Use of force continuum and OODA. "Can I shoot this guy? Legally can I?"

[Recursion]

Last edited Wed Nov 26, 2014, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

So, I just wanted to throw out my perspective from having been in the Marines in Iraq here, at how appallingly inexcusable Wilson's account of the escalation with Brown was (if he's even to be believed).

First I want to throw out two concepts we have in the military. Military work is not police work, but situations like patrolling in a town in Iraq are at least somewhat close to it -- in both cases your goal is to de-escalate a situation whenever possible.

So, the first concept is a "continuum of force". If you're landing on Omaha Beach, you're simply trying to shoot every Wehrmacht soldier you see. But most military operations are not (and honestly have never been, c.f. Massacre, Boston) that cut and dry. There are several models, but our continuum was

Visibility -> Compliance -> Submission -> Non-lethal -> Lethal

Your job as a Marine is to move every interaction you have with a local as far to the left on that continuum as you can.

So, if your simply being visibly present is enough to prevent a problem, just be visibly present. If your verbal order is enough to get "compliance" and prevent a problem, give the order. If a submission hold, lock, or choke will prevent the problem, engage in the hold, lock, or choke. If you cannot safely engage in the hold, lock, or choke, use a non-lethal weapon (for us that usually meant using the rifle as a club). If you cannot safely use a non-lethal weapon, use a lethal weapon. Seems to make sense, right?

Now, to OODA. It's a decisionmaking model from IIRC the air force (it was originally developed for fighter pilots, so obviously it is meant for high-stakes, high-speed decisions, though apparently businesses also use it now).

Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act

Observe the situation. As a practical matter this means keeping control of where you are in comparison to whoever you are observing. (Remember, you win most fights with your feet, by controlling distance -- that's certainly true in fencing and boxing.)

Orient yourself in the situation. Who is a threat/target, and who is not?

Decide. Decide (not "choose" -- big and important difference) on the appropriate engagement.

Act. Engage. Return to step 1 and observe the results. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now that we've all swallowed some jargon, here's why Wilson's story is so damning of him to me. His language was probably crafted by his lawyer to exactly match the law, but the results actually bear out one important slip he made:

I was asking myself, 'Can I shoot this guy? Legally can I?'

No. Wrong. The other person is not in control of the situation. You are. Period. In the military we called that losing the initiative. If that happens, it's your fault.

That is the fundamental idea behind OODA and the continuum: the other person doesn't get to force decisions on you. If they do, you have already lost. Wilson observed and oriented but did not decide, he simply acted. The missing decision stage would depend on whether he actually had heard the dispatch call about Ferguson Wine & Market or not. Let's look at either possibility.

If he had: the Decision is that the appropriate engagement is to treat them as possible violent criminals (all he would have heard was "strongarm robbery", which can mean a lot of things, some of them rather bad). The Action is to call for backup (you don't approach two violent criminals alone), and then go back to Observe: do they keep walking? If so, follow at a distance and continue observing, etc.

If he hadn't: the Decision (and remember, it's a decision, not a "choice&quot might be to issue a citation (Ferguson PD seems fond of that), to continue with your beat, to call for backup because something ticked your cop instinct off, or whatever. But in no case is it to bring the person closer to you in such a way that you can lose control of the situation.

If Wilson had followed the OODA loop (and I guarantee he received training along those lines) we'd all be posting pictures of cats today. Wilson escalated the situation, Wilson lost control of the situation, and Brown paid with his life for Wilson's inability to control he situation and himself.

The internal question Wilson describes also fails on the continuum. Presence clearly failed, as did compliance. Next step is submission. Could he have safely engaged in submission? Yes: he was in the car, Brown was outside of it. His feet were clear. Cars have accelerators. Lock Brown's arm (I guarantee he knows how to this), hit the accelerator, release Brown's arm. Submission achieved, distance controlled again (remember, that's always the first step because it's crucial for observation, to go back to OODA), and with a minimum level of force.

