Page 215 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 215 of 223 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
203
• explaining any actions about to be taken;
• allowing a suspect to save face in front of his/her peers;
• recognizing a suspect's remarks are not a personal attack against the officer; and
• allowing a suspect to retain dignity whenever possible.
Officers should attempt to de-escalate confrontations by utilizing verbalization
techniques prior to, during, and after any use of physical force.
Level 3: Empty Hand Control:
Empty hand control is generally used to counter a weaponless suspect's passive or active
resistance to an officer's verbal commands. Firm grip and control techniques were
designed to safely initiate physical contact and gain control of an uncooperative suspect.
When verbalization proves ineffective, a firm grip may be all that is necessary to
overcome resistance. If the use of a firm grip is unsuccessful, an officer may decide to
utilize a control technique as a restraint or come-a-long hold.
When the suspect's physical actions become actively resistant to a point which prevents
the officer from gaining control or effecting an arrest, more aggressive countermeasures
may become necessary. At this level of force, these techniques consist of:
• avoidance,
• blocks,
• empty hand control holds such as: wrist lock, twist lock, finger flex, arm bar and
escort position,
• pressure points,
• controlled take downs such as: leg sweep, hip throw, front leg wrap, front and rear
take downs, figure four and wrist turn-out,
• and ground tactics (using the officer’s body weight and/or any combination of
empty hand control holds to control the subject),
and are designed to create a temporary dysfunction of the suspect and allow the officer
the opportunity to gain the advantage.
Level 4: Chemical Irritant/Electrical Control Devices/Team Take Down/ Carotid
Restraint:
Officers should remain mindful that the use of force options described in Level 4, below,
are described in order of preference where time and circumstances allow the officer to
consider various options. This is based on the affected officer(s) having the time and
ability to weigh the circumstances and avoid direct physical engagement (team take
downs and carotid restraints.) Whenever possible and where practical, officers are
encouraged to employ those techniques that do not require them to directly physically
engage the subject so as to minimize risk to both the officer and the subject.
Object Description
| Title | Policing accountability: an empirical investigation of state-sponsored police reform in Riverside, California |
| Author | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Author email | jagclash@yahoo.com; jgomez@treasurer.ca.gov |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-01 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Restricted until 13 Oct. 2010. |
| Date published | 2010-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Newland, Chester A. Wong, Janelle S. |
| Abstract | The police have the ability to detain, arrest, and use force when necessary. Police accountability is thus of paramount concern to the public. Numerous examples of police misconduct, including cases of excessive force, brutality, and corruption, appear regularly via the news media. These incidents often evidence systemic organizational problems in law enforcement agencies. Scholars have observed that attempts at police reform have placed too much emphasis on individuals behaving badly, rather than on the systemic problems of the police department.; Beginning in the second half of the 1990s, federal and state Attorneys General began employing institutional reform litigation, in the form of consent decrees, to reform law enforcement agencies and enhance police accountability. The consent decrees were crafted to address systemic organizational dysfunction in local police departments. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) conducted most of these reform interventions. However, a notable exception was the settlement agreement between the Attorney General of the State of California and the City of Riverside, California.; There has been little research on the efficacy of these efforts to rehabilitate law enforcement agencies. This analysis is a case study of the effectiveness of the institutional reform intervention by the California Attorney General into the Riverside Police Department (RPD). The detailed examination revealed that the intervention produced constructive changes in the way the RPD conducts its business. The RPD became more professional, effective, transparent and accountable as it implemented the provisions of the consent decree, demonstrating that institutional reform litigation can result in meaningful police reform. The shadow of the law was ever present, encouraging an ethos of cooperation and exerting pressure for meaningful organizational change. The Riverside experience suggests that a facilitative oversight style produces constructive collaboration between the parties, improving the likelihood of durable police reform. Moreover, consent decrees to correct systemic police misconduct should not be the exclusive purview of the USDOJ. State Attorneys General can effectively initiate police reform and in some cases state intervention is a more appropriate alternative. |
| Keyword | institutional reform; police reform; police accountability; state attorney's general; police misconduct; organizational change; consent decrees |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Riverside |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Coverage date | 1993/2008 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1664 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Gomez-2358 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume29/etd-Gomez-2358.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 215 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 203 • explaining any actions about to be taken; • allowing a suspect to save face in front of his/her peers; • recognizing a suspect's remarks are not a personal attack against the officer; and • allowing a suspect to retain dignity whenever possible. Officers should attempt to de-escalate confrontations by utilizing verbalization techniques prior to, during, and after any use of physical force. Level 3: Empty Hand Control: Empty hand control is generally used to counter a weaponless suspect's passive or active resistance to an officer's verbal commands. Firm grip and control techniques were designed to safely initiate physical contact and gain control of an uncooperative suspect. When verbalization proves ineffective, a firm grip may be all that is necessary to overcome resistance. If the use of a firm grip is unsuccessful, an officer may decide to utilize a control technique as a restraint or come-a-long hold. When the suspect's physical actions become actively resistant to a point which prevents the officer from gaining control or effecting an arrest, more aggressive countermeasures may become necessary. At this level of force, these techniques consist of: • avoidance, • blocks, • empty hand control holds such as: wrist lock, twist lock, finger flex, arm bar and escort position, • pressure points, • controlled take downs such as: leg sweep, hip throw, front leg wrap, front and rear take downs, figure four and wrist turn-out, • and ground tactics (using the officer’s body weight and/or any combination of empty hand control holds to control the subject), and are designed to create a temporary dysfunction of the suspect and allow the officer the opportunity to gain the advantage. Level 4: Chemical Irritant/Electrical Control Devices/Team Take Down/ Carotid Restraint: Officers should remain mindful that the use of force options described in Level 4, below, are described in order of preference where time and circumstances allow the officer to consider various options. This is based on the affected officer(s) having the time and ability to weigh the circumstances and avoid direct physical engagement (team take downs and carotid restraints.) Whenever possible and where practical, officers are encouraged to employ those techniques that do not require them to directly physically engage the subject so as to minimize risk to both the officer and the subject. |
