Q: Proper use of Pepper Spray/Mace?

[motorman4life]

I was sent this question by a BARFer that wishes to remain totally anonymous and was seeking input from LEOs or those with some knowledge and experience in use-of-force. I have posted the following for him/her, for feedback in the forum, as we (LEO Mods) do not do 1-on-1 advice. ~MM4L

=====================================================
Background: I am a unarmed mall Security Officer under a corporate security company in the state of California. Under this company, we are issued and trained to use handcuffs and pepper spray/mace.

Story: Over the radio, one of my partners (we'll call him Bob) advises that Loss Prevention will be apprehending a suspect (Bob and one LP agent are standing by the exit). Bob advises that the suspect is resisting arrest. I arrive on scene shortly to see that Bob and the LP stuggling to take the suspect down. I immediately grab one of the suspects arm trying to put it behind his back but he managed to stand up. (Keep in mind this was a 6 foot+ and 280lb+ man). He becomes free for a second but is then taken down to the ground again by us three. Bob shouts that the suspect may have a weapon, possibily a knife (reason for that was because the suspect himself said "I have a knife" under his breath). Being afraid the suspect may have any weapons, I spray him in the face and kept my distance. It stunned him as he continued running away. Bob sprayed him again and we withdraw from the arrest for officer safety reasons. Suspect flees in a vehicle (But is caught eventually by PD).

Was it reasonable for me (and Bob) to spray the suspect? Were the actions done in a legal matter? I ask this because my boss tells me that it wasn't reasonable nor justifiable. Bob and I were sent home until further investigation.

Thank you for any input or advice.

=========================================================================

 

[LongGoneJohn]

I know a lot of loss prevention jobs clearly state that they are not to fight with a subject. Is that the case here?

If not... here's what I see: A security officer doing his job, a suspect resisting, a suspect states he has a knife during the struggle, which makes said officer use pepper spray to subdue him to prevent the knife from becoming an issue.

Seems legitimate to me. The policy of said security guard is where the issue is going to be, if I had to guess.

 

[bb sue]

Tho I'm not LE I will stick my nose in here. I remember a similar scenario from a Security Guard advanced course I took. (Yeah, I did that for a while... :rolleyes)

Over the radio, one of my partners (we'll call him Bob) advises that Loss Prevention will be apprehending a suspect (Bob and one LP agent are standing by the exit). Bob advises that the suspect is resisting arrest. I arrive on scene shortly to see that Bob and the LP stuggling to take the suspect down. I immediately grab one of the suspects arm trying to put it behind his back but he managed to stand up. (Keep in mind this was a 6 foot+ and 280lb+ man). He becomes free for a second but is then taken down to the ground again by us three. Bob shouts that the suspect may have a weapon, possibily a knife (reason for that was because the suspect himself said "I have a knife" under his breath). Being afraid the suspect may have any weapons, I spray him in the face and kept my distance. It stunned him as he continued running away. Bob sprayed him again and we withdraw from the arrest for officer safety reasons. Suspect flees in a vehicle (But is caught eventually by PD).

Was it reasonable for me (and Bob) to spray the suspect? Were the actions done in a legal matter? I ask this because my boss tells me that it wasn't reasonable nor justifiable. Bob and I were sent home until further investigation.

Thank you for any input or advice.

IMO...
IF you had the subject subdued then you were not justified. IF the subject became a DIRECT THREAT against you, then you were justified, but only until that threat went away. But the way you wrote it...

Being afraid the suspect may have any weapons, I spray him in the face and kept my distance. It stunned him as he continued running away. Bob sprayed him again and we withdraw from the arrest for officer safety reasons. Suspect flees in a vehicle (But is caught eventually by PD).

...it was (IMO not justified in either case. The subject was NOT a direct threat to YOU ("I spray him in the face and kept my distance. It stunned him as he continued running...") or especially Bob (It stunned him as he continued running away. Bob sprayed him again and we withdraw...).

The spray, just like your firearm, are for protection of life, not for aprehension of a subject trying to flee. While property loss is a duty of security, your primary function is to observe and report. Once the guy split (you had lost control of him and he started to flee and was no longer a threat as I see it) any further use of a weapon (OC) was an assault on the subject.

Give you an example. If you had a sidearm, would you have been justified at any time to unholster? (Remember, you are a guard, not a sworn officer).

