Re-examining the Use of Force Continuum: Why Resistance is Not the Only Driver of Use of Force Decisions

• Author: Kyle McLean,Arif Alikhan,Geoffrey P. Alpert
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10986111211066353
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Police Quarterly

2023, Vol. 26(1) 85–110

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10986111211066353

journals.sagepub.com/home/pqx

Re-examining the Use of

Force Continuum: Why

Resistance is Not the Only

Driver of Use of Force

Decisions

Kyle McLean

1

, Arif Alikhan

2

, and Geoffrey P. Alpert

3

Abstract

Policing research and use of force policies have been guided by the continuum model

for the past several decades. The continuum specif‌ies a relationship between the

amount of resistance a suspect presents and the amount of force that an off‌icer should

use to respond to or overcome a given level of resistance. In this paper, we show that

resistance alone is an insuff‌icient indicator of the necessity and level of force to be used

both conceptually and empirically. We argue for the inclusion of considerations of

perceived threat in the analysis of use of force incidents—both in policy and in re-

search. Our analysis also reiterates the importance of police culture in understanding

use of force decisions.

Keywords

use of force, force continuum, response to resistance

In May and June 2020, massive protests were held across the United States and in other

countries demanding major police reform and defunding or abolishing law enforcement

1

Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

2

Alikhan Insights, LLC, Irvine, CA, USA

3

University of South Carolina and Griff‌ith University

Corresponding Author:

Kyle McLean, Clemson University, Clemson, 139 Brackett Hall, Clemson, SC 29634–1356, USA.

Email: kdmclea@clemson.edu

agencies. While the trigger event was the killing of George Floyd by members of the

Minneapolis Police Department, the larger crisis has been attributed to poor policy-

making and decision-making regarding police-citizen encounters that result in uses of

force. Protestors accurately point out that police departments and their off‌icers break the

social contract they are expected to uphold when policing involves misconduct and

brutality. One of the suggested reforms coming out of the protests involves the policies

suggested by #8cantwait—which include the establishment of a use of force continuum

in every police department. Use of force continua provide off‌icers with a frame work

that authorizes levels of force based on perceived levels of resistance from suspects.

The policies of #8cantwait resonated so strongly that many cities across the country

passed resolutions mandating their police department adopt the policies (see, for

example, Memphis –Poe, 2020; Charlotte –WBTV Web Staff, 2020; and Pittsburgh –

Wadas, 2020). However, what is often lost in this conversation is that many police

departments already have force continua and that use of force incidents that many f‌ind

objectionable are permitted under these policies. For example, in some force continua

an off‌icer who perceives that a subject is actively resisting (or in some cases f‌leeing),

can use physical force or a less-lethal weapon such as a TASER or OC spray in response

to the resistance or f‌light. As a result, the images of off‌icers using high-capacity

streamers to pepper spray protestors as they are backing away is troubling, but may not

be violations of a force continuum or agency policy as the protestors are resisting and

the off‌icers are responding with an “allowable”level of force.

Furthermore, use of force continua inherently rely on the off‌icer ’s subjective

perception of resistance and provide opportunities for off‌icers to deviate from the policy

in deciding which level of force to use (Terrill & Paoline, 2012). Specif‌ically, prior

research has shown that multiple individuals viewing the same incident can perceive

different levels of force and resistance (Hickman et al., 2015) and that a variety of

off‌icer characteristics, such as gender (National Center for Women and Policing, 2002),

age (Crow & Adrion, 2011), and even cultural attitudes (Terrill et al., 2003), can impact

off‌icers’decision-making in a use of force context. Thus, resistance may not provide

objective guidance on if and how much force should be used in a given situation.

We suggest that police departments and their off‌icers move beyond the use of

suspect resistance to justify force and adopt and train threat assessments (in our study,

exemplif‌ied by the concepts of ability, opportunity, and intent) to determine when an

off‌icer should use force (see also McLean et al., 2019). Under this conceptualization,

off‌icers should not use force unless a subject has the ability to harm the off‌icer or

another person, the opportunity to harm the off‌icer or another person, and the intent

1

to

harm the off‌icer or another person (Stoughton et al., 2020). Recall the protest incident

described above where an individual is “actively resisting”and/or f‌leeing, but is not

presenting the ability, opportunity, or intent to harm someone. The subject should not

have force used against them, as there was no objective threat.

Our research examines how off‌icers perceive incidents with citizens and how they

make use of force decisions. Prior to the killing of George Floyd and the subsequent

protests, we administered a survey with an integrated video of an off‌icer–citizen

86 Police Quarterly 26(1)