Kevin R. Davis > Quotes

“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”
—Confucius”
― Kevin R. Davis, Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement

“Further, these continuums are the mechanical devices which the Supreme Court proscribed against using in the Graham decision. To quote Thomas Petrowski, FBI SAC and attorney (October, 2002; FBI Bulletin), “Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies have adopted training in the guise of a “force continuum,” which is precisely the mechanical application that the Court proscribed…it is inconsistent with the concept of reasonableness. Most use-of-force continua indicate a reflective approach to a menu of force options with the goal of selecting the least intrusive option. While virtually every force continuum provides that such progressing through force options may not be appropriate in all use-of-force situations, the seed of hesitation is inescapably planted. The word continuum implies a sequential approach. The goal of force continua – using the least intrusive means to respond to a threat – simply is not constitutionally required. The law does not require officers to select the minimum force necessary, only a reasonable option.”
― Kevin R. Davis, Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement

“As eminent police psychologist and fellow ILEETA member Dr. Alexis Artwohl, Phd. has stated, “the goal of use of force investigations is: 1) Maximize the thoroughness and accuracy of the investigation while; 2) Minimizing the trauma to the officer and their families. Dr. Artwohl expounds that the investigator is not getting a statement about what really happened but is rather getting a statement of witness “perceptions.” Determining the reality of the case or the facts of the case is based on physical evidence and these witness statements. Witnesses interviewed can be participants – the officer(s) and suspect(s) as well as observers. Their perception-based statements are based on what they: saw, heard, felt, smelled, their beliefs, attitudes, biases and expectations. Of course the more you able to learn about the person the better your ability to ascertain their influence on the person’s statements. “The person may be telling the truth and they may be lying. We define a lie as they are deliberately and consciously telling you something that is different than what is in their head.” Dr. Artwohl states that oftentimes police officers are disciplined based on an investigators “interpretation of their intent.”
― Kevin R. Davis, Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement

“Requiring officers to find and choose the least intrusive alternative would require them to exercise superhuman judgment. Imposing such a requirement would inevitably induce tentativeness by officers, and thus deter police from protecting the public and themselves.”
—Scott v. Heinrich, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals”
― Kevin R. Davis, Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement

“Let us be clear, as John Bostain from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has so adamantly pointed out, force is proactive or preemptive in nature; it is not responsive. We don’t use force for what a suspect has done, we use force to keep a suspect from violently acting, resisting or attacking. For instance, we need not wait for a suspect to attack to use force to control. Waiting for the punch, kick, spit or gunshot to come means that we are behind the reactionary curve and it is entirely possible we will be hit, kicked, spat upon or even shot if we wait. Enough research has been done on response time (the combination of the mental process “reaction time” and “movement time” defined as the start to finish of the responder’s action) to prove that a person with a gun in his hand presents a deadly threat to”
― Kevin R. Davis, Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement