Newsletter - Policetraining.net

Presumed Compliance

Preparation—true preparation—is the only way to be a cop

By Tony Blauer

About two decades ago I realized that the only way I’d ever be able to defend myself is if I understood four things:

1 What did I fear?

2 How do I conquer those fears?

3 How do ‘real’ attacks occur?

4 And, how do I defend against those real attacks?

The “truth” I discovered was never in bigger muscles or accumulating techniques.

The truth—yours and mine—was in understanding behavior, psychology, biomechanics and violence.

Sounds so simple, right? So tell me, why has this obvious process eluded most defensive tactics instructors as well as virtually every self-defense and martial art system?

DT trainers must realize that it’s only during their class that an officer is supposed to learn how to protect himself and control a hostile subject. If that process fails, someone may die. If half the techniques taught don’t really work, then half the training time is wasted. And, sadly, most of what is taught doesn’t address the realities of serious, aggressive resistance, which is the only time an officer is in real danger. Many street tragedies could be avoided. Presumptuous training strategies and tactics are partly to blame.

Suffice it to say, there are problems with the training process. However, there’s a far bigger problem than the DT curriculum. The real problem is you, the officer.

Preparation Is Everything Yes, the officer is responsible for many of these tragedies. Why? Because at the end of the day, it’s you and you alone responsible to make the call, to choose the level of force, to trust your instincts and your intuition. It’s your responsibility alone. During confrontations, responsibility must be read response/ability: one’s ability to respond.

As a professional police officer, you knowingly and deliberately place yourself in harms way to “serve and protect.” You must ask yourself some moral, ethical and legal questions regarding your preparation and response/ability. Do you feel confident to contain and control violence? What areas do you feel weak in—and why aren’t you developing those areas? Indifference isn’t a valid defense. Nor is ignorance.

Remember: The system, the research, the analysis and legal aid are only at your disposal AFTER the event. Until then you are in control (or supposed to be). Being an effective police officer goes beyond the oath and attitude. On judgment day you are either a warrior or a worrier. Preparation will decide.

Does your training support sudden violent attack? An integral part of every officer’s training should include counter/ambush drills.

And what is preparation? It’s the truth filter you view your responsibilities through. And if that ability to respond is inadequate, deficient, delinquent, or insufficient—you fail. If you lose a confrontation, you may lose a court case, but perhaps you’ll lose your life. Preparation is about conscience and accountability. If you can’t motivate yourself to practice drawing and dry-firing or cuffing tactics or to work on verbal skills or do 10 finger tip pushups every morning and go for a run (you get the picture), then you aren’t responsible. Police work is dangerous. Period.

“Presumed Compliance” is the paradox every officer faces when they approach any suspect. Does your training prepare you for the sudden ambush? In photo 1, above left, I simulate approaching a proned suspect who suddenly attacks forcing a ground fight. Then in photo 2, above, I’m showing a simple gross-motor response resulting from being forced to the ground that keeps me safe and the combative suspect at bay.

Coach Bear Bryant said, “The will to win compares little with the will to prepare to win.” In my 17 years of professional teaching I have observed lots of ‘will to win,’ but rarely do I see the requisite preparation to match the attitude.

How many in-service officers do you know who continue to train for survival—close-quarter skills, weapon retention, hands-on knife controls, contact simulations, verbal de-escalation strategies, etc.? If you think the academy DT program is all you ever need, plus the occasional seminar, forget it. It’s not enough. In fact, it’s never enough. It takes a microsecond of doubt or hesitation to change your life forever in combat.

How can you ensure your survival? You can’t. But you sure can enhance it. And it starts with a major paradigm shift, a real attitude adjustment. It starts when you can recognize ‘presumed compliance’.

Presumed Compliance, Defined Presumed Compliance is a key component to the “Behavioral Defensive Tactics” TM program. It’s the pervasive mind-set that predisposes an officer to fail, or, at a minimum, succeed under duress and with friction.

During every confrontation, there’s a sequential relationship between predator and prey that transcends technique. Training must address this behavioral truth.

