Canadian Use of Force Systems

Law Enforcement - Road Officer

Canadian Use of Force Systems has had the privilege of training with Law Enforcement professionals in Canada, USA, UK, Finland and Norway and has developed numerous training programs geared for operational Road Officer, K9 and Motorcycle Patrol applications. If you represent a Law Enforcement Agency or you are a Law Enforcement Officer requesting personal training and would like more information regarding our programs, please contact us directly. Canadian Federal and Provincial Law Enforcement references are available upon request.

"I would like to express my thanks and recommendation of Robbie Cressman and Canadian Use of Force Systems. Their Control Tactics training program is highly effective and relevant to the needs of the Law Enforcement Patrol Officer. Easy to learn, practical and effective, I would recommend it to any officer looking to add to his personal defensive tactics skill set." Chris Goreski O.P.P.

Should Police Officers continue the use of Tasers? by Robbie Cressman
The use of the Tasers within operational Police work has never been more under scrutiny. Studies on the use and effectiveness of this tool will be the center of much analysis in days to come which will more conclusively provide a picture of the Taser's true track record. Hold on to your hats.

In my opinion the issue is not that there should be significant debate on the need for such a device as the Taser AS a less than lethal force option WHEN high-level force is justified but within the training and parameters around the deployment of such a device.

High-Level Force Scenarios: Our officers need to be protected

Although there are "good and bad apples in every barrel", in every industry, in every sector of human organization... we have phenomenal men and women out there who are doing their best, putting their lives on the line and all the while receiving wages (in my opinion) which do not reflect the level of risk they encounter on a daily basis. They face legal and political scrutiny at every turn which they most often are forced to negotiate at 120 KPH while those that judge their actions can sit at a comfortable table, drinking a coffee almost completely immobile with the luxury of hindsight and years of case law to ponder. Their opponents... criminals who increasingly have less respect for them, the law, the innocent and Canadian values in general that our forefathers bled and died for in 2 major world wars and whom continually receive more rights and the benefit of the doubt in conflict situations.

That's the way that I see it and I have the privilege of working with Officers regularly hearing their concerns, their experiences. Our Officers need options to keep themselves and the public safe. In a high-level force scenario where firearms are warranted a device such as a Taser can bring down a subject without subjecting them to the ultimate threat of a bullet. Is there any risk when using a Taser? Of course there is. There is risk when punching someone in the face. This issue is in stress appropriate training and the application of the device.

When did we start to send the message that if you break the law and put the public at risk that there would not be any potential danger or consequence to the perpetrator? Is it any wonder why Officers are less and less respected on the streets?

It always has been a difficult pill to swallow for me to view how our legal system seems to continually put more and more rights in the hands of the those that are breaking the law. This of course is a massive blanket statement, one that would take pages to qualify here but is accurate. There is no wonder that our Officers are facing increased stress levels even in LOWER level use of force situations. They know that their actions will be heavily judged. To complicate matters budget constraints and lack of available training hours for Officers puts them in a position where they KNOW that they are not receiving a level of training that is satisfying their needed personal confidence levels. When there appear to be less and less consequences for desperate people who have little regard for the law... what other outcome do we expect?

Are the "Brass" to blame?

I do not believe that it is fair to simply blame the higher-ups for all that exists, all of the problems that we
are contending with. Again, there are good and bad in every lot. For those that would turn the other way and not fight for the needs of the average Officer... you are certainly a liability to your organization and industry as a whole. There are however, many who struggle to protect those under them and work diligently to do their best in a difficult situation. The issue very often is budget, training time and programs afforded to Officers. No matter what post a man or woman may fill... the economy, Federal and Provincial powers are very big monsters to contend with. It is a very frustrating battle.

Increased budget and training is needed for the average Officer and a return to solid Open-Hand Self-Protection and Control Skills to assist in short-circuiting the current "perpetual liability cycle" that exists:

Our Officers need more training time in principle based, stress conducive Use of Force options. There needs to be more budget allocated to this end. There is no way around this. They also need to return to COMPETENCY based Self-Protection and Control Open-Hand Use of Force training for lower level force situations.

The Perpetual Liability Cycle:

If an Officer does not receive appropriate training time in effective Open-Hand Use of Force Options they will not possess COMPETENCY which can be reproduced under stress. The Officer will either unconsciously or consciously increase their force level in a purely instinctual self-preservation response or may disengage entirely. Either options is inappropriate. To increase their level of force may not be justified and thus there is an increase in health and safety and legal liability concerns to all involved. If they disengage they may immediately put themselves and others at risk as they provide the opportunity for the subject to increase their level of response or gain an upper hand in conflict. Self-Protection skills are also paramount to the proper application of force to a subject. How can you be expected to control a subject, put cuffs on them... if you have neither the skills nor confidence to be able to defend against such a subject when they resist and return force. Teaching Officers to apply Control Tactics without giving them competency in Self-Protection skills is a recipe for ineffective policing and many of the problems we are experiencing today.

Tasers or No Tasers?

