Previous Post
Next Post

By Bob

Greetings! My name is Bob. Well, actually it isn’t but for the purposes of this submission that’s the name I am going to use. You see, I am employed by a Federal Law Enforcement Agency that is currently circling your house at high altitude in black helicopters working quite hard to keep you safe. I know what you’re thinking: I am the enemy. Hell, sometimes even I think I am the enemy. However, 95% of the time I feel pretty good about what my particular agency does. No job is perfect but we do a pretty good job at staying within our moral, constitutional and regulatory limits. We were engrained at the Academy that we are the guardians of civil rights. My peers and I take that very seriously. The only reason I even allow for a 5% differential is . . .

       – 3% of the time I have to deal with sadistic megalomaniacs who have no business being Agents in the first place. They give all of us a bad name and the armed citizen is right to hate their guts.

        – 1% of the time I am downright uncomfortable with the constitutionality of a technique my Agency utilizes. However, that practice has been blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court, so any internal criticism from an Agent would be about as popular as Alona Tal at a PLO party.

        – The final 1% is when someone in our ranks turns dirty; the ultimate betrayal of trust for which no punishment is too severe.

I digress. The reason why I am writing for the AI today is to discuss a particular topic: Use Of Force (UOF). Specifically, Federal UOF and how it applies to you. I am an instructor for my Agency in this regard so I can give you a few pointers. This is intended as a general guide so that you, the armed citizen,understand exactly how Agents will react to different stimuli.  In theory, this makes both you and the Agents safer.  But before you read on, please read and understand the following disclaimer:

***I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. THIS IS GENERAL INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION SHOULD BE SOUGHT FROM AN ATTORNEY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. DO NOT CONFUSE THIS WITH YOUR STATE OR LOCAL LAWS; WHILE THIS INFORMATION MAY VARY SLIGHTLY FROM AGENCY TO AGENCY, IT HAS NO BEARING ON STATE LAWS NOR DO STATE LAWS HAVE ANY BEARING ON FEDERAL UOF. DO NOT USE THIS AS A BASIS FOR ACTING AGGRESSIVELY WITH A FEDERAL AGENT AS IT WILL MORE THAN LIKELY END BADLY FOR YOU, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.***

To begin, everything we do in terms of UOF is governed by our UOF Continuum. Happily enough, I don’t even have to violate my mystery Agency’s disclosure rules to share it with you! It is readily available on Google. So here it is:

UOF CONT

This model governs every single encounter an Agent has with another human being. While he/she is interacting with you they are also silently placing you somewhere on this continuum. The key thing to remember is that an Agent will only elevate his/her own UOF based on your actions. I’m going to discuss each step of the continuum in layman’s terms.

99% of the time, Agents are interacting with COMPLIANT subjects. This is the level where 99% of regular folks exist. On its face, the title would suggest that doing what you’re told is a prerequisite. It’s a little misleading because you don’t need to BE compliant, necessarily, to still fall into this category. For example, if an Agent simply begins talking to you on the street, that is known as a consensual encounter.

As a citizen that is not under seizure/arrest, you have the right to terminate that consensual encounter at any time and you don’t have to comply at all. If the Agent does not have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, they cannot hold you or give you commands. You can use pejoratives, refuse to speak with him/her or just generally act like a snarkypants. You would still be considered “compliant” under UOF doctrine because you have not crossed any of the lines in the aforementioned continuum. Folks who HAVE been seized or arrested (in this case terry stopped) can also be compliant provided that they are obeying lawful commands and not offering up…

PASSIVE OR ACTIVE RESISTANCE. I will tackle these together as they are similar. Let’s say you’re under an investigative stop. This is a temporary seizure under the law known as a Terry stop. Note: I am trying my best not to make this “A Guide to Seizures,” as I firmly believe that is a whole different can of worms even if the two are connected. Trust me; if you think this piece of writing is long, it would be TWICE as long if I went into a legal rant about seizures. Even with the lengthy departure I just made. Perhaps Ralph would be kind enough to oblige below. Anyway, where were we? You’ve been stopped temporarily. The Agent orders you to exit your vehicle. You refuse, just sitting there. You are now PASSIVELY resistant for the purposes of UOF.