Ouch.

I know, it sucks, but the way you explained it (which, being a trained observer, should be pretty accurate and concise) your boss was right, and sad as it may be, If your version is dead accurate, and I was your boss, you'd both be looking for another job. I hope he finds mitigating circumstances clearing you. Sorry... (I hate bearing bad news.)

Good luck,
bb

 

[LongGoneJohn]

I knew security guard code of conduct was whack!

 

[motorman4life]

In regard to the above post(s) that opine it was inappropriate use of force, I'd ask that those posters consider that when making a citizen's arrest, a person may use the minimum force necessary to overcome resistance. If a weapon was threatened, this shoplifting became a robbery (refer to section 211 of the CA Penal Code). In most cases, a threat of a deadly weapon may reasonably be countered with deadly force. If less-lethal force (such as OC or a stun gun) is the only option available and is successfully employed and neutralizes that (deadly) threat, then once the threat is neutralized, deadly force would not be appropriate.

In most cases, the first level of force is verbal commands and physical presence. The next level of force would be hands-on. In the thinking that these loss prevention officers are merely employed to "observe and report" then these TWO levels of force would be inappropriate. The fact that they are expected to use force (even if, in the best-case scenario is is only level 1: verbal commands) and have been provided with and trained in the use of OC spray, it is clear they are not employed to merely "observe and report." OC would be cosidered Level 3 (along with stun gun, etc..), impact weapons (and attack dogs, if any were present and available) would be level 4 and deadly force would be Level 5.

Once they make contact and that escalates to a detention and there is resistance that leads to physical force, once the subject threatens use of a weapon or claims to possess any weapon, while offering resistance in the furtherance of a theft, it becomes a felonious crime (robbery, as mentioned earlier) and those that are a party to the resistance (attempting to effect a lawful arrest) are in danger, as are any other person(s) that may step in to attempt to render aid to their lawful arrest. Saying that at this point, they are required to just walk away and revert to an "observe and report" role is totally ridiculous. Yes, that is an option, but in my opinion, nothing in the law (or common sense) requires them to do so. That is not to say that there is not something in their company policy that addresses this situation and provides some guidance or directives to follow in such a predicament.

There are many threads on use-of-force in the LEO forum. One in particular is this recent one, http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234129, which has links to several other worthwhile threads on the topic.

I won't repeat what I have posted in the other threads about justification and reasonableness. I'll just say that if you felt it was reasonable to use the OC at the time and that a reasonable person in the same situation would have been in fear for their safety, then you should be a-okay, legally. As for your job, your use of force, while it may have been legal, may have been outside of the policies of your employer. I don't know the policies you work under, but you should. If you were within the law (which is based upon YOUR fears of injury and whether you perceived a threat to your safety) based upon the "reasonableness" standard and if you were within the written policies and training provided by your employer, then you should not have a problem. If your supervisor is not backing you up, you should consider 1) complaining to his manager or 2) looking for a new job with an employer that will back you up when you follow the rules.

If you were within the law, but outside the policies of your employer, you may end up taking a whack. If it is a training issue, then you should ensure they are made aware of this. If you have a problem with the policies and feel they put you in danger, then you may want to seek other employment. I would not work under conditions where I was expected to use force (even if it is just level 1 and 2) and therefore put at risk of deadly force and was not afforded the opportunity to adequately defend myself or others that may become threatened when coming to my aid.

You should consider yourself lucky. Many employers do not provide or allow the use of pepper spray (or any defensive weapons). The fact that you have it there should be an indicator that your employer is okay with you using it lawfully, when necessary and within policy. If you feel you did use it lawfully, when necessary and within policy, you need to ask your employer to censure your supervisor for "jumping to conclusions" and treating you as if (and telling you that) you had acted inappropriately, when he either 1) did not understand the law/policy or 2) did not have all the information necessary to make an correct and informed decision. Sending you home (with pay) would not be wrong. But, if you were suspended without pay and/or told you were wrong, without them having all of the information necessary to make that judgment.. that is wrong. It is bad for morale and it is not any good for recruiting or retention. If they think hanging you out to dry will protect them from liability, they are wrong.

Best of luck and let us know how it plays out.