Furthermore, he had two non-lethal alternatives (in addition to the car): his mace, and his baton. His claim is that the ergonomics didn't let him draw either one. Fair enough. Decide: the correct engagement is to gain distance until I can deploy my non-lethal weapons. Again: lock the arm, hit the accelerator, release the arm, deploy non-lethals. And furthermore, he definitely could deploy them once he was out of the car -- having been at "lethal" 10 seconds ago does not mean you are at "lethal" now.

Maybe the Pentagon needs to spend its time training cops on how to behave the way a lance corporal right out of boot manages to do, rather than giving them armored personnel carriers...

(Finally, hat tip to sarisataka for putting me back in the OODA mindset on an earlier thread.)

[Hoyt]

1. Good post. Problem is too many focus on the "when can I shoot," rather what is a better alternative.

On the other website, you'll be branded a wuss for suggesting Wilson could have used a baton, waited for backup, stepped aside and let Wilson fall from his wounds before firing the 12th shot into his head, or anything similar.

[Recursion]

2. Yep. And actually I am forgetting the number of witnesses, which would have been to Wilson's favor

If 60 people were milling around, Wilson gave up the absolute advantage that visibility gave him. I know cops aren't that popular in Ferguson, but two teenagers beating a uniformed cop would cross the line for just about anybody.

Now that I think of it that way (and a cop should always keep in mind how many people are around), the obvious Decision seems to be to control the distance by stepping out of the car and visibly appearing in uniform, telling the two to stop.

Patrolling takes absolute self-confidence, and Wilson's testimony and interview show me he lacks anything approaching that. That mindset of "what can I do in response to the other guy" would have been a non-starter in the Corps...

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

3. Best post I've seen on Wilson's imprudence, and there have been some good ones.

Wilson had options besides taking the life of a young man. He chose to kill when he could have decided to handle the situation in a non-lethal manner.

[bluesbassman]

4. Excellent commentary on this curious statement from Wilson.

What bothers me about it is that if he truly was in "fear for his life" from a demon possessed, grunting Brown, why in the world would he have given a millisecond's thought to the "legality" of having to use lethal force to defend himself?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. I took "can I legally shoot this guy?" as that magic moment that DEFINES premeditation.

[Recursion]

6. Legally that's far too short for premeditation, I'm afraid

Premeditation means he would have had to have been planning to kill before he even saw Johnson & Brown. (In most cases it means he would have specifically had to be planning to kill Brown before he saw them.) That's why Murder 1 convictions are so rare.

I think the legal term you're looking for is malice aforethought, which is different from premeditation. Malice aforethought means he was deliberately intending to kill Brown with no extenuating reason when he fired the shots. If you can prove that, that's Murder 2.

My personal reading of what I've seen so far gets me voluntary manslaughter, meaning he killed in hot blood but with depraved disregard for the situation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. You don't have to "set out that morning to kill" as I've seen others phrase it....

Between the thought and the act can be a split second.

Wilson's interviews are a string of lies.

[Spazito]

35. Premeditation doesn't "had to have been planning to kill before he even saw..."

Here is what Deliberation and Premeditation requires:

"Deliberation and Premeditation

Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. While this can happen very quickly, deliberation and premeditation must occur before, and not at the same time as, the act of killing."

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-overview.html#sthash.sUpPWZkh.dpuf

Wilson's 'second guessing' with his ""Can I shoot this guy? Legally can I?" could well meet the requirements iterated above.

[pinboy3niner]

7. Wilson said what he heard in the radio call was "stealing in progress"

When he was interviewed by St. Louis County PD the day after the shooting, he said he heard the call just before his encounter with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html

It's not clear to me at what point Wilson may have made the connection between the radio report and Brown and Johnson, but in any case Wilson does not seem to have been on the alert for "strongarm robbers." And his initial encounter with Brown and Johnson was about walking in the street, not the cigarillo incident.

[Recursion]

9. Of OODA, computers can do O, O, and A. D is what only humans can do. Kasparov talked about this

That's how he beat Deep Blue (he actually mentioned the OODA model at one point): he knew computers had no moral capacity. He even said that even an unskilled human competitor could have beaten his position in game 4, but he knew a computer could not. A human would have said "I have to do something -- anything -- to try to counter this guy." And even a moderately-skilled player with some pluck might have salvaged it.

