|
|
| IN RESPONSE TO: “Verbal and Non-verbal Indicators to Assault” |
| By Jeffrey A. Schwartz |
| Published: 04/27/2009 |
Tracy Barnhart’s Article, “Verbal and non-verbal indicators to assault (Corrections.com, 04/27/09) makes some excellent points about potential and actual use of force situations and also offers important general perspectives on those situations. For example, Mr. Barnhart stresses the need to remain professional and to avoid personal vendettas and bias toward individual inmates, which are basic but fundamentally important principles. Unfortunately, Mr. Barnhart’s article is also dramatically wrong in some regards and this note is intended to highlight those issues. First, Mr. Barnhart cast the interactions between correctional staff and inmates as a game (“Think of the interaction as a game....it is your job during this game....”.) Using “inmate games” as a metaphor for inmate manipulation is common enough but considering staff-inmate interactions as a game is a disservice to correctional staff. Individual interactions may be light hearted or casual or very funny but in general staff-inmate interactions are a serious professional concern and should be regarded as such.
I applaud Mr. Barnhart’s attempt to specify behavioral indicators of assault or attack but calling them “green light indicators” is another serious problem. That would not be the case if Mr. Barnhart’s meaning was that these indicators signaled that the inmate had a “green light” to attack or assault. However, it is clear from Mr. Barnhart’s discussion that he means these indicators give staff the “green light” to use force. (“If all inmates had a green light indicator above their heads that when activated meant you could immediately utilize force, we would all be better off...”). It is crucial that correctional staff recognize that the presence of one or more of Mr. Barnhart’s indicators may not, and most frequently will not, provide justification for a staff use of force. If staff do not understand this and instead use Mr. Barnhart’s “green light indicators” as justification for force, they may find themselves disciplined, sued or even prosecuted, the very situations Mr. Barnhart decries. Some specifics may be helpful. If Mr. Barnhart’s example of an inmate saying, “I am going to kick your ass!”, is accompanied by the inmate walking toward you rapidly while raising a clinched fist, you do not need to wait until you are punched to use force, take evasive action or try to stop the inmate verbally, or to use some combination of these responses. On the other hand, an individual may have a flushed face, his eyes are glazed over with an empty stare and he then bends over to tighten his shoelaces. If you use force in response to those three of Mr. Barnhart’s “green light indicators”, you are committing assault under color of authority and the consequences may be severe. There are other suggestions in the article that need clarification or correction. The conclusion that the ultimate goal of aggressive statements by inmates, “Is to have you fear them and hold you as their pawn to move and place across the board as they want”, is a gross over-generalization. Some verbally aggressive inmates are angry and hostile, some are as indicated and manipulative and other inmates may be verbally aggressive because of serious mental health disorders. There are other possible explanations, as well. Assuming all verbally aggressive inmates are attempting to manipulate is unrealistic and may lead a staff member into bad decisions. Mr. Barnhart’s emphasis on an officer getting prosecuted, terminated, divorced and the like, even though he or she did the right thing, is not helpful. It is easy to instill fear or anger in line staff but it is but it is not healthy for those officers or for the agency. Certainly, it is possible to do the right thing and act in good faith and still get fired or even prosecuted. However, it is very rare. Also, officers know our system is not perfect in any other area (you are in an auto accident that is the other driver’s fault but he sues and you lose and end up with life-long debts. Possible? Yes, but most unlikely.), so why would they expect this area to be free from mistakes? If, as Mr. Barnhart asserts, correctional officers have no “clear cut explained definitions” of terms such as “reasonable,” “excessive” and “liability,” then there is an equally clear failure of policy and training in that agency, because such definitions are readily available. Similarly, if frontline officers and supervisors do not get direction and leadership from the administration on use of force issues, that is a serious leadership failure, as Mr. Barnhart suggests, but it is also a failure of policy and training. In some correctional agencies staff do receive excellent direction on use of force through detailed policy, practical training, consistent review and clear management philosophy. Where that is not the case, the good news is that use of force problems are relatively straightforward to fix.[1] The article make an excellent point that dealing with an inmate face-to-face at less than a three foot distance may violate that inmate’s personal space and trigger a “fight or flight” reaction, increasing the inmate’s anxiety and emotional state and increasing the chance of violence. However, dealing with an agitated inmate, whenever possible, should be at a far greater distance than the inmate’s personal space and six or seven feet will be much safer for the officer involved than three feet, just in terms of countering or evading a potential assault. Finally, the article implies that an officer who has used force should, where possible, list some of these “green light indicators” in the report the officer writes. Better advice would be for the officer to write in his or her report the exact details of the inmates behavior that led the officer to use force, whether those details correspond to Mr. Barnhart’s list or