University EDGE, Apr. 25, 2018.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
16
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / A 2021
resolution. Additionally, this tactic works to give officers more time to try and talk their
way out of stressful or potentially dangerous situations. 63 The more time an officer has, the
greater the officer's ability to bring additional resources and officers to the scene of the
incident. 64
Supervisory response to critical incidents
PERF recommends as one of its guiding principles that supervisors immediately respond to
any scene where a weapon is reported, where a mental health crisis is reported, or where a
dispatcher or other member of the department believes there is a potential for significant
use of force. 65 Further, once on scene, supervisors should work with officers to develop a
plan that emphasizes de-escalation.66
63 Police Executive Research Forum, "Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies."
64 Police Executive Research Forum, "Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies."
65 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force," Critical Issues in Policing Series, March 2016,
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.
66 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
17
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
DOMESTIC TRAINING
Align training with agency values
One of PERF's guiding principles for training is that "[t]he content of police training and the
training academy culture should reflect the core values, attributes, and skills that the
agency wants its personnel to exhibit in their work in the community." "67 PERF encourages
police executives to audit their agency's classes to determine if changes need to be made. 68
However, to achieve alignment with the agency's core values, these efforts must be
reflected in field training and in-service training. 69
Require more non-enforcement contacts
In a Harvard Law Review article, former police officer turned law school professor and
subject matter expert Seth Stoughton recommended that police departments require
officers to initiate non-enforcement contacts with community members both during the
academy and once they have graduated. 70 He wrote, "[t]he purpose for doing so
is
threefold: giving officers and community members the chance to get to know each other as
individuals, emphasizing the agency's commitment to community policing for both internal
and external audiences, and teaching officers the valuable communication skills that they
will use countless times over the course of their careers."71 For this to work, no
enforcement means no enforcement- "no asking for identification, no running criminal
history checks, no issuing tickets, and no making arrests."72
Create more and better scenario-based training
PERF has emphasized the importance of scenario-based training (i.e., roleplay) for both
academy and in-service training.73 In particular, PERF recommends that police
departments teach more than "shoot-don't shoot" decision-making and incorporate
communication, de-escalation, and less-lethal force options as part of the roleplay
scenarios. 74 Additionally, PERF states that "[s]cenario-based training focused on decision-
making should be integrated with officers' regular requalification on their firearms and
less-lethal equipment."75
67 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
68 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
69 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
70 Seth W. Stoughton, "How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence," Emory Law Journal 70, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 521,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=3561238.
71
Seth W. Stoughton, "How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence."
72 Seth W. Stoughton, "How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence."
73 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
74 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
75 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
18
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
DOMESTIC TOOLS
PERF's Critical Decision-Making Model
Image 2. Police Executive Research Forum Critical Decision-Making Model76
In 2016, PERF introduced its Critical Decision-
Critical Decision-Making Model
Making Model (CDM) for officers to "combine
with the tactical concepts such as distance,
Collect
information
cover, and time" to "more effectively and safely
resolve many types of critical incidents."77
Assess
Act, review, and
situation,
re-assess
threats. and
PERF's CDM is largely based off the National
risks.
Decision Model (NDM) used by police in
Ethics
Values
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and
Proportionality
Wales to "support sound and accountable
Sanctity of
human life
decision-making" during unplanned incidents
and planned operations. 78 PERF describes the
Identify options
and determine
Consider police
CDM as well-suited for "situations involving
best course of
powers and
action
agency policy.
subjects who either are unarmed or have an
from the LIK National Decision Model
edged weapon, rock, or similar weapon, as well
as incidents involving persons experiencing a
mental health crisis or behaving erratically because of a developmental disability, a mental
condition such as autism, substance abuse, or other conditions."79
The CDM is a five-step thought process focused on ethics, values, proportionality, and
sanctity of human life. 80 The following is a list of the five steps in sequential order:
1. Collect information;
2. Assess situation, threats, and risks;
3. Consider police powers and agency policy;
4. Identify options and determine best course of action;
5. Act, review, and re-assess. 81
76 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
77 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
78 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
79 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
80 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
81 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
19
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
Each of the five steps guides officers through a series of key questions. 82 All of the steps and
questions asked should be considered in light of the department's core values, and officers
should cycle through the five steps repeatedly until the incident is resolved, always
beginning with the collection of additional information. 83
PERF acknowledges that the CDM represents a thought process that many police officers
already use but argues that the CDM is different because it provides structure to ensure
that officers follow each step and ask all of the necessary questions. 84
Personal protection shields
In its 2016 report, PERF recommends that officers, including patrol officers, be provided
personal protection shields to use during critical incidents. 85 Shields enhance officer safety
and can support de-escalation efforts in situations where someone is armed with an edged
weapon or blunt object. 86
82 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force." When collecting information in Step 1, PERF instructs officers to ask themselves
what they know, what else they need to know, and what their training and experience tell them about this type of incident. PERF also directs officers to
ask the following of others: what more they can tell officers about this incident, what more they can tell officers about previous incidents involving the
same people or location.
83 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
84 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
85 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
86 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
20
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
INTERNATIONAL TACTICS
De-escalation
As a whole, the tactics employed by other nations'
police departments to avoid the use of lethal and
less-lethal force are not much different from those
currently available and utilized by police
departments in the United States.
For example, de-escalation tactics such as
maintaining distance and slowing things down
feature heavily in the training and day-to-day work of many European police
departments. 87 In Germany, for example, police officers strive to resolve stressful or
dangerous situations with their communication skills rather than with force. 88 This is true
for officers in the United Kingdom as well. For example, Glasgow, Scotland was once called
the "knife capital of Europe" because it had one of the highest murder rates and most
murders were committed with edged weapons. 89 Still, in Scotland and elsewhere in the
United Kingdom, "general patrol officers-typically equipped only with a baton, chemical
spray, and handcuffs-would be expected to deal with the threat of a knife-wielding
subject, primarily through de-escalation and tactical approaches, and without calling in
specially trained Public Order officers or Firearms officers unless the threat is escalated.'