The agent has some limited UOF options available to him/her in order to gain your compliance in this situation. Mostly these include contact controls and pressure points. That’s a nice way of saying he/she can drag you out of the car and make it painful while it happens. So if you’re feeling like HD Thoreau that day (not saying that in a bad way as I am a libertarian myself) and you decide that the Agent does not have the suspicion level required to stop you, then that’s on you. The odds are, however, he/she has more than adequately articulated the legal backing for a Terry stop and you’re coming out of that car. If you just play like a rag doll while the agent removes you, you remain passively resistant. Just for funsies though, let’s say that he/she reaches in and grasps your arm. You pull your arm away, or maybe you remain locked on the steering wheel. You have just become…

ACTIVELY resistant. This could run the gamut from physically resisting being moved (e.g. remaining locked on your steering wheel) to getting out and running around while chanting “can’t catch me!” This is where things start to get interesting, because you’ve just opened up some new options for the Agent to get the situation under control. These options are take-downs, OC spray and the taser. That’s right; every time you saw a video and cried “tyranny!” when a cop OC’d a protester who was locked arm-in-arm with another, it might have been totally cool with his department’s UOF rules. In the event you’re being actively resistant with a Federal Law Enforcement Agent (FLEA), I am here to tell you that it’s Kosher with our UOF doctrine. Run, dance around to avoid getting caught, lock onto a steering wheel, jerk your arm away when the Agent tries to escort you; all of these will qualify you as actively resistant. Don’t tase me bro indeed.

So there you are, out of the car now and running around to prevent the Agent from getting control of you. He finally grabs you and executes a take-down. It hurts. This makes you angry. Angry enough that you continue a trend of poor decision making and you become…

ASSAULTIVE. Pause for a moment, because this is where things get pretty serious. Don’t be mistaken; if you were actively resistant on a Terry stop it’s not a good thing. You CAN be charged for that. Please don’t do it, as you risk injury to yourself and Agent. However, it has been my experience that if you weren’t involved in any criminal activity (the suspicion for which is why you were Terry stopped to in the first place), you’re not going to be charged. At least not at the Federal Level. Even if you were passively resistant, even if you were actively resistant, you’re probably going to be cut loose with nothing more than a few stern words.

That is unless the local PD wants to charge you with some form of disorderly conduct and they probably won’t (be warned if THEY are the ones who pulled you over it will be a different story, as local cops will not put up with shenanigans on a traffic stop). However, if you cross the line into assault there is no going back. You WILL be charged. Federally. Simple assault is merely the Agent’s perceived threat of an impending assault. I.e., you don’t even have to touch the FLEA to be charged with it. Please Google “pre-assault indicators” for more details. Simple assault will land you in prison for one year if you are convicted. If you actually make physical contact with the Agent, it ceases to be simple assault and the penalty becomes eight years.

As with all steps of the UOF continuum, the Agent retains the ability to use all the tools and techniques available to them at lesser levels in an assaultive situation. What they gain is the ability to use strikes and a Collapsible Straight Baton. Please note that a proper strike from a CSB will completely shatter a hand or forearm. So no matter how angry you get, my advice is to just remain calm and polite.

If you truly believe your rights are being violated, you should contact an attorney at once. The Agent is responsible to act in accordance with the constitution and applicable regulations. Hold him/her to that by taking legal action if necessary. However, barring some far-fetched fictional scenario where an Agent is a bona fide wolf in sheepdog’s clothing, if you assault a Federal Agent you are going to get hurt. Then you are going to go to prison. It’s not worth it, so don’t do it.

