Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:48:27 EDT From: NCJTC@aol.com Subject: 09/01 - The Use of Force Update To: undisclosed-recipients:;
National Criminal Justice Training Council Knowledge and Skill Through Training
The Use of Force Update
Volume 1, Number 1 September, 2001 Ed Nowicki, Editor
The Use of Force Update is published free of charge by the National Criminal Justice Training Council (NCJTC), and is meant to share relevant information pertaining to the use of force by criminal justice professionals. The information does not necessarily reflect the opinions of NCJTC. Any material contained within this newsletter is brought to the readers in good faith and there is no intent to violate any copyright, trademarks or other laws pertaining to intellectual property. As we have promised, we WILL NOT share anyones e-mail address with anyone. We will honor this promise. The purpose of this newsletter is to benefit and not to hinder the criminal justice community. The opinions of the various contributors, including the columnists, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the NCJTC or its staff. Due to the litigious society that we live in, it is necessary for us to use this disclaimer. Is it a coincidence that there are over one million attorneys and that seventy percent of the worlds attorneys are located in the USA? We think not. Please do not share this information with those that want to make the tough job of law enforcement even tougher. We want to do all that we can to make this the best publication possible. In order to achieve that, we need your feedback so please e-mail me at ed@ncjtc.org and let me know good, bad or ugly. We may not respond to your e-mail due to time constraints, but we will read every e-mail: thats another promise! Weve assembled a great group of columnists who will contribute their columns each month. Were honored to have people of this caliber be a part of The Use of Force Update. The columnists have also included their respective e-mail addresses, so feel free to contact them directly with any feedback. There may be occasional grammatical or typographical errors. We will do our best to reduce these as much as we can. We cannot edit the respective columns nor any articles published for spelling or grammar due to our limited resources, so what you read is what we received for the writers. We also cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information, s keep that in mind. Remember, this is a free publication and we want to make sure that this newsletter has valuable content and is not filled with regurgitated news stories or an overwhelming amount of advertising that is sales oriented rather than information oriented.
Ed-itorially Speaking by Ed Nowicki, Editor - The Use of Force Update
Welcome the first issue of The Use of Force Update, a monthly e-mail newsletter dedicated to use of force issues in law enforcement. Our goal is to share as much information as we can in order to make the tough job of law enforcement better, even if just a bit better. We ask that you use this information to help and not hinder law enforcement. There are too many experts, that are nothing more than legal prostitutes, who will say almost anything to make money. Believe me, Ive faced some of them as an opposing expert witness in court. This material isnt highly classified or top secret, but it is somewhat sensitive, so please use discretio in sharing this information. Most of you are the eyes and ears of the real world of law enforcement, so we need your contributions. As a subscriber, you are also a part of the staff and you have a duty to share your knowledge and information with your brothers and sisters of law enforcement. Please do what you can to share your resources. The more that we all know, the better we all will be. I consider it to be an honor and a serious responsibility as the editor of The Use of Force Update. This publication has the potential to greatly assist you with your personal and professional survival. You may physically survive a use of force incident, but you may also need to survive in the courts, within your agency and psychologically. When I look at use of force, and its implications for a law enforcement officer, I see three priorities. First, you go home the same as when you went to work: alive. Second, you dont go to prison. Third, you keep your job. Naturally, you also respct the rights of all people that you deal with, and you fully comply with relevant case law in your dealings with the public. As you all know, the job of law enforcement is a tough one. In fact, its extremely tough and getting tougher. We need tough people to do this job. Not brutal, but physically, mentally and emotionally tough. You deal with the storms of life when you do your jobs, so you all need to remember that you first need to have the storm, before you see the rainbow. Stay Alert, Informed and Alive. - Ed Nowicki
Columns:
Officer Survival by Dave Grossi Deadly Force by Harvey Hedden You Make the Call by Larry Smith News You Can Use by Tom Moy Force Media Reviews by Joe Truncale The Legal Perspective by Laura Scarry After Force by Jim Smith
Feature Articles:
Use of Force / Issues and Options by Jeff Chudwin
Officer Survival
By Dave Grossi
#1. Legal Survival and Survival Writing