There are three distinct arsenals required for real survival training: the powerful synergistic qualities of the 1) emotional, 2) psychological and 3) biomechanical arsenals. To understand the totality of the concept one must first appreciate its three-dimensional integrity. Simply put: How you think (psychological) determines how you feel (emotional). This in turn will illicit a complex biomechanical response. Naturally, how you think, feel and behave will affect your choices (strategy) and your performance (tactical skill). The truth is that your thoughts and behavior will either enhance or encumber your tactical options. The mind navigates the body.

Society has helped to create the presumed compliance frame of mind. Stereotyped images of authority figures possessing knowledge and power are pounded into our minds from birth. So why would it be different when you finally earn the right to wear the badge? All of the manuals and SOP doctrines imply your successful control of every situation. You have the theoretical force-option continuum. You have backup and other tools at your disposal. But nowhere does the training address fear management strategies or behavioral tactics to influence systematic de-escalation or even a street-smart approach to defensive tactics (everything works when it’s choreographed).

Ask yourself this: Did you survive your last physical confrontation because you were better trained than your opponent? Or did you control it because your opponent lacked training? Reflect on that. There’s a huge difference.

Conclusion Survival training is not complicated. The “truth” is rather simple, but will require a paradigm shift, which may be difficult for a community that notoriously waits for a tragedy to change SOPs and tactics. Real fighting—street survival—has little to do with a technique, martial arts or finesse. Street survival training is about attitude, preparation and integrity during training. Learn to discern fact from fantasy. Commit to the truth and pursue excellence.

You must live with what you do and don’t do. The truth is in the training. Do you need skills that work against a compliant cooperative subject or an aggressive resister? At the end of the day, it is your response/ability that determines the choices you make.

Tony Blauer

Tony Blauer is one of the world’s leaders in the research and development of training and equipment for military and law enforcement communities. He’s best known for the development of the S.P.E.A.R. System, a personal defense and defensive tactics program entirely designed around human physiology and the High Gear scenario-training suit. His site is www.BlauerTactical.com, and he can be reached at tony@blauertactical.com.

Fitness Tip from

Prevent pain and injury in one of the top three injury areas for first responders by performing the four simple shoulder exercises shown in this video.

Innocent Suspects' Response to Interrogation

January - February 2012

(Please Note: If you wish to print and share an Investigator Tip with your colleagues, the John E. Reid 'credit and permission' statement following the article must be included.)

The process of interrogation is reserved for suspects whose guilt is reasonably certain. This assessment may be based on a combination of forensic or testimonial evidence implicating the suspect in the crime, circumstantial evidence revealing the suspect's opportunity, access, motive and propensity to commit the crime, or the suspect's behavior, e.g., going into seclusion following the crime, catching the suspect in a known lie, etc.

At John E. Reid and Associates about 80% of suspects who are interrogated provide a corroborated, trustworthy confession.1 We believe that many of the remaining 20% of suspects are guilty of the crime but simply resistant to legally permissible interrogation tactics. However, some of those suspects were deemed by the investigator to be innocent of committing the crime resulting in the termination of the interrogation. This web tip addresses the typical behavior of an innocent suspect during an interrogation.

To understand the innocent suspect's response to interrogation it is important to consider that prior to an interrogation, the investigator has spent 30 or 45 minutes interviewing the suspect. This interview is totally non-accusatory and the suspect does most of the talking. Because of this format, a rapport or trust has been established between the investigator and suspect. On the other hand, during the interrogation of the suspect the investigator does most of the talking. The interrogation represents an effort to persuade the suspect to tell the truth about involvement in the crime under investigation. These persuasive efforts cannot involve threats of consequences or promises of leniency.

Initial Response

When an innocent suspect is initially accused of committing a crime, at the outset of the interrogation, it would be typical for the suspect to reveal indications of disbelief and confusion. On the verbal level the suspect may offer an unequivocal denial as the following dialog illustrates:

I: Joe, our investigation clearly indicates that you are the person who broke into your neighbor's home. I would like to sit down with you so we can get this clarified, OK?

S: That's crazy! I never broke into their house or stole anything from them!

Sometimes however, because of the rapport that has been established between the suspect and investigator during the interview, the innocent suspect will not immediately offer a strong denial following the direct confrontation. Rather, his initial reaction will still be one of disbelief as the suspect patiently waits for the investigator to explain why it is that he thinks the suspect committed the crime.