 

[GhostriderBS]

being in the academy right now, you damn right you were able to spray him! hell we learned or from observing some training videos, if someone has a knife, we can draw our firearm on them if we are in danger of death or serious bodily injury, ie getting stabbed/stuck. But like Motorman said above, you first have to give the person a verbal warning (put the knife down), then physical restraint, and after physical, it becomes the liquid chemical agent.

Anyone catch that case about a SFPD recruit that almost got stabbed by a homeless guy until his FTO saved him by shooting and killing the homeless man?

 

[T-1 Thunder]

Dude - loss prevention sucks. I did it a little bit for Longs Drugs when I worked there. One time I even pulled an overnight duty(to watch a construction crew specifically).

But another time, I busted a kid for stealing a pen. Saw him grab it, looking around, took it in the bathroom, and came out with it not in his hand. Went in there and saw the wrapper for said pen in garbage. Made the stop when he left the store. His mom came out(he's in like 8th grade) and she's backing him up. I know it's in his pocket- and my boss comes out, and lets him and mommy go. ???

Boss tells me I was wrong. Bunch of crap. Apparently, you need everything on them - where they picked it up, where they stashed it on the person, etc. And even then - no force allowed, dog gone it! Sucks to live by rules, but imagine the frustration cops live with. I don't blame them for giving a "waffle face"(slam on brakes in squad car with punk in back) here and there to the right jerk.

 

[JPM]

I think others covered this very well. If I responded to this call there would be no action on my part against the loss prevention, but what the rules of your work are depends on if you violated any company policy.

 

[motorman4life]

But like Motorman said above, you first have to give the person a verbal warning (put the knife down), then physical restraint, and after physical, it becomes the liquid chemical agent.

Please don't get me wrong. You can predicate your use of force based upon what is reasonable for the level of force you are responding to. This means, if I have a full belt of tools and I am faced with an attacker with a deadly weapon, I am not obligated to go step-by-step through all of my tools before I get to draw my weapon. If I am faced with a deadly force situation, I can jump to my deadly force option or whatever tool I feel would adequately neutralize the deadly threat, considering my safety and the safety of others.

As I stated previously, pepper spray (OC) falls in the middle of the spectrum of force, above verbal commands and below deadly force. In some schools of thought (and some policies) it falls above or below hands-on force (fists, kicks and control holds). In some it falls above or below impact weapons (batons and improvised impact weapons... any solid object you can strike with.. mag lights, chairs, small children). In most places, chemical spray and ERD (electronic restraint devices, such as a stun or Tazer) are at the same level, usually above (greater than) hands-on and below (less than) impact weapons.

As a LPO (loss prevention officer), you usually only have 3 or 4 levels of force available to you. Police officers usually have 4 to 6 unless they are specifically deploying some exotic less-than-lethal weaponry (such as a beanbag gun) or have a K-9 partner.

Anyhow, we have talked here about the use of force continum (sp?) and the outdated use of force ladder. It is more of a use of force wheel, where you are in the center and you are tasked with choosing the correct force tool for the threat you are dealing with.

I think it is clear, based upon the example given, that OC was likely the appropriate level (if not possibly below the apropriate level) of force in what the suspect chose to escallate into a deadly force robbery situation where you were making a lawful citizen's arrest and attempting to use the minumum force necessary to effect an arrest on a combative and violently reisiting combatant.

Again, I don't know the policies and restrictions placed upon you by your employer. I don't know what training they have given you. But, OC is not your last level of force. Deadly force is. If they take away the OC, that is all you are left with. It is easy to say, "just walk away" if you have never been in a situation like this. If you are expected to engage thieves and place them under arrest, within the law, there will be times when your authority will be challenged and there will be times where your life may be placed in danger. Having the ability to deal with those situations takes courage and it also takes confidence that your employer will back your play, when you do everything right.

Please update us once this all shakes out.

 

[GhostriderBS]

sorry Motorman, I was thinking about the order of categories of force to employ. You're right, I'm wrong. I explained it wrong too. I was just trying to help :nerd

 

[JT1]

In most places, chemical spray and ERD (electronic restraint devices, such as a stun or Tazer) are at the same level, usually above (greater than) hands-on and below (less than) impact weapons.

Folks,

At the risk of seeming like a thread hijacker, I want to jump in here because MM4L is addressing exactly the issue I was grappling with in my related thread about when less than lethal force is justified.