This is the first of a series of articles that will be dealing with "Officer Survival." It is my sincere hope that these short pieces of information might add to your existing database of Officer Safety issues, or to reflect on from time to time during your shift or maybe become a valuable tool for Roll Call Training. Contrary to recent media reports, most police officers use force appropriately. The problem is that most cops don't know how to tell their stories convincingly enough. In the Real Estate profession, there are three important things to remember when comes to selling property: location, location and location. Use of Force experts also have three important realities when it comes to selling your use of force application: documentation, documentation and documentation. Put another way, "if it ain't written down, it didn't happen." It's no longer enough that you BE right on the street, especially in your force applications. You have to explain WHY you were right. Let's deal with "Use of Force and Survival Writing." How your write your Subject Management (Use of Force) Report will dictate what, if anything, happens to you, administratively, civilly or criminally, from your force application. You have to prepare your written statement so that a civilian juror or review board member, most of whom get their law enforcement expertise from viewing "NYPD Blue," "Third Watch," or "Law and Order," can understand why you had to do what you had to do.
Tips for writing winning statements:
First keep in mind that your force application was a reactive process. It was the subject's resistance (by words or conduct) that dictated your level of force response or reaction. The three most important words to remember are: "He forced me." Next, show a progression of the events. "I ordered the subject to stop. He refused. I administered two bursts of pepper spray at the subject and again told him to get back. He continued to advance toward me. I then drew my baton and administered two strikes to his calf area and again told him to get down." Third, forget your ego for a minute. Document your state of mind. If you feared for your life, say so. If you voided your bladder, put it down! You have to portray the sense of fear in very clear terms. Fourth, describe the subject's actions completely. What did he or she do? What did he or she look like? What was their demeanor? Age? Size? Evidence of intoxication? Verbal threats? How hyped up was he or she? Sweating? Level of resistive tension? Number of accomplices? Previous knowledge? Finally, always tell the truth. Don't lend credibility to those talking-head TV attorneys who report that all cops "testi-lie." If you get caught on one little thing, even an innocent mistake or inconsistency, it'll cast doubt on everything else you say.
Stay safe!
Dave Grossi is a retired Police Lieutenant from upstate New York. He now resides in Florida. For 12 years, Dave was the Lead Instructor for the Calibre Press, Inc. Street Survival Seminars. He is a member of the Executive Board of ASLET and testifies frequently as an expert witness in defense of police officers in use of force cases. He can be reached at GrossiDave@aol.com
Deadly Force
by Harvey Hedden
Firearms training has changed remarkably over the past two decades. Today's training encompasses much more than marksmanship in the hope of preparing an officer to survive a deadly force encounter. But what happens after shots are fired is often just as important to the officer's longevity. Faced with too much to cover in too few hours, post shooting survival is relegated to a tertiary priority in law enforcement training. Many instructors feel unprepared to offer such training. Others feel the subject such a small potential audience it is best addressed on an as needed basis. Post shooting survival has been described by Masaad Ayoob of the Lethal Force Institute as an inoculation for the officer, much. Like a flu shot, they may never need it, but if they do they will be better prepared than those who try to treat this situation after the fact. The agencies that gather data for officers involved in shootings, report much higher rates of resignation, poor job performance, health problems and suicide than the rest of the force. After the shooting the officer may not be in a proper mindset to receive new training and information. So although it may on benefit a small target audience, (just like firearms training), we need to prepare all our officers for the possibility of a deadly force encounter. Much of this training has application to other potential traumatic events that will be experienced by a larger number of officers. The first component of post shooting survival is tactical. We must be certain the event is actually over. In their zeal to make contact with the suspect and determine what happened, they become vulnerable to a suspect who has a lot of fight left in him or an accomplice who has not been incapacitated at all. The next component is criminal survival, avoiding being wrongly charged or convicted of a crime. Next is civil survival, protecting yourself and the agency from litigation and damage awards. Professional survival means being able to keep your job and do it as well as you did before the incident. Psychological survival deserves the largest portion of this subject because next to surviving the incident itself, it represents the greatest threat to the life and health of the officer. It is also the only component that may take the most time to be resolved for the officer. No one reacts to such an event the same, but we can learn from the experience of others how to cope and adapt to post traumatic event stress. Failing to prepare officers for such possibilities may incur liabilities and stress for trainers as well.