However, hypothetically you’ve made the choice to be assaultive on this Terry stop. The difference is, in this version of the story you’re WINNING! I know most of you will be shocked… SHOCKED to hear this: not every Agent is a total bad-ass and sometimes everyday folks and criminals are. Perhaps you’ve been taking boxing lessons since you were 12. Maybe Brazilian Jujitsu is your favorite hobby. Maybe the Agent has been throwing down donuts while you’ve been throwing people in Judo. Either way, you’re hypothetically beating the sh*t out of the Agent and loving life. Hurray! There’s only one problem: you’ve decided to die.

Defeat is not an option to the Agent. If you’re beating them to the point where they believe they’re going to lose consciousness, the Agent is going to shoot you until you stop. The Agent has every reason to believe that you’re going to kill them at that point. Unconsciousness = inability to defend one’s self and therefore unconsciousness = death, so the Agent is going to shoot until the threat is stopped. Similarly, if you’re beating him/her to the point where they believe you are going to seriously injure them, the Agent is going to shoot you until you stop. You might have guessed this already, but you’ve crossed over into the realm of DEADLY FORCE.

Furthermore, if you reach for or attempt to use ANY weapon, you will have escalated the situation to deadly force. To give some examples, reaching for, picking up, brandishing or otherwise wielding the following will result in the Agent using deadly force against you:

– A rock (either thrown or wielded as a blunt object)
– A pipe/club
– Anything than can be used as an improvised weapon/weapon of convenience
– Any edged weapon
– Any edged tool
– Anything than can be used as an improvised edged weapon
– Any firearm
– Brass knuckles
– OC/taser
– Pointy sticks

You can use your imagination here. The bottom line is that in this fictional scenario your time is up. The agent has absolutely no responsibility to lay down his life or wellbeing for that of an attacker’s. Nor do they have any duty to retreat. The reins have come off and any tool or technique is fair game to stop the threat you have created. Running you over with a car? Cool. Shooting you? Of course. Stabbing you? A little dramatic but A-okay. Your best course of action at this point is to immediately cease all resistance and drop down into the compliance phase. Immediate compliance will lead to immediate de-escalation by the Agent.

This is, perhaps, the most important UOF lesson of all: the federal continuum is not a step-by-step process. Let’s say that we’re back at the beginning of this scenario, except instead of being passively resistant you immediately exit the vehicle and open fire on the Agent. The Agent isn’t going to try-out each step on the continuum before arriving at deadly force. It would be silly. The continuum is a sliding scale where Agents use tools and techniques to defeat threats at different levels. They will “jump” to different degrees of force as required by the situation at hand. If you’ve been paying attention, you also noticed that the Agent is always authorized to exceed a subject’s level of force by one degree in order to gain control.

UOF is something we oftentimes discuss here on TTAG. It is easy for us to get tunnel vision on the laws which apply to us as armed citizens. However, the rules that govern UOF for Law Enforcement Officers are equally important for us to learn. After all, combined with our actions they will govern the outcome of each and every encounter we have with LEOs throughout our lives. What I have written here is a federal perspective but it probably varies from State to State. A FLEA will not necessarily react the same way as a State Trooper. I suspect troopers will put up with a lot less. There may even be further variations at the county and local levels. Seek-out, learn and understand the UOF doctrine that governs your local police force’s actions. Understanding EXACTLY where you stand when you encounter a LEO is the first step to ensuring your safety.

Stay safe out there,
Bob

Previous Post
Next Post

291 COMMENTS

  1. According to your teaching, they have the authority to kill me even if they are wrong. Your continuum has been used by tyrants for many years to justify illegal actions by authorities. “Just roll over and do everything I tell you and you will be OK.” “Don’t defend yourself or I’ll kill you.” “Don’t defend your rights, or I’ll kill you.” You are not a libertarian, and you certainly aren’t someone I would go to for help. “But, I was just following the instructions of my agency.” You ARE the enemy, even if YOU don’t think so. The British, the Gestapo, and the KGB didn’t think they were the bad guys, either. I call BS. Go peddle your lame excuses somewhere else. I’m not drinking your kool-aid.

    • That’s the first comment I’ve read, and it’s exactly what I think most of the rest will be like.