In the above quote, MMR4L describes how chemical spray usually follows "hands-on" efforts in a continuum of force. I presume he's referring to local LEO policies.

My question: would normal citizens be under any obligation to attempt a "hands on" effort to quell any aggression before jumping to a chemical solution ? I'm assuming here that efforts to talk one's way out of trouble have failed. Would the answer be any different if the citizen had training in "hands on" techniques?

As for the actual subject of this post, it's hard for me to see how employing OC would be wrong, given the threat made. Employment polices could be a whole different story, but then, such policies could indicate we're not talking about an employer of choice. Good luck to the OP.

 

[motorman4life]

My question: would normal citizens be under any obligation to attempt a "hands on" effort to quell any aggression before jumping to a chemical solution ? I'm assuming here that efforts to talk one's way out of trouble have failed. Would the answer be any different if the citizen had training in "hands on" techniques?

Except in a case of posse comitatus (refer to 150 PC), civilians are under no legal obligation to take any "police-type" action. This has been construed, in CA courts to mean that in some cases, civilians have a duty or obligation to back down when they have an opportunity. Lawyers have attempted to apply thi same "logic" to police officers in deadly force situations and the courts have held that the police have no duty to back down, when acting within the scope of their employment.

I don't know if that helps to answer your question or if it leads to more questions. Nevertheless, I thought I'd throw that out there, since you were talking about citizen obligations.

I believe, and I think you will find the Penal Code and case law will support this; if you feel your life is in immediate danger or you have reason to believe the life of another is in immediate danger, you can take whatever steps are reasonable* to "neutralize the threat**" using the "minimum force necessary***."

* reasonable is defined as what an average person having the same abilities (and weaknesses) would do, in the same situation, based upon the information you had at the time.

** neutralize the threat means to apply whatever force is deemed appropriate, until such time that the threat is reduced sufficiently.

*** mimimum force necessary meand to employ and adjust the force, as necessary, to ensure the minimum force is being applied, commensurate to the degree or level of threat being encountered at any given time.

This means, if a guy has a knife on you and you reasonably believe the only option you have is to pull out a gun to meet that deadly threat, so you pull out a gun and he drops the knife (threat neutralized) and begins to run away (threat neutralized), you can't employ any force greater than that necessary to overcome the remaining threat (ie. you can't now shoot him in the back) and claim he had presented a deadly threat (because now the deadly weapon is no longer being brandished and) since he no longer poses a threat.

In many cases, additional training can hurt your case. I could give a dozen examples here, but suffice to say that when the "reasonableness" is being addressed (above) that your abilities are also being addressed. The more (higher level of) training you have, the more responsibility you have when exercising that training.

Direct and to the point: predication of force (jumping to the appropraite level of force for a given situation) is more common sense. No one expects you to exercise each level of force available to you in the face of an extreme threat. It would be illogical for anyone to expect you to whip out your nail clippers and declare your intent to over-trim his cuticles before pepper-spraying a guy that is shooting school kids with an AK-47.. particularly if you have a firearm and can easily end the massacre with one well-placed shot to the back of his head. Of course, that does not prevent his family for suing you for wrongful death and claiming out that if you had brandished your clippers that he would have surrendered because "he was turning his life around" and he "just needed someone to show they actually cared."

 

[JPM]

The Penal Code gives a clear distinction that officer do not have to retreat or desist.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=44948713227+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use
reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to
overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not
retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or
threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such
officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

 

[Count Patron]

The Penal Code gives a clear distinction that officer do not have to retreat or desist.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=44948713227+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use
reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to
overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not
retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or
threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such
officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

Unfortunately for the OP, LP is not a peace officer.

 

[JPM]

Unfortunately for the OP, LP is not a peace officer.

I'm aware of that. But there has been discussion of differences between a citizens rights and responsibilities and a LEO's. I was just clarifying that the LEO's is spelled out in the Penal Code.

 

[motorman4life]

A follow-up from the OP:
---------------
Update: My Security Director saw the tape and was fine with me spraying the suspect. He said himself he would've done the same thing. However, he did not like the fact that the suspect was sprayed twice by "Bob". Our captain is still chewing our asses off but I'm on the safe side for now. As far as policy goes, spray is intended to be used for self defense and same rules apply to California laws.
---------------

My feeling, based upon the situation described, you did use it in self-defense. I would be concerned about the Captain's position in this matter and I (myself, not with "Bob") would sit down with him in private and ensure the air was cleared on this. If you followed the company rules and the state laws in this matter, he should be backing you 100%. If he feels the rules should be changed, then he needs to proceed with that and consider the consequences of that choice and ensure there is adequate training to spoort that rule change.