Stay Safe
Harvey Hedden
Harvey Hedden is a lieutenant with the Kenosha County, Wisconsin Sheriffs Department, who is currently the commander of a multi-jurisdiction drug unit. An active firearms instructor and competitive shooter, Harvey has taught various use of force topics across the nation. Harvey Hedden can be reached HHedden@wi.rr.com
You Make the Call
By Larry Smith
Disclaimer: This scenario could be fictitious or factual and all evaluations of the incident are based solely on the information in print and not based on any hypothetical situations. The conclusion is strictly my opinion.
Incident:
At approximately 2335 hours Bernard Smith was involved in a collision on southbound Interstate 5, south of El Camino. Smith1s vehicle skidded off the roadway and down an embankment. Witness Marlene Johnson saw the accident and witness John Jones was asleep at the time of the accident, but woke up and saw the Smith1s vehicle after it came to rest. Witnesses C. Carter and D. Carter were passengers in the Jones vehicle. The Carters related the same accounting of the accident, as did Johnson. K. Parson came onto the scene soon after the accident occurred. Smith tried to free his vehicle from the ice plant and had a little success. Jones approached the Smith vehicle and ascertained that Smith was not injured. There was an odor of an alcoholic beverage on Smith's breath. Jones verbally identified himself as a deputy sheriff (from another jurisdiction). Jones asked and received Smith1s driver's license. Jones turned off the ignition and removed the keys. Jones told Smith not to move around. Smith continued to move around. Jones told him again not to move, opened his wallet and re-identified himself as a deputy sheriff. Smith had difficulty seeing what Jones was showing him. Smith asked to see what Jones was showing him. Smith saw half of a badge, then asked a moment later to see it again. Jones opened his wallet again and Smith saw half of a badge. Smith continued to look around his car for damage, then sat down. Smith got up and walked toward the rear of his car. As Smith walked to the rear of his car, J. Jones told Smith to sit down or stay seated or similar language. Smith did not respond. Smith told Jones that he wanted to look at the damage to his vehicle. At this time Jones spun Smith around facing him. Smith told Jones that he wanted to look at the damage to his vehicle. As Smith turned around, Jones grabbed him with his hands on Smith1s upper arms. Smith ended up on the ground with Jones on top of him. Smith remembers the movement toward the ground as a yanking or shoving motion. Next Smith felt pain in his left arm. Smith was on his stomach while Jones handcuffed Smith with Smith1s hands behind his back. Smith related that the handcuffs were too tight but that was not the basis of his complaint. Later doctors determined that Smith had a dislocated elbow.
Questions:
Since Jones was off-duty was in appropriate to take police action out of his jurisdiction? Since Jones did not make an arrest, was in appropriate to use force to detain Smith? Was the force that Jones use excessive?
Answer:
In most law enforcement agencies, officers or sheriffs are allowed to take enforcement action when off-duty. Smith was involved in a traffic accident and Jones was right by stopping to see if there was injury. Since DWI seemed to be the cause of the accident, Jones acted appropriately to detain Smith. When Smith started wondering around at the accident scene it was also proper to restrict Smith's movement for his safety and the safety of other vehicular traffic. It appears that the injury sustained by Smith was cause by an accidental fall and was not excessive force. It is my opinion that Jones' actions were within the law.