    • I believe “Bob” was careful to point out that per his perception abut 1% of FLEAs are a$$wipes. The rest are, for the most part, trying to do a good job for the citizens they are sworn to protect. While it’s true that our present government is giving them some pretty unsavory things to enforce, a blanket condemnation of all FLEAs seems a little paranoid.

      • I liked Bob’s message, but I think that his 5% bad assessment was generous.

        As many as half the cops I’ve met have been @ssholes who I wouldn’t trust to guard a fruit stand. And that includes Feds. But I hope it doesn’t include Bob.

        • Funny. . . that’s about the same percentage of @ssholes out of the general public that cops meet.

          Go figure.

        • Maybe so, John in AK, but unlike the cops, the general public doesn’t have a license to kill.

        • Well if most people are a$$holes, then most LEOs will be a$$holes too since they are also people. It is that simple.

      • I am sure that the SS were just doing their job too.

        The FBI has not legal authority in the states of the union except for the counterfeiting which ironically is something that they actively protect. The FBI just defends the big bank counterfeiters.

    • I had the same thoughts.

      Psychologically speaking this is simple a road-map to escalation – it has no middle ground, no diplomacy, no respect for Rights or due process, because its coercion backed by authority – the framework along which any gov’t thug is authorized to submit people to that authority – end of discussion. The second you are on the chart, your only role is to decide at what point you want to submit to that authority. Neither right/wrong, nor Rights/Wrongs enter into it.

      So while I appreciate him taking the time to write it up, its still just insulting to a law-abiding, sovereign citizen of these United States. The best policy is still to minimize or outright avoid any contact with law enforcement personnel. When their job is dealing with criminals, all they see around them are criminals.

      Whether its a simple zero-tolerance school policy or this UOF, the purpose is the same, to remove the critical thinking and the emotional sense of responsibility during the execution of authority.

      • “Funny. . . that’s about the same percentage of @ssholes out of the general public that cops meet. ”

        Only it’s not against the law to be an asshole. Assholes have constitutional RIGHTS, and asshole COPS ought to respect them.

        If you can’t stand assholes, you’re in the wrong line of work. They’ve on the street, and the station house is FULL of them!

        • I was always able to stand @ssholes. Except for the ones who tried to kill me. Rather understanding of me, what?

        • Hold on to your steering wheel when I try to remove you from your vehicle and I will fvck you up. WLP was right. Jack booted thugs.

        • J&D,
          As stated above, only pain compliance techniques such as pressure points are permitted in that situation. Strikes, baton, OC spray, taser; all these things that you indicate would “fvck you up” are totally off limits. Approved pressure points and pain compliance techniques cause no injury to the subject.

          Despite all of the hype, hate, threats, slander, emotion, mischaracterization and misinformation being thrown around in the comment section (not unlike civilian disarmament advocates), UOF is almost always what the non-LEO makes of it. It is a scale of responses, not proactive actions. In those rare cases where a LEO exceeds the level of force appropriate for a given situation, the LEO will likely face termination or jail.

      • US v Bad Elk, the Supreme Court, at one time made the statement that resisting an unlawful arrest, up to and including the death of the officer was our inherient right. The roles have been reversed. You will notice that there is no change in the Constitution addressing the matter, there has been no amendment restricting our Common Law rights, this has been done over time, incrementally and with a goal toward complete subjigation of the citizens.

        We have the courts and the legislatures to thank for this. So don’t be mad at the law enforcement people, take it to the judges and the legislators who sit on their little ivory thrones and look down on the rest of us. We have become cattle because we did not study, learn and exercise our duty to control our employees:

        “We the People are the rightful masters of the legislature and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow those men who pervert it.” Abraham Lincoln

        So if you have issue with the way things are being done, remember that the officers on the streets are doing the job they have been allowed to do, they are not the source of the tyranny. If you are going to act out your resolve and reghtous indignation, take it to those who are lording it over you, that keep you suppressed by their high and mighty attitudes. Remember there is a difference betewwn appeals to authority and reeal authority. The tyrants only have the authroity that the “few and defined” powers have “delegated” to them, Madison’s own words. If they act out side that authority they have no cloak wih which to protect themselves. As Locke would say, whoever uses force without law is doig so without right, all civil bonds are dissolved, we are returned to a state of Nature and everyone has the right to defend themselves agaianst the aggressor.

