Understanding the Use of Force: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
Does a person's mental illness affect when and how force can be used?
Although this case affects police officers in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, I feel there is a lot we can learn from this case. It is also something you will be judged by if you are, God forbid, in a self defense shooting.
A recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has brought renewed attention to the use of force by security personnel, particularly in situations involving mentally ill or disturbed individuals. While the case, Hart v. City of Redwood, is focused on law enforcement, the principles it highlights are directly applicable to church security teams. Understanding these legal standards can help your team make better decisions under pressure and ensure they act in ways that protect both themselves and the congregation.
The Case Overview: What Happened?
On December 10, 2018, officers from the City of Redwood responded to a call about a man, Kyle Hart, who was attempting to harm himself with a knife. When the officers arrived, they found Hart holding the knife and standing in his backyard. The situation escalated rapidly: as the officers ordered Hart to drop the knife, he began moving toward them. The officers fired a Taser at Hart, but it was ineffective. When Hart continued to approach them with the knife raised, one officer fired his gun, ultimately killing Hart. A lawsuit was filed by Hart's family, claiming that the officers used excessive force.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling reversed a lower court decision, stating that the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances. This decision provides several key takeaways that church security teams should consider when preparing for their roles.
Key Principles from the Court Decision for Church Security Teams
Reasonableness in the Use of Force
The court's decision was based on the Graham factors, a three-part test that examines the reasonableness of force used by security personnel:
Severity of the Crime: For church security, this means understanding the context of each situation. The severity of the crime or potential threat will determine how much force is appropriate. In this case, Hart was holding a deadly weapon and moving toward the officers, which justified the use of force.
Immediate Threat: The most crucial factor is whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of others. In the case of Hart, his refusal to drop the knife and his advance toward the officers constituted a clear and immediate threat. Church security teams need to assess whether an individual poses a direct danger to the congregation or team members.
Resistance or Flight: If a suspect is actively resisting or attempting to flee, it may justify the use of force. In Hart’s case, his refusal to comply with commands and his aggressive behavior were key in justifying the officers' response.
The ruling underscores the importance of evaluating all these factors together. Church security teams should be prepared to assess threats quickly and accurately, documenting each factor if force is necessary.
Handling Mentally Ill Individuals
A critical aspect of the case was the role of Hart's mental illness. The court made it clear that the mental state of a person does not change the standard for the use of force. For church security teams, this means that while compassion and de-escalation are always preferred, these factors do not eliminate the need to protect the congregation if someone poses an imminent threat.
Churches are places where individuals may seek refuge during crises, including those who are mentally ill. Security teams should be trained to handle these situations with care, but also be aware that if the individual becomes a threat, force may still be required. It is essential to have protocols in place that balance empathy with the safety of all involved.
Issuing Warnings Before Using Force
In the Hart case, the officers did not warn Hart before using deadly force due to the rapid unfolding of events. The court noted that while a warning is preferable, it is only required when feasible. For church security teams, the lesson is to always attempt to issue a clear, verbal warning before escalating to force, but recognize that there are situations where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm.
Evaluating Pre-Action Conduct and Alternatives
The decision also touched on the importance of considering all available options before using force. The court discussed whether the officers could have taken different actions, such as repositioning themselves to create distance from Hart. However, it ultimately ruled that these considerations were not significant enough to change the outcome due to the immediate threat Hart posed.
For church security teams, this means always considering non-lethal options first. It’s important to evaluate the environment, the available resources, and alternative actions that could prevent the need for force. However, the priority remains protecting the congregation and team members from immediate threats.
Practical Steps for Church Security Teams
Regular Training on Use of Force: Your team should regularly train on recognizing and assessing threats using the Graham factors. Simulations and role-playing scenarios can help prepare them to make quick, informed decisions under pressure.
De-Escalation Techniques: Encourage training on de-escalation techniques, such as verbal commands, maintaining distance, and non-lethal options. These skills are vital in diffusing situations without needing to resort to force.
Understanding Legal Standards: While church security teams are not law enforcement, they still operate under specific legal frameworks. Understanding these standards helps ensure that actions taken during an incident are legally defensible.
Clear Protocols and Documentation: Establish clear protocols for documenting incidents where force is used. This should include the reasons for the use of force, the steps taken to de-escalate, and any warnings given. Proper documentation can be crucial if your actions are later scrutinized.
Preparing for Real-World Scenarios
Church security teams are increasingly facing complex and dynamic situations that require split-second decisions. The Hart case provides valuable lessons on the legal and practical considerations of using force. By understanding the principles from this ruling and applying them to your own protocols, you can help ensure your team is prepared to handle any situation with both wisdom and courage.
Conclusion
This recent court decision serves as a reminder that church security teams must balance compassion and empathy with the need to protect their congregation. While the use of force is always a last resort, understanding when it is legally justified and how to approach it correctly is vital for any church safety team. Regular training, clear protocols, and a firm grasp of the relevant legal principles can help you navigate these challenging situations effectively.
Keith, had a security concern just this morning. Significant indications and warnings of a violent attack on a church in my area were expressed via Facebook. The individual visited the church just this last Wednesday evening. All his postings have been removed, but not before sharing with local sheriff and city police. His FB postings are disturbing. His spiritual and mental conditions are suspect. I shared the idea of using your security training with one of the deacons. Although nothing happened in person, there seems to be a trend of distressed persons lashing out in violent ways seeking attention/help.
PLease allow me to mention citizens are looked at as reasonable — sound mind. Ordinary people. Female guardians I’d think would be evaluated based on size and weight of the bad guy. Versus a female training physical strength so on. A citizens concern for others safety, fear, even his or her own. I wouldn’t think courts believe armed citizens whom have never been involved in actual use of force either empty handed or with a weapon. Sure there is training, however, here in my town, Amarillo, I visited a small congregation having no plain clothes security agent. Courts should look at the reasonableness as human error (Murply’s Law) is — it just is. Even if you have excellent knowledge and experience.
We live in volatile times.