While participating in a 2015 PERF conference, UK officials "acknowledged that they do not
face the same threats from criminals with firearms as do officers in the United States," but
"pointed out that a person with a knife in Glasgow or Manchester is just as dangerous as a
person with a knife in an American city."91
Unarmed patrol officers may call firearm-equipped response teams
As described above, some international police agencies that practice unarmed policing
have specialized firearm-equipped response teams. 92 While officers patrol their beats and
interact with civilians unarmed, these firearm-equipped teams remain on standby until a
situation arises in which their unarmed counterparts require their assistance. 93 The United
Kingdom utilizes this practice. 94 Contrast this with the United States, where patrol officers
carry firearms at all times, thus ensuring the presence of firearms in all community-police
encounters.
87
See Miriam Berger and Rick Noack, "From Guns to Neck Restraint: How US Police Tactics Differ to Those Used in Europe and Around the World,"
Independent, June 7,2020,https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-tactics-brutality-us-hong-kong-iceland-norway-uk-
a9552886.html; See also Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
88 See Dennis Stute, "Why German Police Officers Rarely Reach for Their Guns," Deutsche Welle, Aug. 27, 2014, https://www.dw.com/en/why-german-
police-officers-rarely-reach-for-their-guns/a-17884779.
89 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
90 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
91 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
92
"How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies (describing policies and practices in Ireland,
the United Kingdom, and New Zealand); Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
93
See Sara M. Llana, "Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries," The Christian Science Monitor, June 28,
2015,
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countries; Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On
Use of Force."
94 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
21
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering gAlternatives|APRIL 2021
Martial arts
De-escalation and specialized firearm-equipped backup teams are not the only tactics used
by foreign police departments to avoid using lethal or less-lethal force. Japan, for example,
trains its police officers to use a form of martial arts called taiho-jutsu to gain control of
stressful situations. 95
95 See Miriam Berger and Rick Noack, "From Guns to Neck Restraint: How US Police Tactics Differ to Those Used in Europe and Around the World,"
Independent, June 7, 2020,https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-tactics-brutality-us-hong-kong-iceland-norway-uk-
a9552886.html.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
22
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
INTERNATIONAL TOOLS
PAVA Spray
Some international police agencies, including those in the United Kingdom, use a chemical
agent
called PAVA spray. 96 PAVA stands for pelargonic acid vanillylamide and is a chemical
agent that is "a structural analogue of capsaicin, the active ingredient of natural pepper." "97
PAVA spray reportedly "comes out in a concentrated stream that is more accurate,
minimizes cross-contamination, and is not flammable (meaning it can be used in
conjunction with an Electronic Control Weapon). "98 PERF recommended in 2016 that
domestic police forces consider finding options like PAVA spray to replace CS gas (tear gas)
or OC spray (pepper spray). 99
Studies on the effects of PAVA have shown that it primarily affects the eyes, causing
involuntary closure and severe pain. 100 The effects to the eyes have been found to
be
greater than that caused by CS gas, and effects can be more pronounced in people wearing
contact lenses. 101 "PAVA must enter the eyes for it to work effectively," and "it remains
effective, with the eyes closed and extremely painful, for a longer time than CS gas before
any recovery begins." People have reported feeling the effects of PAVA spray in their eyes
for hours after exposure. 102
The New Zealand Ministry of Health found that
"[e]ffects on the eyes include severe burning pain, involuntary closure, lacrimation
(tearing), conjunctival inflammation, redness, swelling and blepharospasm (eyelid
twitching). Skin contamination causes tingling, burning pain, edema, erythema and
occasional blistering. Respiratory symptoms include nasal irritation,
bronchoconstriction, a burning sensation in the throat, severe coughing and
sneezing, shortness of breath More systemic effects include disorientation, panic
and loss of body motor control."
Based on the reported effects of PAVA spray and the City of Austin's position on the use of
CS gas, OPO recommends that this not be a tool used or considered by APD. 104
96 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force"; Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Northern Ireland Prison Service
Consultation on Policy and Guidance for the Operational Deployment of PAVA Hand-held Personal Incapacitant Spray: Response of the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission, December 2006, http://www.nihrc.org/documents/advice-to-government/2006/prison-service-policy-for-operational-
deployment-pava-december-2006.pdf.
97 Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment, Statement on Combined Exposure to 2-Chlorobenzylidene
Malonitrile (CS) and PAVA (Nonivamide) Sprays, January 2006, https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cot/cotstatementcspava0604.pdf.
98 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force." An example of an Electronic Control Weapon is a TASER device.
99 Police Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force."
100 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Northern Ireland Prison Service Consultation on Policy and Guidance for the Operational Deployment of
PAVA Hand-held Personal Incapacitant Spray: Response of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food
Consumer Products and the Environment, Statement on Combined Exposure to 2-Chlorobenzylidene Malonitrile (CS) and PAVA (Nonivamide) Sprays.
101 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Northern Ireland Prison Service Consultation on Policy and Guidance for the Operational Deployment of
PAVA Hand-held Personal Incapacitant Spray: Response of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food
Consumer Products and the Environment, Statement on Combined Exposure to 2-Chlorobenzylidene Malonitrile (CS) and PAVA (Nonivamide) Sprays.
102 Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment, Statement on Combined Exposure to 2-Chlorobenzylidene
Malonitrile (CS) and PAVA (Nonivamide) Sprays.
103 Broadstock, M. "What is the safety of 'pepper spray' use by law enforcement or mental health service staff?" New Zealand Health Technology
Assessment, NZHTA Tech Brief Series 2002.