      • Enforcement is not the same as adjudication. One’s goal during enforcement is not to compromise your rights or self incriminate. Period. There is no, “I don’t think I did anything wrong, so I’m not going to let you arrest me.” That’ s not how it works, in a civil society as well as a police state.

        At trial is when you argue for your defense. No FLEA or LEO is going to debate with a suspect their potential guilt or innocence. They may ask questions pertaining to facts and intent so as to better determine who to arrest and charge. And here’s where you can decide whether you’re better off answering their questions or STFU.

        I don’t see how your rights are necessarily violated. You still have the right to remain silent, the FLEA or LEO still has to have a reasonable articulable suspicion that you’ve committed a crime to detain you, or probable cause to arrest. And they have to inform you of that fact at the time. And if they violate your rights, you can take legal action against them and their agency.

        • The only safe thing to do with any form of LEO is be compliant physically and don’t answer ANY questions beyond being asked if you might want a glass of water or cup of coffee. The ball is in any LEO’s court when interviewing you. They’ve done it hundreds of thousands of times, you are probably being recorded. How many times have you practiced being interviewed without accidentally incriminating yourself in some fashion, even on something un-related to why you were being detained.

          Like a lawyer friend says: If you never had boxed before or even much paid attention to the sport, would you get in the ring with Mike Tyson?

          Don’t fight anybody and STFU from the start.

          The only valid initial thing to say is “Am I being detained or am I free to go?” If you are told you are being detained, that is not a reason to debate or ask about why. At that point you just be physically compliant and as mad as you want to be in your head. Be as curious about the situation as you like. Don’t talk to LEOs. They will try to get you to talk, often in a friendly manner. They aren’t doing it because they are interested in your life or if you’d been fishing at their favorite lake. They are trying to establish a rapport that will allow them to slip into questioning mode. Next thing you know, you are answering questions without a lawyer, and you didn’t even notice until it was too late.

        • I am not an attorney and am in no way involved in law enforcement.
          I believe with all my heart that SomeFellerInTexas is exactly right Silent compliance is the best way to behave in a normal (public) police or alphabet agency interaction. The only words that come out of your mouth should be “am I being detained or am I free to go?” and “I do not consent to any search.”
          Now there are two levels to the logic I am presenting.
          1. You are not currently doing anything illegal and could not realistically be convicted of something based on an inventory of your person and items under your control.
          In this case, fighting against the police is a bad idea because you are actually initiating a level of conflict you may be unable to prevent from escalating due to factors outside your control. A crowd may gather and exacerbate the situation and you may be the victim of a nervous agent’s being too quick on the trigger or with the baton. And let’s not forget the high level of “throwaway” charges that can be levied against you for resisting arrest or “interfering with an officer”. Also a pissed off police officer or agent who is ethically challenged may plant something on you in revenge for your not bowing to his authority.
          2. You are doing something or have something in your possession that the local or federal officials see as illegal.
          In this case acting calm and rational may prevent the officer from figuring out that you are not entirely legal at this point. If you don’t act suspicious it will be more difficult for the LEO to “articulate a valid reason” for detaining you or searching you. There have been searches thrown out and charges dropped after a LEO was found unable to state a probable cause for the stop and search.
          Remember the ten percent rule.
          Ten percent of *any* group of people are generally recognizable as assholes. Ten percent of priests, ten percent of kindergarten teachers, ten percent of FBI agents, and ten percent of police. The corollary to that rule is that if you can’t identify the assholes in the group you are in you are probably a ten percenter.