[MrScorpio]

8. Excellent analysis.

You should publish it.

[vanlassie]

10. What's the distinction between "decide" and "choose?"

[Recursion]

11. "Choose" implies a finite number of options

"Decide" allows for the infinite number of options you actually have.

[vanlassie]

14. Hmm. Maybe I'm hair splitting. "...options you actually have"

has a pretty finite ring to it. But "decide" may seem more assertive to some, I guess.

[Recursion]

15. Oh, it's *entirely* about how assertive it sounds. It's a mindset issue.

That's a very good observation. This is entirely about your mindset as an agonist (warrior/fighter/engager in a struggle). If you are looking at your future as "choices" you have lost the initiative.

[vanlassie]

17. OK. Makes sense. I use the word choice and choose

in the context of personal growth. A much different thing!!

Enjoyed reading about your Thanksgiving menu, BTW. Enjoy!

[sarisataka]

34. Your discussion with Recursion

does is a good explanation of choice vs. decision.

I will illustrate the difference from a personal example (I'm breaking my rule of not talking about combat events so consider yourself special )

Some years back in a Middle Eastern country I was on a night guard duty with one other Marine. Our platoon of 30 was bivouacked in a residential area, a half hour or more from any support. Though considered a"friendly" and "safe" area were carried a full combat load.

In the wee hours past midnight a car drives up the 4 lane road we are next to. A man gets out of the vehicle with an AK and fires a burst into the air.

That is my observation.

I drop into a firing position

I have oriented

My choice is shoot or don't shoot. Decision is the thinking part of the brain controlling the computer-like process and sub-routines of the observe-orient-act.
I know from our time in this area firing in the air is a common celebration. No fire has been directed at us. Given the darkness level he may not even see us.

Assume tactical superiority is my decision

I roll to partial cover and direct my companion to jump on the machine gun that we have ready
That is the action to my decision

We go back to start

Observation- he has ceased firing, may be out of ammo and another person (looks like a woman?) is in the car

Orient-I am in am ready to fire, my companion is on a belt fed machine gun protected by sandbags- we are in the dominant position
Sub routine- His weapon strength- firepower AK shoots a larger round full auto. Weakness accuracy. M-16 strength accuracy at this range I will not miss but I am in his effective range. Weakness I can only shoot three round burst- I change the setting to burst to offset his advantage- at under 30 yards it will not affect my accuracy

Decision- set our ROE and take control (choice is still simply shoot or wait)

Action- give command -if he reloads or points at us open fire; shout in bad Arabic "Drop your weapon"

End result that night is everyone went home safe and we took the next guard shift because our adrenaline was far too high to go to sleep for a couple hours.

I hope this helps explain the difference between choice and decision.

From the time I saw him armed I was legally able to open fire and kill everyone in the car. That does not mean it is my only option, just my maximum limit. I can't find his house and kill his family.

[vanlassie]

36. VERY clear. I have expanded my knowledge for the use of English, and also learned

things I never would have thought about regarding military activity. Thank you.

[Lee-Lee]

12. Your grasp of both use of force and the OODA concept is limited

And it's not your fault- I was trained on both from both the police and military perspective- it's no accident that after I gained police experience I ended up teaching it on the military side.

Use of force continuum is a fluid thing. You use the minimum nessecary to fit the circumstance while minimizing risk to yourself and others. If someone is coming at you with, or using potentially deadly force (and fists can be included) there is no obligation to run through soft voice, raised voice, gentle hands, hard hards, less lethal and then lethal- you jump to the tool that is most likely to work.

If a person is being struck in a manner than could possibly cause death or great bodily harm (note I said could cause, not has caused there is no obligation to let yourself get hurt badly before responding) then a response of potentially deadly force is appropriate. Doesn't mean it's 100% mandated, but that it's justified.