What I find most often in security is, they expect you to do the impossible with the minimum and when things go wrong, it blows up in your face and they Monday-morning quarterback you until the cows come home and either you become a scapegoat or get put in the dog house, when you did the best you could with the tools, training, communication and guidance you were given. They will never admit they did not provide adequate tools, training, communication or guidance.. that is a given.

In a case such as this, where you are on solid ground, you don't need to rub it in their faces, but you do need to get them to acknowledge that you did it right... as vigorously as they would be making THEIR point if you had made a mistake. I am sure there was some internal investigation conducted that cleared you. I would request a copy of that investigation (one complete) as well as anything going into your personnel file in regard to the incident. If they claim there is nothing in writing, since you were sent home early and told by your supervisor that you had screwed up (before he had all of the information himself), it would be reasonable to request a memo from your supervisior (or the Captain) declaring or establishing (in wirting) that the incident was investigated by them and you were exhonerated in the matter. This is for your own protection and could be critical if there was another similar incident and they later tried to group future bad-acts with this incident and attempt to shade this previous incident as a questionable one and claim a pattern of bad judgment, excessive force or violations of company policy.

When shit is handled "informally" and nothing is in writing, it gives them great lattitude in "re-interpreting" the incident in the future. That could include seeing this incident being used AGAINST you in a criminal case where the company is trying to distance itself from your actions and they claim you were counseled for your "obvious errors in judgment" in this previous incident (when the Captain was chewing your ass). YMMV.

CYA and hope for the best... that's my policy. :thumbup

 

[FrigginChi]

I would have called MM4L, SilverSVS, Rel or Antarius, that's what they are paid for. If I tried to detain some one and they didn't want to stick around I'd let them go. Why get hurt for a pack of cigarettes? Call the cops, observe and be the best witness you can. In my experience OC/Mace for security is for self defense only not to subdue some one.

 

[motorman4life]

I would have called MM4L, SilverSVS, Rel or Antarius, that's what they are paid for. If I tried to detain some one and they didn't want to stick around I'd let them go. Why get hurt for a pack of cigarettes? Call the cops, observe and be the best witness you can. In my experience OC/Mace for security is for self defense only not to subdue some one.

I totally understand that logic. But, there are a few things to consider.

As an LPO or security officer/agent, part of your job may be not only to observe and report, but you may well be expected (in your job description) to contact suspected violators and make citizen arrests. Failure to do so could be seen as dereliction of duty. That is not to say it would not be reasonable to "disengage" once the threat to you or your staff exceeded the cause for the stop/contact or arrest, and then notify police of the initial want as well as any other crimes comitted in the furtherance of that crime.

The problem is, once you are engaged, it is not always easy to deescallate and disingage without exposing yourself to more risk than continuing with the arrest and meeting the resistance with equal vigor, particularly when you have 1) a duty to do so, 2) a right to do so and 3) the uper-hand, so long as you stick with it. In addition to the safety and duty aspects; safety being that if you have control of 1 arm and have him on the ground, with back-up enroute, do you let go and risk him gaining a position of advantage? And, duty being, when a guy says he has a deadly weapon and you have him detained and are in the process of subduing him, if you retreat and he then causes injury to others (customers, employees, bystanders) either with that weapon or another (such as a vehicle), what liability do you or your employer then assume? ie.. you go from being aggressive to passive because he offers resistance or makes a threat.. then what happens when he gains the upper hand and ends up hurting your back-up as they arrive on scene or causes injury or death to a passer-by on the premises or runs down/stabs or strikes an innocent party while fleeing an altercation you started but did not finish?

You also have to consider that your actions will dictate future outcomes, in that if theives find out a mere threat of deadly force will result in you backing down, then you can expect to be threatened with deadly force on a regular basis. In effect, your predictable response that leads to their success (or increased odds of success) will effectively "encourage" violators to exercise that option more readily on your staff when they are faced with capture.