not. Paying attention to verbal and non-verbal behaviors of inmates is an important part of the job of correctional staff. Inmate behaviors may indicate potential for imminent assault, but they may be critically important for a variety of other reasons ranging from suicide potential to serious medical distress. In all of these kinds of situations, the priority is on early detection by staff. Without that, there can be no early intervention. In the absence of early detection and early intervention, some of these inmate situations will proceed to tragic results. Jeffrey A. Schwartz is President of LETRA, Inc., a criminal justice training and consulting organization in Campbell, CA. Dr. Schwartz has worked with law enforcement and correctional agencies across the US and Canada for more than 30 years. He has developed use of force policies, use of force training curricula, investigated use of force situations, published articles on the topic and served as an expert witness in a variety of use of force cases. He is also well known for his work on emergency preparedness for correctional institutions, for crisis intervention and conflict resolution training and for corrections-specific management traing. He can be contacted at LETRA, Inc. at: 408-379-9400, or by email at:jasletra@aol.com [1] “Fixing Use of Force Problems”; Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D.; American Jails, in press. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
I am just new to your blog and just spent about 1 hour and 30 minutes lurking and reading. I think I will frequent your blog from now on after going through some of your posts. I will definitely learn a lot from them. Regards - Gerry of
Sorry for this misspelling of Mr. Barnharts name, Dang "b" kept getting in the way on the "n".
I do agree with Mr. Barbhart on this issue. Mr. Schwartz seems to have no true understanding of the line officers role and their reactions to a given situation, except for that which has been writen in a book or obtained to him thru second hand knowledge. Setting on a board dose not make a expert in this field but like Mr. Barbhart said, makes you a armchair quarterback. The way that Mr. Schwartz twist the meanings in the artical is comical. For one, no where does it state in the article, that an officer should use force, based on the observation of any or all of the indicators mentioned. I does imply that the officer should use those actions as a awareness that something might be about to happen. You Mr. schwartz, have been talking to the wrong people about Correctional Officers behavior to aggresive situations...in fact ALL behavior associated with the daily occurances, good or bad that a Correctional Officer faces. Just looking at your resume tells me that you are a man with no dirt on his hands that would indicate a true understanding of term Use of Force, let alone "Fixing Use of Force Problems". [1]"School of Hard Knocks, Lessons Learned"; (Haven't wrote it yet but I live by those lessons.) David R. Jacobs, 10 years Law Enforcement, 15+ years and 9 to go, Correctional Officer, DR&C. State of Ohio.
I almost never reply to comments from my readers but in this instance I will make an exception. I want to first make it known that I am not above reproach and my articles tend to make administrators cringe. But officers who know and I mean individuals who have turned a key and not a pencil claiming to have an intimate knowledge about the corrections career. Jeffrey A. Schwartz I appreciate your comments and it is obvious your are pushing your book dealing with use of force problems but they would have been better taken if your experience was that of an actual officer not a consultant claiming to be knowledgeable and experienced. Your comments seem sharply centered toward our difference of opinion and your need to keep up appearances that you are an actual expert. "Lions for Lambs," is one of my favorite comments that stems from an expression that German soldiers used in referring to their British counterparts during World War One. Admiring the bravery of the English infantry while condemning the idiocy of their superiors, the Germans would remark "Never before have such lions been led by such lambs." The statement above says it all as it relates to the lack luster administrations of the correctional agencies all across the United States. Never before have I seen so many administrators so worried about keeping their managerial positions that it prevents them from actually doing their jobs. So they in turn are open to like mindset views of correctional imposters such as yourself. Our society has allowed the kept to dictate how they are kept and the keepers of the kept have no authority to correct the problems and establish safety and security. “Then what must a king do to save his world when the very laws he has sworn to protect, force him to do nothing?” King Leonidas One of my criteria for being an expert is experience which I don’t feel you have in the arena of force. Experience: In addition to knowledge, an expert needs to have significant experience working with that knowledge. Individuals need to be able to apply their tactics in creative ways, to be able to solve problems that have no pre-existing solutions they can look up to identify problems that nobody else has noticed yet. I have stated that just reading and studying about how to do something only gets you so far. Actually doing it gives you a different perspective on the subject and may lead you to determine that the book is wrong. I would say that at least ten years working hands on in your selected career profession should give you a well rounded base of information knowledge. It is one thing to set with corrections administrators and talk about how to apply force in a sterile setting but yet another to actually have been confronted by the necessity and have the intimate knowledge and ability to formulate rapid solutions. Your comments are way off base.