Early Responses

Even if the innocent suspect offers a denial following the direct confrontation, it is typical of the suspect to sit back in the chair and listen to the investigator for several minutes. In the suspect's mind, he is trying to figure out what went wrong - "Why does the investigator think I committed this crime?"

During early stages of the interrogation, however, the investigator does not present any evidence of the suspect's guilt. Presentation of real or fictitious evidence implicating the suspect in the crime is a possible tactic reserved for later in the interrogation, in response to denials typical of a guilty suspect. Rather, during early stages of the interrogation the investigator attempts to encourage the suspect to accept a concept called a transition statement. An example of a transition statement is, "What will be very important to establish in this case is why this whole thing happened." In an effort to reduce the moral seriousness of the offense, the investigator will then offer the suspect face-saving justifications for committing the crime. These justifications are termed an interrogation theme.

After listening to the investigator's theme for a several minutes the innocent suspect realizes that the investigator is not offering any evidence or explanations as to why the investigation indicates the suspect's guilt. Consequently, the suspect will lean forward in the chair in an aggressive posture reflecting confidence and certainty - he is no longer willing to allow the investigator to dominate the conversation and falsely accuse him of involvement in the crime. The suspect's eye contact will be direct and appear resentful. The investigator will then hear a denial.

Evaluating the Suspect's Denial

This is such a critical stage of the interrogation that an entire step of the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation is devoted to handling a suspect's denial. Because both innocent and guilty suspects will offer denials during an interrogation, the first objective is to evaluate whether the denial is typical of an innocent or guilty suspect.

The innocent suspect's denial will often be broad and all-encompassing, e.g., "I've never accepted a bribe in my life!" It is also typical of the innocent suspects to use descriptive language during their denial. Examples of descriptive language include "rape", "steal", "rob", "molest" and "murder."

On the paralinguistic level, the innocent suspect's denial has a very characteristic delivery referred to as the use of "clipped-word" endings. Each word of the statement is delivered in a staccato and separated fashion, e.g., "I - did - not - break - into - that - house!" This is a good indication that the suspect is experiencing sincere resentment at being accused of committing the crime, i.e., the suspect is innocent.

Certainly some innocent suspects have less confidence than others; some innocent suspects are introverted, non-emotional or adhere strongly to a belief that it is wrong to challenge authority. Regardless of these intrinsic personality differences, once the innocent suspect offers a denial, he will be persistent in his position. He does not sit back in his chair and entertain the possibility that he may have committed the crime for a morally justifiable reason. Rather, his denials become stronger and stronger and transmit the same message - "You are wrong. I didn't do it!" It may take ten or fifteen minutes, but eventually all innocent suspects will offer persistent, strong, definitive denials.2

Attempts to Terminate the Interrogation

A non-custodial suspect is free to leave the interrogation room at any time. A suspect who is in custody merely has to say, "I don't want to answer any more questions" or, "I want an attorney." If those or similar phrases are uttered by a custodial suspect, the interrogation must be terminated.

However, from a behavioral perspective, the suspect who, upon being confronted with his guilt, immediately leaves the room or invokes his Miranda rights is revealing a clear symptom of guilt. Innocent suspects will remain in the room, argue their innocence and offer strong and persistent denials. Even after the investigator is convinced of the suspect's innocence and goes through a process called, "stepping down" the interrogation, the innocent suspect remains in the room to make certain that the investigator understands that suspect was in no way involved in the offense.

Conclusion

Investigators are not perfect and the process of rendering opinions of guilt or innocence during an investigation is not an exact science. Because of this, innocent suspects will occasionally be interrogated. Critics have tried to suggest that when most innocent suspects are told that there is no question they committed a crime and then are falsely told that evidence implicates them in the crime, that they collapse in the chair, put their head in their hands and blurt out a full confession. As anyone who interrogates on a regular basis can attest, this is certainly not true. However, innocent suspects do respond differently to the interrogation process than guilty suspects. When a suspect's behavioral response to the interrogation fits the description of an innocent person, the investigator should "step down" the interrogation and consider terminating it altogether.