104 See Resolution 20200611-095, "Use of Tear Gas," Austin City Council (June 11, 2020).https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=342177
In this resolution, Austin City Council stated the City of Austin's position that the use of tear gas by police is strictly prohibited.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
23
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives
HOW DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TACTICS
COMPARE TO CURRENT APD PRACTICES
The General Orders discusses de-escalation tactics as alternatives to force. General Order
200.2 De-escalation of Potential Force Encounters discusses such tactics as verbal
persuasion and tactical repositioning. 105 Thus, APD directs its officers to use the tactics
that, both at home and abroad, are seen as the primary alternatives to lethal and less-lethal
force. As discussed below, however, APD should improve its de-escalation policies within
the General Orders.
Additionally, APD has incorporated other PERF recommendations like the CDM into its
curriculum. 106 Similarly, APD uses scenario-based training, though the precise percentage
breakdowns for academy and in-service training are unclear.
APD also employs some of the other tactics utilized by foreign police departments. For
example, APD trains its officers in arrest and control techniques that arguably function in a
similar way to martial arts utilized by Japanese police. Essentially, both serve as alternative
methods to the use of lethal or less-lethal munitions when an officer is confronted with
resistance. 107 Further, APD's utilization of the SWAT team and other specialized units
arguably functions in a way that is comparable to the well-armed response teams used by
nations that practice unarmed policing (i.e., bringing in additional, specialized support
when officers on scene determine that the situation calls for it).
In contrast, the following are areas in which APD may have room to improve:
Improving its de-escalation policies within the General Orders
In a recent OPO report titled 8 Can't Wait Policy Review and Recommendations,
OPO highlighted several issues with APD's current de-escalation policy and
recommended improvements. 108 Some of the issues that OPO found include the
following:
Lack of definitions for "de-escalation" and "de-escalation techniques;"
Use of, and failure to define, the term "potential force encounters;"
Failure to adequately acknowledge or address factors outside of deliberate
non-compliance that may affect someone's ability to comply with officer
commands; and
By over-emphasizing the likelihood for de-escalation efforts to fail and not
properly addressing the reasons that might happen, the policy language
tends to discourage de-escalation rather than incentivize it. 109
105 See Austin Police Department. "200.2 De-escalation of Potential Force Encounters." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
106 The tactical pause and the CDM are taught as part of PERF's ICAT (Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics) training guide, which APD
teaches as part of its training academy curriculum.
107 Miriam Berger & Rick Noack, From Guns to Neck Restraint: How US Police Tactics Differ to Those Used in Europe and Around the World, Independent,
June 7, 2020; See General Order 206.6, Austin Police Department General Orders, https://austintexas.gov/page/apd-general-orders (Last updated 12
Nov. 2020).
108 City of Austin Office of Police Oversight, "De-Escalation," 8 Can't Wait Policy Review and Recommendations Jan. 2021, https://alpha.austin.gov/police-
oversight/policy-review-and-recommendations-8-cant-wait/
109 City of Austin Office of Police Oversight, "De-Escalation."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
24
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
APD should follow OPO's recommendations and revise the General Orders to address
these issues.
Aligning its training culture and content with its reported values
APD regularly discusses its commitment to community policing but, according to the
consulting firm hired by the City of Austin to assess APD's training academy, APD's
training culture and content continues to reflect paramilitary values and the warrior
mindset. 110 Community policing and training that teaches an "us versus them"
mentality cannot exist in the same space.
Required supervisory response to certain incidents
The General Orders do not require supervisors to respond to the scene when a
weapon is reported, when a mental health crisis is reported, or when a dispatcher or
other member of the department believes there is a potential for significant use of
force as PERF recommends. 111 Supervisor presence at these scenes would provide
officers with additional guidance and would emphasize (both internally and
externally) APD's commitment to handling these incidents in a reasoned and
considered manner.
Requiring more non-enforcement contacts
General Order 105.5 includes a provision that instructs supervisors to promote and
incentivize community policing, but rather than focusing on promoting non-
enforcement encounters, it focuses on "responsibility for identifying community
problems and formulating solutions that serve both the well-being of the
community and crime prevention." In other words, the policy seems to focus only on
the transactional benefits of community encounters. While APD has policies on
community policing and provides cadets with some opportunities to engage with
the Austin community, more can and should be done.
Increasing the amount and type of scenario-based training
Experts commissioned by the City of Austin to assess APD's training academy have
recently identified this as an area for improvement in the context of defensive
tactics training.112
110 See Kroll Associates. "Preliminary Assessment of Austin Police Training Academy." Received by Office of Police Oversight Director and Deputy City
Manager, 26 Feb. 2021, https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=355805; Villanueva, Sara. "APD Training Academy Review and Strategic
Plan." Received by APD Chief of Police, 22 May 2020, https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Villanueva-APDAcademy-SWOTReport-52020.pdf
Life Anew Restorative Justice, Incorporated. "Community Video Review Panel: Austin Police Department-Trai Academy Videos Final Report." 14 Jan.
2021.http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Video%20Review%20Panel-Final%20Facilitator%20Report.pdf.
111 See Austin Police Department General Orders, 27 Jan. 2021,https://austintexas.gov/page/apd-generalorders Accessed 12 Mar. 2021; Police
Executive Research Forum, "Guiding Principles On Use of Force.
112 See Kroll Associates. "Preliminary Assessment of Austin Police Training Academy." Received by Office of Police Oversight Director and Deputy City
Manager, 26 Feb. 2021, hhttps://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=355805
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
25
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
RECOMMENDATIONS
The overarching purpose for researching tactics and tools that prevent the need for lethal
and less-lethal munitions is to reduce the danger presented by some police-community
encounters. The findings detailed in this report show that APD and other domestic police
departments are already aware of and/or use tactics considered to be the primary methods
for avoiding lethal and less-lethal force. Even with employing these de-escalation tactics,
disparities still exist between the United States and other developed nations.