After the dust settles, the statistics are revealed and the politicians have their say direction will be more clearly revealed on the fate of this immediately less than lethal force option. Would the Taser be in use today if it was highly dangerous and killing or seriously injuring every subject it has come in contact with? No? I have been "Tased" before for the sake of training and all officers usually go through the experience to better understand their Use of Force options. I do believe however that better training needs to be afforded Officers to insure that such a device or Use of Force option is used correctly. In the larger picture, Officers MUST be given the chance to develop a competency in Open-Hand Self-Protection and then Control skills to assist in the protection of all involved and the ability for officers to keep physical conflict to the lowest of possible levels.

Female Officers and the current Open-Hand Defensive Tactics Model: Is it working for them?
by Robbie Cressman

There is no question that our world is run or heavily influenced by politics in almost every capacity. There are very good reasons for the most part why what is being trained... is what is being trained ... but the reality appears to be that the biggest influence on the current DT syllabus is issues of legal liability/politics and not necessarily what are the best and most effective options for the Law Enforcement Officer. Such statements could be debated for days on end but the fact is clear that the current Open-Hand DT model is lacking in its ability to instill competency within its officers. If there are any that would take offense to this statement please understand that it is not made from a place of arrogance but from pure observation and from countless direct testimonials from neophyte and seasoned officers both male and female.
If our officers are hitting the streets without competency in this department we have a whole slew of significant problems to contend with, many of which are contributing to both health and safety and legal liability issues that we are facing today. Female officers in this respect are in the most vulnerable position of all.

Although I am the first to say that we have not conducted as extensive research into this subject as is humanly possible (it has become an on-going endeavour) the following facts surface essentially at every turn from both those within the instructional system and from officers who are attempting to integrate what they have been taught into operational police work.

Consistently up to 80% of females within classes at Ontario Police College (OPC) and similar institutions find themselves in remedial sessions. We have found from first hand experience that the many "PW's" (Police Women - a term accepted by some yet shunned by others) find the whole experience both frustrating and often emotionally upsetting. Most often they are told that the techniques they are being taught will work equally as well for them as for their male counterparts yet they find it both very difficult to believe and to make physically work for them.

So who's fault is it? The purpose of this article is NOT to criticize the instructors or staff at these colleges. They are following mandates and directives set from above and we believe that they are in most cases doing the best they can in difficult situations. From their perspective there is continually the challenge of packing all of the training necessary into the time allotments afforded them. It's not an easy job. The wheel spins round and round but the fact is (and I openly challenge anyone to prove differently) that the Open-Hand system currently being taught (although may be meeting the currently political standards) is NOT giving our officers what they need and we see the results of that around us on almost a day to day basis.

Women are generally at a significant physical disadvantage: Spare me the politics
Anyone with field experience is the first to openly identify the fact that women are almost always at a significant physical disadvantage when it comes to close-quarter conflict. For the most part they are physically smaller and do not possess the physical strength of most men. This by no means infers that they are inferior as officers but that they have a limitation in this area which should be compensated for within training and from a legal perspective. There are those that like to downplay or deny this fact. A simple way to identify the weakness in such thought is to ask the question who you would have to be at the bottom of a ladder if your children were upstairs trapped in a burning house... a 5'8, 130 pound female or a 6'4, 250 pound male Firefighter? Case in point. Stuff the politics. Out in the world there are hardcore realities, limits and restrictions that we have to contend with. There are some "desk jockeys" who need to wake-up to this fact.

Open-Hand Self-Protection Skills should be of paramount importance to Female Officers... Control Tactics should be a secondary priority.
As we have stated in various written pieces on this website, Self-Protection training should be the first priority when it comes to open-hand skills NOT control tactics. If the safety of our officers is truly the top priority then it would be reflected in this department. Our very method of assessing Use of Force situations through the analysis of "Impacting Factors and Special Circumstances" dictates that the officer's physical stature vs. that of the subject is a foundational, situational element. This being said since we know that the largest percentage of female officers ARE lesser in physical stature and strength... why is this not reflected openly and physically within Law Enforcement Open-Hand Defensive Tactics training??? Still, for the most part Female Officers are taught the same tactics as to that of their male counterparts and they are told that they will work just as well for them. That is simply not true. The tragedy here is that when "push comes to shove" its the female officer who has to put up the goods in a front-line situation. Female Officers should be given a more solid self-protection skill set base. It is going to be far more difficult for a female officer to jump-in and to control massive, hairy, violent subjects.

Nervous System Control Options: A significant step in the right direction of arming Female Officers with an ability to defend against and control a much larger male subject.
Nervous System Controls have been the subject of much writing and instruction on our behalf. Officers need a principle based system of defending, controlling and applying aggressive open-hand force against larger attackers which can be learned in a short-duration/ high-retention formats. Female officers who have participated in this training have immediately testified to its effectiveness and ease of both learning and training.

For more information on our Nervous System Controls training program and how it can be applied to the training of Female Law Enforcement officers contact us. Our Nervous Systems Controls training DVD can be found on our PRODUCTS page. Email us at info@canadianuseofforce.com