Larry Smith is a 35 veteran of the San Diego Police Department (CA) and teaches arrest and control tactics nationally and internationally. He is judicially recognized as an expert witness in use of force and police procedure issues. He can be reached at lsmithent@earthlink.com
News You Can Use
by Tom Moy
NOTE: This is a series of information relating to the use of force that was assembled from various sources he country. Officers all over the country are asking themselves, what ever happened to busting the bad guys? Law enforcement is without a doubt one of the toughest professions around. Unlike other professions, one enters into law enforcement knowing the inherent dangers of the job, knowing that we may be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice every time we go to work. What an officer never anticipates is the fact that he or she could go to jail just for doing the job the way they were taught to do it. Imagine if you can trying to explain to your young son or daughter when leaving the house that you may or may not be coming home for a while, because some people have accused you of being a bad guy and they might put you in jail. This was actually a story related to me by an officer accused of second degree murder, just prior to his trial, which by the way resulted in a not guilty. All because you chose to do your job with the tools your employer gave you to use and trained you to use. If you think De-policing is confined to Cincinnati, just watch the nightly newscasts or read the newspaper, the lower crimes rates achieved in the 1990s are slowly inching their way back up, law enforcement officers all over the country are now more afraid doing their jobs not because of the inherent dangers of the jobs, but because of not being politically correct in doing their jobs. Most prosecutors are politically motivated and some are very willing to sacrifice a cops career, freedom and family all in the name of political correctness and for the advancement of their own political agendas, this causes de-policing because law enforcement officers are powerless to fight a prosecutor on any playing field except the voting booth. From sea to shining sea the law enforcement profession is under attack. It's critics, the media, those with an axe to grind and those who stand to profit politically. These critics are well financed and organized. They get their negative messages out in a loud and uncontrolled voice and are given almost Carte Blanche access to the media to say and accuse law enforcement officers of what ever they want. For example in the City of New York the race baiting politics of persons like Al Sharpton and his cast of hundreds have open media access any time they want it. While critics of law enforcement like Sharpton spew their diatribe, who speaks for law enforcement? Who balances the negative spin? The sad fact is that there is only one answer to both of these questions is, "no one." Is it any wonder that De-policing is occurring? Why is it that law enforcement has no loud collective voice that at the very least counteracts the negative spin on our profession? Why is it that our national organizations acquiesce to the negative spins? The International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP), the Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF), the National Sheriff's Association (NSA) and the National Fraternal rder of Police (NFOP), only to name a few, all have national voices, yet all of these organizations for the most point stand silent on the core issues that allow the negative spin to flourish and gain even greater negative momentum against the law enforcement profession. Media professionals are beginning to recognize that the pendulum has swung to far to the left and some of them have begun to assist law enforcement in controlling the negative spin. One such professional is " Rick Rosenthal," a veteran radio and television personality with over thirty years broadcast experience. In his book "Police/Media Relations A Course in Mutual Effectiveness," Rosenthal describes the spin as " The Good, The Bad and The Ugly." The "Good," he portrays as when something good happens in or with your department, such as a successful community program. The "Bad," he portrays as when something bad happens that your department is involved with, like a homicide, a fatal accident or something as equally traumatic. Finally he portrays the "Ugly," as when someone in your department does something bad, or something bad happens as the result of an officer's actions such as an in custody death. In the past the spin on the Ugly has been the primary antagonist that has reared it's ugly head and destroyed the positive images that law enforcement officers all over the country once enjoyed. The most recent phenomenon is to add the negative spin to the bad. Law Enforcement's