Retreat to go to less lethal is not an option in most cases when an officer is alone- because you have no control over yor assailants actions then. Remember you are judging this from the perspective of a Marine- all yor training and experience has been based upon the fact that you were never alone when you had to employ these techniques. At least a fire team or squad was always there. Using less lethal options is much easier when there is someone by your side with the lethal option ready to go who has your back- it is the same with police work. You never pull out a taser or pepper spray with a violent person when you are without backup, because that means you no longer have your firearm ready to employ. Less lethal options can and often do fail, if they do and you don't have backup covering you with something else you are in trouble.

Sit back and think how different it wod have been if you were on one man patrols.

As for OODA you have forgotten a big thing of your training- what happens when someone "gets inside your loop". If between decide and act they make a move you didn't expect you are off your game. As an officer I never really expected someone to come up to my car and start beating on my, that would throw me out of my loop too. If a person keeps acting in an unpredictable and irrational manner it's hard to stay in your loop because they keep disrupting it. In fact the whole concept of OODA came about from fighter pilots who coined the idea not describing a way to think, but to study how to disrupt and opponents loop. If your training didn't cover that the most important part of the OODA loop and training was learning to disrupt your opponents process than your instructors were half-assed and failed you.

[Recursion]

13. To the second point, I thought about adding that: Brown got inside Wilson's OODA loop

One way or the other, he did.

But Wilson's job was to not let that happen.

I re-iterate my point: you have the car, you control the distance. Should that not always be absolutely first in your mind?

[Lee-Lee]

16. He absolutely got into his loop- but look at it from his point

Wilson had zero reason to suspect this encounter was about to get violent. If you listen to the dispatch audio they reported it as a theft, not a theft with assault (and had it been me the difference in information would have changed how I approached them).

I would wager the SUV was in park when he was first assaulted, as I doubt he would have had presence of mind to put it in park after the shooting and it didn't roll off. So getting it into drive in the midst of defending yourself and attempting to retain control of your weapon with the right hand would not be easy.

The moment an aggressor attempts to get your weapon away from you everything changes. If you lose control of your
weapon... You die. Something like 90% of cops who allow an assailant to gain control of their weapon get shot with it. If someone is trying to get your gun your 100% first priority is to retain that gun and stop them. If someone is trying to take my gun there is no way I am using my right hand to put a car in gear.

[Recursion]

20. Well, this is where Iraq lessons don't apply, I guess

Because we were literally constantly thinking "who can achieve control of the vehicle at this second?", and we based our maneuver (even those of us on foot) on that. Infantry places itself between unidentified personnel and the vehicle.

Honestly, people complain about the militarization of cops, but frankly I think they could do to act a little more like we did.

[JonLP24]

18. Seems Marines go into a lot more detail

RoE briefs in the Army fairly basic -- Show, SHou,t, shove, shoot. If you can shove, you can also shoot. The situations described were fairly hairy but never went into whose in control & alternating non-lethal (we didn't carry mace)

I imagine it varies by MOS.

As far as indictment, here is the relevant parts of the statue


A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only…

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; …

[Recursion]

19. When were you in?

For the Corps AFAIK this only started in '03 or so (I enlisted in '97). I remember learning SSSS in boot.

[JonLP24]

21. 2005 - 2008

It seemed to be based on reacting to what others would do, kinda tricky in that you can't shoot someone for holding a weapon (everyone made that mistake in simulations -- instructor claimed weapons are legal to own in Iraq) they had to move first but you didn't want to be too late to react. The show & shout switched places around early 2007.

It was crazy how different things as far regulations. We're stationed at Arif Jan so CENTCOM orders had no problem reaching us. There was a rule NOT to pull the trigger in the clearing barrel. No problem everywhere I go but there is a rarely visited base between CSC Scania and Kuwait, I went through the clearing per CENTCOM orders then a NCO yells in my ear "You're not going to kill someone in my DFAC!!" .

[Recursion]

22. Oh, wow. Maybe they simplified after my time

they had to move first but you didn't want to be too late to react.

That's the $64K question, isn't it?

And, again, that's OODA. If your ROEs don't let you engage, you must find a way to get inside the other guy's loop.