    • No LE, Federal, State, or local, has the authority to just kill whenever they feel like it. That is reserved for military and other agencies that aren’t strictly law enforcement, and I’m not going to try and sort out rules of engagement or the legitimacy of military action without a declaration of war, or anything else related. I’ll just say I’m not a big fan of drone strikes.

      This whole piece is about the use of force. If you’re driving at the speed limit and you get stopped for speeding, that doesn’t mean you’re justified in trying to kill the officer stopping you. I can’t imagine a lawyer telling you as a client that your best legal bet is to try and punch out or shoot at the cops or the FBI. Most of the time they will tell you to not resist, to not answer questions, and to wait until they get there.

      Read the whole thing again, the amount of force used is almost completely decided by the actions of the person being stopped. Unless you run into one of the sadistic megalomaniacs he mentioned. Even then, ask your lawyer for advice before fighting.

    • No. According to his teaching, they have the authority to kill you if you try by any means to seriously injure or kill one of them or a third party. Even if it turns out that they were wrong at the beginning of the contact, should the level of threat escalate, so will their response.

      He does not say that nothing will happen to them if they are wrong; He simply states that they are not going to let you kill or maim them just so you can prove how wrong they were. That is a job for the courts.

      • It was a nice effort by ‘Bob.’ My personal escalation chart looks quite similar for the “miscreant screwing with me” SOP. However, I note he left off one of the standard levels, just above “Active Resistance,” the well-known “Reaches for his cell phone.”

    • Eight years for even touching a fed….no way. If that were real and it happened to me, bad things would occur upon my release.

      • Obviously that depends on context. Pating a FLEA on the shoulder and saying “howdy” is a lot different than punching him. If you’re agressive with any LEO and you put your hands on them the penalty will be similar. Check your local and state laws to see what applies to you.

    • Well, that escalated quickly! Bob is not bragging about how he can get away with kicking your butt. He is telling you what WILL happen if you choose a certain path. Unlike the Gestapo, where you disappear permanently, as a Federal prisoner/defendant you can avail yourself of an attorney to properly express your opinion that you were unfairly treated by your government. The place to argue innocence, RAS and probable cause is NOT at the time of detainment/arrest. Cops are people too, they do not want to be assaulted, and they have clearly defined rules of engagement. Play nice and use the legal process if necessary. Getting into a scuffle, or worse, with any LEO proves nothing except stupidity and certainly doesn’t make it right.

      • Actually a technical arrest is the stop of your forward progress. Any stop immediately triggers the rights of the citizen. Not allow a citizen to proceed is a seizure and both are subject to the 4th Amendment restrictions. This convienience thing is a fabrication by the courts and enlarged by regulation and errosive of the origional intent. No amendment, no law. There is one method of changing the Constitution and that is by an amendment. It is in and of itself the authority to change, you just have to abide by the authority. The legislatures and the courts count on the law enforcement to do theier dirty work and keep the citizen conditioned and in their place, according to their twisted sense of authority.

        Remember tha ignorance of the law is no excuse, well it goes equally well for those who enforce the law. You have no duty to enforce an unlawful order whether you are a civillian or law enforcement. Inthis light these LEs type are telling you they do not care about the supreme law of the land, they will disregard it and if you rsist them as is your right they will kill you.

        I asked an officer on the witness stand if he know what the perameters were for a lawful search and sizure. The prosecutor stood up and objected and said “he (the officer) is not qualified to know what a lawful search and seizure is”. So who the heel is and is the officer also a citizen and are we not all constrained by the statement that ignorance is not an excuse??? Such is the situation when the survants make themselves the masters… because they are more enlightened I ask….. obviously not.

        Time have certainly changed but human nature has not and we see that the Constitution was written with “timeless princliples” that are representative of human nature and not just a arbitrary collection of words used to subjugate a people. All this sleight of hand and smoke and mirror politics is fit for criminals not statesmen. Those who would grasp at any straw to continue their domination over others by the sheer usae of force deserve no better.