professional capabilities and expertises are being maligned in a unique, but cold and calculated way to control the outcome of a particular criminal investigations and or cases. Nowhere was this negative spin more apparent and evident than in the O.J. Simpson case. The State's burden of proof is no longer "Guilt beyond and any reasonable doubt" as determined by 12 jurors. It has now evolved into guilt or innocence as projected by the polls of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, USA Today, The Washington Post, The LA Times or the New York Times, plus or minus a three percent margin of error. It is important at this point to define the "Spin," as it pertains to law enforcement. The Spin is defined as: "The reactive critique of the an officer's words, actions or deeds or the words actions and deeds of a group of officers, by a prejudiced third party or parties, who seek to change the meaning of those words, actions or deeds for personal gain or profit." The so called Simpson Defense Dream Team forever changed the jury system in this country not by inventing the spin, but by re-inventing and perfecting it, becoming the masters of the Spin. The Simpson trial forever changed not just the LAPD, but also every law enforcement agency in the country. Law enforcement officers no longer just the fear the Ugly described by Rosenthal, but the Bad he also described. The very fabric of law enforcement being has been successfully attacked, its ability to perform a competent, professional impartial investigation, has been successfully camouflaged behind the news media spin, as spun by those antagonists who seek to gain from media attention. While the integrity of the law enforcement profession lies critically wounded, those wounds are not fatal. Law enforcement must borrow a page right out of the Johnny Cochran playbook; it must take its case to the court of public opinion. While the Cochran playbook calls for a strategy that employs or at the very least utilizes the doctors of the negative spin, Law enforcements playbook must include specific strategies that not only anticipate the negative spin, but also employ proactive counter measure strategies that positively reinforce law enforcement's integrity and enhance it's public image. The negative Spin Doctors have won some battles, law enforcement would be ill advised to retreat and find some safe place to lick it's wounds and recuperate. Wounded or not law enforcement must take the offensive. The strategy cant be De-policing, it must be Re-Policing, After Force strategies must be added to the law enforcement playbook to deal with the aftermath of negative reactions to an officers use of force. The men and women of law enforcement are the domestic defenders of our great country, whether they are wounded in body mind or spirit, they are survivors they are winners!! In the same way that officers have choices in their use of force options, officers have choices in after force options. Next month If it bleeds it leads, Media Brutality at it's Best
Jim Smith is a twenty five year veteran of law enforcement, having served from Cadet, to Chief Of Police. His undergraduate degree concentration is in Management/Communications. He is a graduate of NUTI's EMP session 94-01 and SPI's CODC 9th session. He has trained hundreds of law enforcement officer throughout the country. He is a Charter member of ASLET and of the Illinois Police Instructor Trainer's Association. He is currently is a trainer/consultant in Up State New York he can be reached via e-mail at ethics@dreamscape.com
USE OF FORCE / ISSUES AND OPTIONS
LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF POLICE USE OF FORCE by : Jeff Chudwin Olympia Fields, Il. Police Dept.01
Every block of instruction should be reduced to the salient points of performance, and each soldier should be required to demonstrate his knowledge by ruthless practical examination. Special Men - A LRPS Recollection by Dennis Foley
I believe the following is equally true: Soldiers train and train to someday fight. Police fight and fight to someday train.
When the performance of duty may ultimately cause bodily harm or death to another, an officer must understand the laws, policies, and procedures that will justify his or her actions. Law, policy, and procedure form the basis of "informed judgment" and establish the legal and practical rules of engagement in the application of police officer's use of force.
AN OFFICER CANNOT ALTER LAW OR POLICY WHILE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. WHETHER CHANGED KNOWINGLY OR OUT OF IGNORANCE, DISASTER WILL FOLLOW.
IT IS VITAL THAT OFFICERS HAVE THE ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF ACTIONS THEY MUST NOT TAKE, AS OPPOSED TO ACTIONS THAT ARE PERMITTED.
WHAT AN OFFICER CAN NOT DO, HE MUST NEVER DO. WHAT HE IS ALLOWED TO DO, HE MAY CHOOSE NOT TO DO.