When it comes to the killing of civilians by police, the United States "far surpasses most
wealthy democracies. "113 Police shootings are a rarer occurrence outside the United States,
even in countries where police officers carry firearms.114 "Some countries, such as Finland
and Norway, have gone years without police killings."115 In Canada, police-civilian
encounters resulted in 224 deaths between the years 2013 and 2019. 116 Contrast that with
the United States where, during that same span of time, over 7,000 civilians were killed by
police. 117
Combined with the findings in this report, this data demonstrates that tactics and tools
alone cannot provide an answer for how best to reduce the number of incidents involving
the use of lethal or less-lethal force. Therefore, OPO recommends that further research be
conducted on other factors relevant to the discussion of police use of force. Suggested
topics include:
The extent to which peer intervention programs like EPIC and ABLE
influence the effectiveness of tactics meant to reduce police use of force
APD, like many other police departments, has a duty-to-intercede policy. 118 Under this
policy, officers are required to step in and prevent fellow officers from using force that is
not objectively reasonable. 119 While effective in theory, one of the issues that this policy
faces in practice is combatting traditional policing culture, which conditions officers to
always have their colleagues' backs. 120 This mentality results in some officers hesitating to
113 "How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021,https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies.
114 Sara M. Llana, "Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries," The Christian Science Monitor, June 28,
2015,
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countrie
115 "How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021,https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies.
116 "How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies.
117 "How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020, accessed
March 12, 2021, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies.
118 Austin Police Department. "200.1.3 Duty to Intercede." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
119 Austin Police Department General Orders. "200.1.3 Duty to Intercede."
120 John Hagedorn et al., "Crime, Corruption and Cover-ups in the Chicago Police Department." Anti-Corruption Report 7, Jan. 17, 2013,
https://pols.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/273/2018/10/acpolicecorruptionb6e6.po
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
26
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
intervene out of respect for their fellow officers' judgment and out of a desire to not get
their colleagues in trouble. 121
The New Orleans Police Department worked to counteract these issues by implementing
a
program known as Ethical Policing is Courageous (EPIC). 122 This program works to
overcome the deficiencies of duty-to-intervene policies "by training officers to recognize
potential triggers for themselves and others, and by teaching them effective intervention
strategies." "123 Additionally, it serves to reform police culture by creating an atmosphere
wherein intervention represents an act of loyalty that not only protects the public, but also
protects officers from themselves. 124
As a result of the program's success and the growing demand for training, the New Orleans
Police Department has partnered with the Georgetown University Law Center to create a
national police peer intervention program known as the Active Bystandership for Law
Enforcement (ABLE) Project.125 Additionally, EPIC was also adopted by the Baltimore
Police Department. 126
The ways in which mass gun ownership in the United States influences
police use of force
In places like Germany and Japan, where officer-involved shootings are rare occurrences,
the police maintain "what Germans call 'a monopoly of force. '127 With fewer civilian-
owned guns, police in these countries face less threats when performing their duties,
thereby reducing the need for lethal force. 128 The United States, meanwhile, features more
than
120 weapons for every 100 citizens. 129 Police departments argue that the prevalence
of civilian gun ownership necessitates more armed police, while others argue that the
influence of mass gun ownership increases the danger of civilian-police encounters. 130
State laws that, like in Texas, allow the open carrying and concealed carrying of firearms
add another layer to the issue.
121 John Hagedorn et al., "Crime, Corruption and Cover-ups in the Chicago Police Department."
122
"Ethical Policing is Courageous," New Orleans Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021, http://epic.nola.gov/home/.
123 New Orleans Police Department. "Peer Intervention for Officer and Community Safety," http://epic.nola.gov/epic/media/Assets/EPIC-Overview.pdf
Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
124 Emily Lane, In 'EPIC' Effort, New Orleans Police Work to Stop Officer Misconduct Before It Happens, The Times Picayune, June 14, 2017.
125
"Ethical Policing is Courageous," New Orleans Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021, http://epic.nola.gov/home/.
126 "Ethical Policing is Courageous," Baltimore Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021, https://epic.baltimorepolice.org/epic.
127 Katrin Bennhold and Melissa Eddy, "In Germany, Confronting Shameful Legacy is Essential Part of Police Training," The New York Times, June 23, 2020;
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/world/europe/germany-police.html;See also Chris Weller, "Japan Has Almost Completely Eliminated Gun
Deaths - Here's How," Business Insider, Feb. 15, ,2018,https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun
deaths-2017-10#::text=lf%20Japanese%20people%20want%20to,during%20a%20shooting%2Drange%20Otest.&text=Toru%20Hanai%2FReuters%
Japan%20has,will%20result%20in%20fewer%20deaths..
128 Katrin Bennhold and Melissa Eddy, "In Germany, Confronting Shameful Legacy is Essential Part of Police Training," The New York Times, June 23, 2020;
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/world/europe/germany-police.html;
129
"How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies
130 "How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021,https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies; Sara M. Llana, "Why Police Don't Pull Guns in
Many Countries," The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2015,https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-
countries.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
27
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
The ways in which the militarization of police in the United States
influences police use of force
For a few decades now, police departments across the United States have utilized military-
grade equipment and weaponry. 131 APD is among the departments benefiting from military
surplus made available to police. 132 While the possession and use of military-grade
weaponry poses its own problems, the training and culture change that comes with
militarization proves equally troublesome, as some officers may begin "to confuse the role
of police officers with a service orientation with that of military personnel engaged in a
domestic war."133
The ways in which the length and nature of police training in the
United States influences police use of force
APD's training academy is made up of two programs: the Regular Academy and the
Modified Academy. 134 The Regular Academy is for police officer candidates "who have no
law enforcement experience, or who do not qualify for the Modified Academy."135 The
Modified Academy is for police officer candidates with prior law enforcement
experience. 136 The Regular Academy lasts for approximately thirty-two weeks. 137 While
this training process runs longer than the national average of nineteen weeks, it falls far
short of the length of training received by police in other democracies.138 In many
European nations, police training can last more than three years. 139
In addition to the length of training, the nature of European police training greatly differs
from police training in the United States. In Germany, officers essentially earn bachelor's
degrees before starting their careers. 140 Additionally, German police training places greater
emphasis avoiding use of force and enhances focus on de-escalation techniques. 141 In
contrast, the United States, largely due to the short length of training for officers, focuses on
firearm and defense training leaving little time for de-escalation. 142 A 2015 survey
131
Steven C. Dowell, Jr., "Policing in America: How DOD Helped Undermine Posse Comitatus," National Defense University Press, Apr. 1, 2017,
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Publications/Article/1130666/policing-in-america-how-dod-helped-undermine-posse-comitatus/.