:2cents

 

[FrigginChi]

I know what you mean MM4L. But it looks like the OP only had OC/Mace @ his disposal. How do you escalate if the guy pulls out a knife or a gun? I'd rather get fired than get carried out in a body bag over property, especially if I'm making chump change.

I totally understand that logic. But, there are a few things to consider.

As an LPO or security officer/agent, part of your job may be not only to observe and report, but you may well be expected (in your job description) to contact suspected violators and make citizen arrests. Failure to do so could be seen as dereliction of duty. That is not to say it would not be reasonable to "disengage" once the threat to you or your staff exceeded the cause for the stop/contact or arrest, and then notify police of the initial want as well as any other crimes comitted in the furtherance of that crime.

The problem is, once you are engaged, it is not always easy to deescallate and disingage without exposing yourself to more risk than continuing with the arrest and meeting the resistance with equal vigor, particularly when you have 1) a duty to do so, 2) a right to do so and 3) the uper-hand, so long as you stick with it. In addition to the safety and duty aspects; safety being that if you have control of 1 arm and have him on the ground, with back-up enroute, do you let go and risk him gaining a position of advantage? And, duty being, when a guy says he has a deadly weapon and you have him detained and are in the process of subduing him, if you retreat and he then causes injury to others (customers, employees, bystanders) either with that weapon or another (such as a vehicle), what liability do you or your employer then assume? ie.. you go from being aggressive to passive because he offers resistance or makes a threat.. then what happens when he gains the upper hand and ends up hurting your back-up as they arrive on scene or causes injury or death to a passer-by on the premises or runs down/stabs or strikes an innocent party while fleeing an altercation you started but did not finish?

You also have to consider that your actions will dictate future outcomes, in that if theives find out a mere threat of deadly force will result in you backing down, then you can expect to be threatened with deadly force on a regular basis. In effect, your predictable response that leads to their success (or increased odds of success) will effectively "encourage" violators to exercise that option more readily on your staff when they are faced with capture.

:2cents

 

[motorman4life]

I know what you mean MM4L. But it looks like the OP only had OC/Mace @ his disposal. How do you escalate if the guy pulls out a knife or a gun? I'd rather get fired than get carried out in a body bag over property, especially if I'm making chump change.

I'm not going to argue that OC will defeat deadly force, but if it is the best option I had in a deadly force situation, it is what I would use. I have been hit with OC, CN, CS and mixtures of these and I can tell you, AFTER being hit with it, you not only lose your "fight," but your ability to land blows, deploy weapons and offer resistance is significantly reduced!

This is all just my opinion, but I don't know any agency with the courage to test this theory on a live-fire range with live ammo. It would be cool to do this with SimunitionTM though!

As for being fired, etc... it is more a matter of considering your life (survival) and the impact this could have on your lifestyle (career). Many LPOs are aspiring LEOs and being fired for dereliction, cowardice or not taking appropriate action that directly results in harm to others would undoubtedly be a career killer. It is not fair to your employer or your co-workers for you to willingly deviate from what is expected, when the shit hits the fan. That is how people get hurt. 1 guy does his job and 2 guys head for the hills! Nice! When you are "in the suck" you need to be able to rely on your partners to do the right thing, within the best of their abilities. I have been the first back-up on scene and seen 1 officer fighting for their life, with 2 civilians helping out, while 1-3 other officers were bugging out. It is a sad sight to see. I'm not talking about backing someone's play when they are over the line. I'm talking about backing up your partners when they are doing what they were trained to do and operating within policy and the laws.


My whole point in all of this was, if you are acting within the scope of your employment; you follow the company policies (and any training provided) and the comply with all applicable laws, your employer should back you 100%, regardless of the aspects of the outcome that are not in your control.

If your employer expects or demands you to do something you do not feel comfortable with.. resign now. Don't just go on, hoping you will never be tested. If you are cleared in an investigation (particularly when you were TOLD you were wrong and sent home early (with or most importantly if it was without pay), you should be given something in writting to advise you were cleared in the incident. If you are cleared and were sent home without pay, your pay should be reconstituted.

If you did something wrong, then you should be provided with that finding, in detail, in writing too. If you receive training or counseling on the matter, that should be documented also, and you should get a copy of that documentation. There are many reasons for all of this, but mostly, proper documentation protects everyone involved if there is a repeat incident.