Officers choose not to use deadly force where law and policy clearly justifies such action and often at great danger to themselves. (choices must be made for reasons other than confusion as to what an officer is allowed by law and policy or fear of the aftermath)
There is a distinct difference between the "letter of the law" and the reality of its application. The law sets a standard that requires practical understanding for effective enforcement. An effective use of force training program must distinguish between the "letter of the law", and the reasonable, necessary, and morally appropriate use of force, and further, convey to officers in understandabl terms what is both lawfully justifiable and departmentally acceptable. The two issues are not always the same.
Officers must receive continued training and updates in use of force tactics and procedures. Poor tactics and procedures can lead to the use of deadly force. A "do or die " situation leaves an officer few, if any, options available to counter a perceived deadly threat.
Information is often received out of context. Officers are dispatched to scenes with minimal information. Arriving at the scene during the event or shortly thereafter, Officers face an atmosphere of extreme stress, uncertainty, and confusion. Police must make immediate decisions without complete knowledge of events. OFFICERS ACTIONS MUST BE REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHAT FACTS ARE KNOWN AT THE TIME. (Graham v. Connor) Identification of persons on scene is always a problem. Who is the officer confronting? It may be a hysterical victim or a mentally unstable offender. Absent time to sort through the facts and interview the parties, officers find themselves forced to deal with what they find and take action based on what is known at the time. The law does not require police officers to be absolutely right, only objectively reasonable in their actions. Nevertheless, an officer must live with the result of such action.
Perception of events drives an officer's action. This is the officer's reality of the moment. Where officers arrive on scene, each may have a different perception of the threat level and act according to that belief. Location during an incident affords totally different views of the same events. PRIOR TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, AND MENTAL PREPAREDNESS may bring about a different response from one officer to the next. DEADLY FORCE
The most important area of use of force is the use of deadly force. Officers will draw their handguns where they perceive the possibility of need, but where at that moment, deadly force is clearly not justifiable. OFFICERS MUST BE TAUGHT AND CONSTANTLY RETRAINED TO KEEP THEIR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL THE DECISION TO FIRE IS MADE. It is not only firearms that present a problem. The misuse or unskilled use of impact weapons, chemical devices, or hands-on defensive tactics has caused officers serious problems in the past. Certain basic rules apply to the use of deadly force. Use of force is an individual decision, YOU make the choice and YOU must know what acts are lawfully justifiable.
Officers must not use deadly force: 1. BASED ON MERE SUSPICION. 2. BASED ON WORDS ALONE, NO MATTER HOW ANTAGONISTIC. 3. AGAINST AN ESCAPING, NON-VIOLENT, UNARMED FELONY OFFENDER. (Tennessee. v. Garner)
Use of force must never be directed against any person as punishment or as retaliation. Unlawful actions will subject an officer to departmental sanctions, civil actions at law, and criminal indictment by state and federal authorities.
Maximize training efforts by including the following: 1. Train to verbalize effectively. Verbaliztion is a critical skill that is seldom taught and often ignored. Officers mistakenly believe that they will be able to give clear and concise commands under stress. What is shouted out on the street is often far different. Verbal skills, like any other, must be frequently and correctly practiced under realistic street conditions. What witnesses hear determines in large part what they perceive. Verbal skills properly used, establish credible police action in the minds of those present. Profanity works aganst you.
2. Discuss use of force options and use "what if scenarios" to mentally and physically rehearse actions that would be legally, tactically, and procedurally sound.
3. Establish "rules of engagement" for operations during the planning stage. Consider the offenders history of violence, the nature of the crime charged, and the environment in which the action will take place.
Use of force is not a team event. Every officer must be able to effectively articulate his or her reason for the use of force. Continued training and practice develops confidence that translates into effective and justifiable police action on the street.
Authors note: The above material is a part of a course that I instruct related to police use of force. It is written in short paragraph form. As an eight-hour class, there is much that goes with it in terms of video and written handout materials. If this slim version is of value in the ideas presented, please feel free to refer to it.