132 Austin Police Department. "800.5 Equipment Inventory Control." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
133 Steven C. Dowell, Jr., "Policing in America: How DOD Helped Undermine Posse Comitatus," National Defense University Press, Apr. 1, 2017,
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Publications/Article/1130666/policing-in-america-how-dod-helped-undermine-posse-comitatus/
134
"Academy," Austin Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021, https://www.apdrecruiting.org/academy.
135 "Academy," Austin Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021, https://www.apdrecruiting.org/academy.
136 "Academy," Austin Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021, https://www.apdrecruiting.org/academy.
137 "Austin Police Department Recruiting Frequently Asked Questions," Austin Police Department, accessed 12 Mar. 2021,
https://www.apdrecruiting.org/faq.
138 Sara M. Llana, "Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries," The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2015,
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countries.
139
"How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies.
140 Sara M. Llana, "Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries," The Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2015,
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countries.
141
"How Police Compare in Different Democracies," Amelia Cheatham and Lindsay Maizland, Council on Foreign Relations, last modified Nov. 12, 2020,
accessed March 12, 2021,https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies; Yasmeen Serhan, "What the World Could
Teach America About Policing," The Atlantic, June 10, 2020,https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/america-police-violence
germany-georgia-britain/612820/.
142 See United States Commission on Civil Rights, "Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices," 2018,
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
28
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
published by PERF revealed that police academies generally spend fifty-eight hours on
firearm training, forty-nine hours on defensive tactics, and only eight hours on de-
escalation. 143
Furthermore, training in the United States traditionally emphasizes "officer safety above all
else," thereby creating a culture in which fear can dominate and the use of force by police
become the first, rather than the last instinct. 144 APD's training curriculum is no different;
a
sample of APD's training curriculum shows a similar focus on the use of force. For example,
the time allotted for APD's de-escalation lesson plan is 10 hours and the tactical
communication lesson plan is 16 hours. 145 In contrast, APD's force options lesson plan is 32
hours and the arrest and control lesson plan is 40 hours. 146
The ways in which the law regarding lethal use of force by police in
the United States influences police use of force
In the United States, the law considers a use of force by police justifiable so long as it
proves objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting officers at
the time of their action. 147 This is a very vague and forgiving standard. 148 It does not force
police to utilize other tactics or tools before resorting to lethal force so long as the officer
judges the need for lethal force reasonable under the circumstances.
Considering the danger and uncertainty faced by police officers, juries and judges are
hesitant to question an officer's judgement of what constitutes a reasonable use of force,
particularly when that officer's judgement falls in line with police policy. 149 Contrast this
with the stricter European law concerning police use of force. In Europe, police may only
use lethal force when it proves absolutely necessary to do so. 150 Thus, police in Europe are
legally obligated to explore other possibilities for resolving stressful or dangerous
situations before resorting to lethal force.
143 United States Commission on Civil Rights, "Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices," 2018,
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf.
144 See United States Commission on Civil Rights, "Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices," 2018,
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf.
145 Austin Police Department. "Integrating Communication, Assessment, and Tactics (ICAT)." Austin Police Academy De-Escalation Lesson Plan. 21 May
2020; Austin Police Department. "Tactical Communications (Verbal Judo)." Austin Police Academy Tactical Communications Lesson Plan. 17 Sept. 2019.
146 Austin Police Department. "Force Options (Cadet Version)" Austin Police Academy Force Options Lesson Plan. 21 May 2020; Austin Police Department.
"Cadet Skills Week" Austin Police Academy Arrest and Control Lesson Plan. 9 April 2020.
147 Graham V. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989).
148 Seth W. Stoughton, "How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence," Emory Law Journal 70, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 521,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561238.
149 Philip M. Stinson, "Charging a Police Officer in Fatal Shooting Cases is Rare, and a Conviction is Even Rarer," Special to the New York Daily News, May
31, 2017, https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=crim_just pub.
150 Jim Murdoch and Ralph Roche, "The European Convention on Human Rights and Policing: A Handbook for Police Offices and Other Law Enforcement
Officials." Council of Europe. 2013. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook EuropeanConvention Police ENG.pdf.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
29
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
Conclusion
This memo does not resolve all the issues raised by Austin City Council in Resolution 95,
but it is an important step forward toward improving APD's relationship with the
community it endeavors to serve. OPO's research and findings provide the City of Austin
and APD with opportunities for improving policy and exploring new areas of research that,
with proper allocation of time and resources, could prove crucial to resolving some of the
more troublesome issues at the center of discussions surrounding use of force. Still, the
information contained within this report will be of little use if it is not properly utilized.