1 In our office we rarely have specific physical or forensic evidence implicating a suspect in a crime prior to an interrogation. When such evidence does exist, the confession rate would likely be higher.

2 This statement assumes that the suspect does not suffer from a significant mental or intellectual impairment and that the investigator did not engage in improper interrogation techniques that threatened consequences or offered promises of leniency. Credit and Permission Statement:
Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy this article. In those instances, the following Credit Statement must be included "This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. 800-255-5747 / www.reid.com." Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty jfinnerty@reid.com.

2 Tactics Agencies Should Employ in Post-Ferguson Policing

Reprinted from Policeone.com

As an old beat cop once said to NYPD Police Commissioner Teddy Roosevelt, “You have to walk softly, but carry a big stick”

It has been one year since Ferguson and police are still suffering after some of the most maliciously inaccurate reporting of any officer-involved shooting in history. Since that day, animosity toward police has been nursed by some in the media and activists like an ember in a camp fire on a television survival show. It has been stoked into a bonfire until every cop in the nation is being singed by the heat.

Whether the animosity is pent up, stirred up, or conjured up, this heat exists. Officers have died because of it and it is getting as dangerous out there for the average beat cop as it was in the late 60s and early 70s.

Now is not the time to double down, but to double up. Here are two ways:

1. Two-Officer Squads

It is time to re-visit two officer squads. Not every squad in the nation, mind you, but there are identifiable times and locations where an officer will be instantaneously in over their head the moment they exit their squad alone.

Some of the problems that a one-officer unit would face during these times and in these locations could be prevented by having two officers immediately on the scene rather than one. This is happening in some venues, but it needs to be more widely considered.

When and where should officers double up? Every street officer and line supervisor in every city across this country could tell a chief the times and locations officers should be doubled up to patrol and answer calls for service. Just ask your people.

During those times and at those locations, commanders who are in charge of assigning personnel should be given the authority to schedule partners patrolling together. Nothing communicates to criminals that cops are ready for them like two officers effectively practicing contact-cover tactics immediately upon exiting their unit.

2. Cops on Foot Patrol

Partner patrols should not be limited to squads, but also be done on foot. Nothing tells a neighborhood that cops care about their safety and welfare like a couple of dedicated, hard-working foot patrol officers who know the good people and the bad people on their beat. Every beat has a mixture of both.

People who live in troubled neighborhoods do not want to see public relations officers — they want to see beat officers relating to the public. Make no mistake about it, no matter what you see on the news, troubled neighborhoods want cops — especially cops who are there because they care.

People who dial 911 want officers who can handle themselves as well as the criminals that terrorize their neighborhoods. Now, if those officers can also conjure a friendly conversation, give a smile and a wave occasionally, all the better.

The gifted foot patrol officer has always struck a balance between firm and fair. An officer has to be able to be friendly and still have appropriate intensity when necessary. As an old beat cop once said to NYPD Police Commissioner Teddy Roosevelt, “You have to walk softly, but carry a big stick.”

Agencies should develop a new generation of indomitable Bumper Morgans (from Joseph Wambaugh’s “The Blue Knight”) who invest themselves in the safety of the people who live and work on their beat.

The people we serve should not have to live on gang turf — they should live in neighborhoods. Double up and take back the neighborhoods. Expand your foot patrols.

Keep on Keeping On

For all of you officers out there overwhelmed by the constant barrage of negativity, I urge you to continue to do the best you can — what else can you do?

Cops are not hardwired to give up, nor should they. The people in your communities need you. Your presence does make a difference and your actions do save lives.

Strive to stay positive in these negative times. Rise above those who would put you down. You are American police officers policing in a free society – and that is something you should be proud of.

Here is something the news media has failed to point out all year: you are the best of us.

About the author

Lt. Dan Marcou retired as a highly decorated police lieutenant and SWAT Commander with 33 years of full time law enforcement experience. He is a nationally recognized police trainer in many police disciplines and is a Master Trainer in the State of Wisconsin. He has authored three novels The Calling: The Making of a Veteran Cop , S.W.A.T. Blue Knights in Black

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page>age>