Jeff Chudwin is an attorney and chief of police in the south suburbs of Chicago. A former Assistant States Attorney, he instructs courses related to police use of force throughout the state and around the country. A founding member of the Illinois Tactical Officers Association, he is the current president. Any comments can be directed to him at JLCJD@AOL.Com.
2001 NCJTC Training Programs
The National Criminal Justice Training Council (NCJTC) is pleased to announce that four separate law enforcement instructor certification courses, presented by nationally known use of force trainer Ed Nowicki, will be held on October thru December, 2001 at various locations throughout the nation. For further information, please go to www.ncjtc.org These programs are:
#1 - OCAT (Oleoresin Capsicum Aerosol Training) Instructor Certification Course. This one-day course will train participants as instructors in the use of aerosol pepper spray. #2 - TASER Instructor Certification Course. Individuals will be instructed on how to train officers in the use of the Tasertron TASER during one-day of training.
#3 - Handcuffing Instructor Certification Course. Participants will be trained in one-day as instructors of techniques and tactics in using chain link, hinged and disposable handcuffs.
#4 - Use of Force Instructor Certification Course. Attendees will be provided with knowledge and information over two full days in ways to train officers in the Use of Force and how to get judicially qualified as a Use of Force Expert Witness.
Location OCAT Instr. TASER Instr Handcuffing Instr . Use of Force Instr. Pittsburgh, PA Oct 15, 2001 Oct 16, 2001 Oct 17, 2001 Oct 18 & 19, 2001 Chicago, IL Oct 22, 2001 Oct 23, 2001 Oct 24, 2001 Oct 25 & 26, 2001 New Orleans, LA Oct 29, 2001 Oct 30, 2001 Oct 31, 2001 Nov 1 & 2, 2001 Atlanta, GA Nov 5, 2001 Nov 6, 2001 Nov 7, 2001 Nov 8 & 9, 2001 New York, NY Nov 12, 2001 Nov 13, 2001 Nov 14, 2001 Nov 15 & 16, 2001 West Palm Beach, FL Dec 3, 2001 Dec 4, 2001 Dec 5, 2001 Dec 6 & 7, 2001
If youd like to host our training programs, please contact the National Criminal Justice Training Council (NCJTC) by calling 262-279-5735, or e-mail Ed Nowicki at ed@ncjtc.org You and your agency can receive FREE training by hosting our programs.
NCJTC Training Shirt We are offering a beautiful Pique Short-Sleeve Polo Shirt made of combed 100% pre-shrunk cotton. These are cut long and big in the chest and shoulders and are available in Navy Blue with the NCJTC logo and National Criminal Justice Training Council name beautifully embroidered in Gold and Silver over the left breast. These shirts look great! A value at $35, we have these available for only $29.95 each, plus $4.95 shipping. Add just $1 shipping for an additional shirt. Buy 3 or more shirts and shipping is FREE. Sizes are Small to Extra-Large. $2 more for each 2XL to 4XL. Look professional when conducting training or attending training.
New Training Video A newly produced 39-minute law enforcement training video, Use of Force, is available from Performance Dimensions, Inc. for only $29.95 plus $4 shipping. For further information, call 262-279-3850, FAX 262-279-5758. Master or Visa accepted along with department purchase orders.
Thats it for issue #1 of The Use of Force Update. As previously mentioned, we cannot possibly respond to your e-mails, but we will read each one - guaranteed. We actively solicit your suggestions and comments. Good, bad or ugly, please let us know what you think about this first issue. Remember, we DO NOT edit the submissions to us, so the opinions may not necessarily reflect those of the National Criminal Justice Training Council (NCJTC). We also DO NOT edit the composition or spelling of the columns or articles submitted to us, since we do not have the time or the resources. If you have specific comments about any column, please contact the author directly. If your comments are of a general nature, contact Ed Nowicki, editor of The Use of Force Update at ed@ncjtc.org Stay Alert, Informed and Alive! - Ed Nowicki, editor