An important starting point must be addressing the disproportionate amount of time spent
training officers to use force. De-escalation tactics are the primary alternatives to the use
of
munitions. APD, like other police academies across the country, emphasizes officer safety
to such an extreme that it fosters a culture of fear that then guides officers' interactions and
uses of force. To be clear, APD must use this information to implement demonstrable and
meaningful change. Only when such change is achieved will societal wounds begin to heal,
and police be able to properly fulfill their roles as servants, protectors, and leaders within
the community.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: APD's Description of Resistance Compared to 15 Other Departments
Provides
clear
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
definition for
X151
resistance
Provides
clear
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
examples of
resistance
Uses a visual
aid when
X
X
X
X
X
discussing
resistance
Describes
the use of
X
force as a
X
X
X
X
X
"response to
resistance"
Pairs types
of resistance
with
X
X
X
X
X
X
permissive
police
responses
Discusses
the
X
"objectively
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
reasonable"
standard
151 San Jose Police Department. "L 2629.5 Limited Use of 37 MM Projectile Impact Weapon for Crowd Control." " San Jose Police Department Duty Manual:
Policies, Rules, Procedures. 3 Feb. 2017 https://www.sjpd.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=314. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021. The San Jose Police
Department only provides a definition for "assaultive resistance."
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
31
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
Appendix B: Dallas Police Department Continuum Graphic 152
Linear Use-of-Force Response Continuum
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT
Deadly
Officer's Response
Intermediate
Force
Weapons
Aggravated
Baton, OC, P-Ball, &
ECW
Aggression
Hard Empty
Active
Hand Control
Aggression
OC,P-Ball, &
ECW
Soft Empty
Defensive
Hand Control
Resistance
Officer Presence/
Passive
Verbal Direction
Resistance
Psychological
Intimidation &
Subject's Behavior
Resistive Dialogue
152 Dallas Police Department. "Linear Use-of-Force Response Continuum." https://dallaspolice.net/reports/Shared%20Documents/response-continuum-
model.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
32
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
Appendix C: Denver Police Department Continuum Graphic 153
This graphic does not represent a force continuum. It is a guide with a
range of response options based on an individual's type of resistance.
AGGRAVATED
ACTIVE
AGGRESSION
ACTIVE
AGGRESSION
DEFENSIVE
RESISTANCE
Physical actions
PASSIVE
RESISTANCE
Physical actions
VERBAL NON-
prio
CROWD
COMPLIANCE
even
CONTROL
of
the
Verbar responses
Physical actions
PSYCHOLOGICAL
adicating
to
that
INTARCATION
comply
officer's
POTENTIAL FOR INJURY
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
RESPONSE
OFFICER
RESPONSE
RESPONSE
OFFICER
RESPONSE
RESPONSE
RESPONSE
Coctous Making
Making
Making
Model (ONL) 121 00
Certificate Making
101.00
Decrease Making
Shodel COME 121 DO
Diction Making
on
Middle 101.00
Camere
Presence
Command
Communi
Command
Prevence
/ Central
Control
-
Came
Non-Force
Alternatives
Force
Atensities
I Camel
dame
Hims Cartes
Propertial
App
RIPE
RPP
OPN (Pain
Less
Laws Letter
Compliance
Mannuma
Techniques)
TASER
TABER
Impact
WINSON
diseases
Taketown
FOR CROWD
CONTROL
Lettal Farms
Chemical Agent
Musicians Less-
Musicians
153
Denver Police
ndf
42.04
Appendix D: San Antonio Police Department Continuum Graphic 154
OFFICER'S PERCEPTION OF SUSPECT'S ACTIONS
Imminent Serious
Compliant
Imminent Assault
Passive Resistant
Active Resistant
(Cooperative)
(Bodily Injury)
Bodily
Injury/Death
Officer's Presence
Verbal Communications
Open/Empty Hands
Control
Physical Force
Intermediate Weapon
Deadly Force
154 San Antonio Police Department. "Procedure 501.05 Application of Force." San Antonio Police Department General Manual. 18 Sept. 2020.
https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/SAPD/GeneralManual/501.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
34
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
Appendix E: San Francisco Police Department Continuum Graphic 155
Subject's Actions
Description
Possible Force Option
Compliance
Subject offers no
Mere professional
resistance
appearance
Nonverbal actions
Verbal requests and
commands
Handcuffing and control
holds
Passive non-
Does not respond to
Officer's strength to take
compliance
verbal commands but
physical control, including
also offers no physical
lifting/carrying
form of resistance
Pain compliance control
holds, takedowns and
techniques to direct
movement or immobilize
Active resistance
Physically evasive
Use of personal body
movements to defeat an
weapons to gain advantage
officer's attempt at
over the subject
control, including
Pain compliance control
bracing, tensing, running
holds, takedowns and
away, verbally, or
techniques to direct
physically signaling an
movement or immobilize a
intention to avoid or
subject
prevent being taken into
or retained in custody
Assaultive
Aggressive or combative;
Use of devices and/or
attempting to assault the
techniques to ultimately
officer or another person,
gain control of the situation
verbally or physically
Subject's Actions
Description
Possible Force Option
displays an intention to
Use of personal body
assault the officer or
weapons to gain advantage
another person
over the subject
Life-threatening
Any action likely to
Utilizing firearms or any
result in serious bodily
other available weapon or
injury or death of the
action in defense of self and
officer or another person
others to stop the threat
Vehicle intervention
(Deflection)
155 San Francisco Police Department. "General Order 5.01 Use of Force." San Francisco Police Department General Orders. 21 Dec. 2016.
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/DGO5.01%20Use%20of%20Force.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
35
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
Appendix F: San Diego Police Department Continuum Graphic15
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINE
Use of Force Matrix
NEW
Suspect's Behavior
Passive Resistance
Active Resistance
Compliant
Assaultive
Behavior
Life Threatening
Behavior
Behavior
Behavior
Behavior
Forest
Hard Impact Wargees
(Blown to to hand Sex pack and
time = probled -
against
balancer as defeat = a
pricadure)
Had Impact Support
(PR-24 OPN ASP.