[JonLP24]

24. I think infantry which you mention above probably goes more into it

I was in transportation and the subject of RoE was relevant when it came to gun trucks. Not my job but the tasks of escorting convoys from A to B probably don't entail a whole lot of trying to get in the other guy's loop. More preventing it.

[aikoaiko]

23. Rules of engagement

I'm not military but I've read descriptions of military talking about rules of engagement in the way that Wilson conveys.

Is that a possible explanation for his reasoning. sometimes military talk about being in ambiguous settings where they are worried about attacks but don't shoot because of rules of engagement, but when a criterion is met in the setting they do.

You would know better than I

[Recursion]

25. Sort of. "ROE" is just a rubric for every factor you take into consideration, really

Frankly, I feel like his language was literally hand-crafted to match the MO deadly-force statute.

[sarisataka]

26. Good summary

As Lee-Lee pointed out it is a bit different from a purely military perspective but there are many parallels. In short a poor decision by Wilson gave up the initiative and everything went downhill.

I can add more when I get to my computer and help illustrate the difference between choice and decision another poster asked about.

[Rex]

28. Good thread and you are so correct, NOBODY thinks that way under distress.

It's like I was taught in the military; if you point a firearm at someone it better be to kill them...no other reason. So here is this cop saying he is trying to decide if he should shoot Brown or not - all the while having an ASP and a taser at his disposal. All he had to do was reach under his butt (with his free arm) and pull out the ASP and unload it into Browns face...that alone might have killed him. Without a doubt, it would have stopped Brown in his tracks one way or the other. A gun...just seems like total overkill imo. Wilson debating if he should shoot Brown makes me question why he even gave it a second thought. Sounds completely made up for the GJ.

[librechik]

31. another scenario: Wilson has secretly been hankering to kill one of those irritating

so and sos as long as he's been on the street, getting madder and madder at their impertinence.

Finally he gets an opportunity and has to decide in a split second: Can I get away with KILLING him instead of just stopping him, because a GUN is handy and so much easier and final, and gets a lot of hero worship from the other…let's say cops. KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

KABOOM

Because it took 12 shots to stop him. And don't argue with the number, it was in the testimony as 12, so don't listen to the PuKKKes who are claiming a mere 6 or 7. I'm looking at YOU George Noory!

Brown was a supernatural force. He was demonic and wouldn't die. Thank Goodness Wilson was there to blow him away, him and his magic disappearing cigarillos!



Hey, He got away with it. That was the point, right? He said so!

[Rex]

32. I think he snapped. I think Wilson just lost it.

I think he backed up in great haste, already getting pissed off because the two teens did not comply and get out of the street. I think he stopped too close to them and when he swung the car door open, it hit one of the teen and bounced shut. I think one or both of them laughed about it and then Wilson snapped. He had a folding rod and mace on him, but chose instead to use the gun.

12 times.

[Android3.14]

29. Thanks

I found your post intriguing enough that made a cognate of the "continuum of force" for my journalism class. I also researched OODA and will be attempting to adopt the method in my business plannong and practice.

I recommend folks do some research on this, as your OP, just scratches the surface.

[librechik]

30. Training and body cameras would stop most of this

what do you wanna bet suddenly the NRA and the Repub Congress has no money to help?

[sarisataka]

33. Your analysis of his intial mistake

is spot on. According to his testimony he recognized their description as the "stealing" suspects.

By stopping adjacent to them on the driver's side of his vehicle he
-was approaching two suspected criminals who had just committed a daylight robbery and should be considered potentially violent
-he placed himself in an inferior position, the person outside of the vehicle can control the actions by controlling the door
-being in a seated position he limited his options as to what tools he could access- including his gun.
-he never considered the vehicle as a tool, just what was on his belt
-he immediately fell into fight or flight, acting/reacting to immediate actions. He describes his tunnel vision, lack of awareness of surroundings (but incongruously can accurately describe the cars parked on the street), hyper-focus etc. Mr. Brown's companion completely fell from his awareness.

The choice to chase Brown, fleeing and wounded, without back up shows that decision making was totally lost.

Such mistakes are unacceptable as they lead to people dying.