Had Impact Wagnas
Personal Body Wasposs
(PR-24, OPN ASP. fashigar)
(hand hands above losses and
Personal Body Suppose
Techniques Direction
Savo
(beat hands show issue
Technique Chemical Aparts (OC
two
erry - be and - a spring
Triadren Technique
panca = I office is planting
Distraction Technique Chemical
Technique Distactics
common)
Agents (OC - - be used =
Techniques Chessical Agent (OC
a upiting person to - elian
appsy my to used = a 1
Casine Taur Email Range
= gaining control) Casin
percent = assist offort is graining
Supact (EKZ) and Impact Warpers
Tax: Examided Empo Impact
country Cash Taxe Extended
may be used NT defined is section
(EXI) and Impact Waspeas
Large Impact (EXI) and Impact
V.D. of this procedure
Waspes
lapan Waspiness Cless Range
Impact Waspear Case Range
stilles with - impact waaper
Impact Waspess -Class Rangs
- with - impact wages
Impact Wagner Clow Range
may be used is clowd control
states with - ingact wages my
may be used is crowd costrol
state with = impact
situations as refined in this
be used in crewd control sinutinas
situations as outlined is a
be used is and control sinuatires
procedure)
as refined is this procedure)
procedure)
as entired is this procedus)
Impact Wasness Control Holds
Impact Warper Control Holds (FR.
Impact Wages Costrol Holds
Impact Warpen Central Holds (FR.
OPN ASP. Emblight)
24. OPN ASP. Emblight Control
(PR-24, OPN ASP.
24 ORN ASP. fashigno Control
Control Hold (other than -
Held ( two 1 -
Control Holds (other than with
Holds (other than = impact
suppose) Paid
warpos) Pain Compliance
infact suspose) Pain
waspons Pain Complisons
Compliance Present Prian
Present Prime Body Wage
Complance Present Poian
/ Prints Body Waigle
Body Weight Paysical Strugth
Paysical Stample
Body Weight Physical Strength
Papical Struggle
Touch
Touch
Touch
Touch
Touch
Vertal Costral
Vertal Control
Verial Castrol
Verial Control
Verbal Control
(Orders egistation request
(Orders espiration regards
(Other, explanations requires
(Orders explanations request
(Orders explaurations, again
office's presenta)
office's prevent
office's presence)
office's presence)
dises presence)
Reasonable Force Under the Totality of the Circumstances
Officer's
Response
156 San Diego Police Department. "1.04 - Administration, Use of Force." San Diego Police Department Procedure. 8 Jul. 2021. https://s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/themis2.datasd.org/policies rocedures/Procedures/1.0%20Administration/104.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin I Office of Police Oversight
36
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
Appendix G: Fort Worth Police Department Continuum Language157
306.05 FORCE OPTIONS
It is important to note that actions by an officer shall be predicated by the actions of the
subject. Under no circumstances will the force used by an officer be greater than necessary
to make an arrest or a detention or to protect oneself or another, nor will the force be used
longer than necessary to subdue the suspect, and deadly force shall not be used except as
specifically provided in this directive. The Department's training materials on use of force
are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. TBP 6.01
A. During a police contact a subject may be:
1. Compliant: A person contacted by an officer who acknowledges direction or lawful
orders given and offers no passive/active, aggressive, or aggravated aggressive
resistance.
2. Non-Compliant
a. Passive Non-Compliance: The subject is not complying with an officer's
commands and is not physically hindering or threatening in a harmful manner
to physically hinder an officer from placing the subject in custody and taking
control. Examples include: standing stationary and not moving upon lawful
direction, falling limply and refusing to use their own power to move.
Reasonable force options to passive noncompliance include low level force
options.
NOTE: Regarding civil protests, also refer to General Order 328.06
b. Active Resistance: The subject displays behavior that consists of refusal to
comply with an officer's commands and conveys a threat to physically hinder
or is physically hindering the arrest/detention process that is not directed at
harming the officer. Examples include: walking or running away, breaking the
officer's grip pulling away or a subject lying on their arms. Reasonable force
options to active resistance may include, but are not limited to, low level and
intermediate force options.
NOTE: When responding to resistance involving a grounded subject, officers are
discouraged from using closed fist strikes to the head as this increases likelihood
of injury to the officer and subject.
C. Aggressive Resistance: The subject displays the intent to harm the officer,
themselves or another person and prevent an officer from placing the subject
in custody and taking control. The aggression may manifest itself through a
subject taking a fighting stance, punching, kicking, striking, attacks with
weapons or other actions that present an imminent threat of physical harm to
the officer or another. Reasonable force options for aggressive resistance
157 Fort Worth Police Department. "306.05 Force Options." Fort Worth Police Department General Orders. 17 Feb. 2021.
https://police.fortworthtexas.gov/Public/general-orders. Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
37
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives 2021
include, but are not limited to, low level and intermediate force options.
However as an incident involving aggressive resistance is prolonged, the
likelihood that it becomes aggravated aggressive resistance also increases
which may necessitate greater force options.
d. Aggravated Aggressive Resistance: The subject's actions are likely to result in
death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another person. These actions
may include a firearm, use of blunt or bladed weapon, and extreme physical
force. Any force option is permissible when an officer is responding to
aggravated aggressive resistance.
NOTE Whenever an officer applies a use of force option upon a subject that
results in an injury or complaint of injury, the officer will monitor the subject,
render first aid to the best of their skill level, and immediately summon medical
attention. TBP 6.07
B. In response to the above situations, officers shall be guided in the use of force as
follows:
1. Low Level Force - a level of force or control that is neither likely nor intended to
cause injury, i.e., handcuffing a compliant arrestee for transport to jail or placing a
subject in a prone position on a high-risk vehicle stop. Low Level Force includes:
a. Officer Presence - Recognition of authority through a uniformed presence,
marked police vehicle, identifiable police markings, logo, badges, police
credentials, or verbal identification. Excludes physical force.
b. Verbal Commands - Commands of direction or required compliance such
as directions to drop a weapon, get on the ground, stop running, etc.
C. Weaponless Strategies - Techniques designed to gain compliance through
open hand control techniques (such as takedowns with no injury or
handcuffing).
d. Control Strategies - Techniques designed to gain compliance through the
use of a departmentally-approved control device such handcuffs or use of an
approved restraint device.
2. Intermediate Force - a level of force that has the potential to cause injury or
substantial pain, and is greater than Low-Level Force.
a. Weaponless Strategies - Techniques designed to gain compliance through
empty hand control techniques such as strikes, takedown with injury, or
pressure points.
b. Weapon Strategies - Techniques designed to gain compliance through the
use of a departmentally-approved control device such as impact weapons,
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
38
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
chemical agents, or conducted electrical weapons.
3. Deadly Force is any force that is reasonably likely to cause or create a substantial
risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. Deadly force includes, but is not
limited to, firing firearm in the direction of another person. Depending on the
circumstances, deadly force can result from a less-lethal force option being
improperly applied or the use of other potentially lethal tactics, such as:
a. Examples include but are not limited to:
(1) Intentional baton strikes to head, neck, sternum, spine, groin or
kidneys
(2) Low or less lethal option such as the 40 mm or less-lethal shotgun fired
in a manner not consistent with training or policy.
(3) Firing of a firearm at a vehicle, building, or structure in which another
person is believed to be; or
(4) Applying a chokehold or neck-restraining technique
4. An officer may use deadly force upon another person only when it is objectively
reasonable and immediately necessary to:
a. Protect themselves or others from what is reasonably believed to be an
imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
b. Prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who the officer has probable cause to
believe has committed a violent felony crime and is an imminent threat to
human life if escape should occur such as in an active shooter situation
where the fleeing suspect has access to more victims.
C. When feasible, officers shall provide a warning prior to the use of deadly
force, i.e., "Police! Stop or I will shoot!"
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
39
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives APRIL 2021
Appendix H: Austin Police Use-of-Force Language158
211.2.1 LEVEL 1 FORCE INCIDENTS AND IN-CUSTODY DEATHS
(a) Any force resulting in death.
(b) Any force that resulted in a substantial risk of death.
(c) Any intentional firearm discharge at a person, vehicle, or structure regardless of
injury.
(d) Any intentional firearm discharge at an animal that results in injury to another
person.
(e) Any unintentional firearms discharge resulting in another person's injury or death.
(f) Any force that resulted in serious bodily injury requiring admittance to the hospital,
beyond emergency room treatment and release (e.g., serious disfigurement,
disability, or protracted loss or impairment of the functioning of any body part or
organ).
(g) Use of any impact weapon, including kinetic energy projectiles, and improvised
weapons, that strikes the head of a subject.
(h) In-Custody Deaths: For inquiry, reporting, and review purposes, all in-custody
deaths occurring prior to or within 24 hours after booking shall be treated as Level
1 incidents and require concurrent inquiries conducted by SIU and IA, regardless of
whether force was used on the subject.
(i) The utilization of the Precision Immobilization Technique when serious bodily
injury or death occurs.
211.2.2 LEVEL 2 FORCE INCIDENTS
(a) Any strike to the head by an employee with any weaponless technique.
(b) Use of any impact weapons, including kinetic energy projectiles (other than a
Taser), and improvised weapons, to strike a subject and contact is made, regardless
of injury. (A strike to the head is a Level 1).
(c) Any deployment of a police canine resulting in a bite to a subject's skin, or which
results in any injury to a subject.
(d) The utilization of the Precision Immobilization Technique, unless serious bodily
injury or death occurs.
211.2.3 LEVEL 3 FORCE INCIDENTS
(a) Use of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC/Pepper Spray) or other chemical agent on a subject.
(b) Any Taser application.
(c) Use of any impact weapon, including kinetic energy projectiles or any other similar
object, in an attempt to strike a subject but no contact is made.
(d) Use of a baton for a non-striking purpose (e.g., prying limbs, moving, or controlling a
subject).
(e) Any force resulting in injury or a continued complaint of pain, but not rising to a
Level 1 or 2 incident.
158 Austin Police Department. "211 Response to Resistance Inquiry, Reporting, and Review." Austin Police Department General Orders. 27 Jan. 2021.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/General%20Orders.pdf.Accessed 12 Mar. 2021.
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
40
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021
(f) Any weaponless technique that causes an impact to the body with or without a
complaint of injury or pain. (A weaponless strike to the head is a Level 2). Examples
of weaponless techniques include:
1. Hand/palm/elbow strikes.
2. Kicks or leg sweeps.
3. Take-downs.
(g) Any deployment of a police canine for the purpose of biting a subject whose location
is known to the handler which results in no injury to the subject.
211.2.4 LEVEL 4 FORCE INCIDENTS
(a) A level of force utilizing empty hand control techniques that does not result in injury
or continued complaint of pain and does not rise to a Level 3 response to resistance.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Restricting a subject's movement by strength or body weight (to include
resisted escorting or handcuffing of a subject who is actively resisting arrest
beyond the initial or reflexive stiffening or pulling away of a person's arm(s)
that officers commonly encounter during handcuffing).
2. Using leverage or strength to bring a subjects arms or legs together for the
purposes of controlling, handcuffing, or hobbling the subject (to include
resisted control, handcuffing, hobbling when the subject is actively resisting
arrest beyond the initial or reflexive stiffening or pulling away of the
subject's arm(s) or leg(s) that officers commonly encounter during efforts to
control, handcuff, or hobble a subject).
3. Pressure point control tactics
City of Austin | Office of Police Oversight
41
Redefining "Resistance" and Considering Alternatives / APRIL 2021