        And lets call a spade a spade here, this is domination by the sheer use of force, there is no reason, there is Marxist operational action. The Marxist activities have been operational since the turn of the century… the last one 1800- 1900. Brandeis and Frankfurter were both devout Comminists and both on the Supreme Court. Just how many have been legislating from the bench since then??? If they want to legislate, they need to resign and run for office. The Constitutionitelf states that legislators shall not be an officer in any other branch of government, Seperation of Powers Doctrine. Why are the violating that??? They are tyrants.

        The Constitution only authorizes a Republican Form of government, Article IV Section 4. You boys in LE need to learn it also. Remember its not the citizen you have to face in the end, although it may very well come to that, it is God, in whatever name you call, that you must answer to. You ahve been given this authority in trust to serve and protect the People, not the self serving politicians. Te passage that states he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword means those who live by the use of force will die by the use of force. You in LE have made you choice to live by the use of force. Lets examine that. Do you think anyone would would obey an order given by you if you did not have a badge, a gun and a radio to summon others to assist you??? So the use of force or the threat of the use of force is all that you have to corece people with. You do not use reason or the law as authorized by the Constitution, as everyone is supposed to know as ignorance is no excuse, or pretty words; you use force or the threat of force. We only have to look at the TV to see how you use it, sudden and violent if people refuse to comply. You folks and you handlers parade it around so everyone can see how force will be used on them if they do not comply with the whims of their supposed servants. If you take an oath to uphold the Constitution you better damned well know what it means or you have no complaints coming. So in light of this how should the rightful masters of the Courts and the Legislature respond if you overstep your bounds.???? Or better yet how do you respond when someone resists your orders, even though they may be unlawful orders??? And remember this, it si the citizen who pays you wage, your insurance your pension and your disability if you are injured in the line of duty, not the politicians. How do you treat us and should we not respond in like kind. The Bible says to cut off the ear of a servant who will not listen. How many of you would be earless now……

      • Do keep in mind that federal cases have like a 98% conviction rate. They will record your conversations with your defense and provide transcripts to the prosecution and do all sorts of other neat things. Form 302’s (the ones on witch the FBI “writes down” what “was said”), just giving agents a place to insert whatever confessions they want, as NO RECORDINGS are allowed. If the eye of mordor falls upon you, you probably might as well just shoot it out while you still can. There is NO RULE OF LAW ANYMORE! And what laws are written (that are actually followed), are tyrannical at best.

    • Resistance is futile. That being said, we will all (agents too) come to the point some day where somebody will say to us “now now Mr. Jones, look at me like that again and I will take another couple of days to change your diaper”.

  2. Sooooo….those LEOs (or whatever they were) in Boston, who pulled people out of their homes, and aimed their weapons at people who were watching from their homes…where in the continuum are those actions to have prompted their actions?

      • I can’t find the link right now, but I read a very snarky blog post by a Boston resident who wanted to make it clear to the world that nobody was dragged, marched, or otherwise forced out of their homes by LE. Seems they were asked in a relatively polite manner to clear out, and the vast majority were happy to do so.

        I wasn’t there, but the people claiming that they were didn’t have a problem with how it happened.

        • Stop that! It’s not FAIR to screw up a perfectly good conspiracy theory with fact.

        • “I read a very snarky blog post by a Boston resident who wanted to make it clear to the world that nobody was dragged…”

          Dude there are videos on YouTube of what was actually happening. You don’t have to take anybody’s word for it. Just listen to the gentle and polite tone of the police asking kindly to “PUT YOUR HANDS UP!!!!”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

        • Lockdown AmeriKa…

          http://battlefieldusa.wordpress.com/good-morning-amerika/

          Anyhow, this is what Bob is conditioning you for: I am a federal LEO. Right or wrong, I am the law. You will accept all manner of indignity by FLEO’s. Your duty, as a non-government mundane, is to take whatever indignity I throw your way. If you look at me mean, or close your fists in fear and anxiety… YOU… just escalated the use of force. It doesn’t matter if I perceive your reaction as nothing more than a reaction to being intimidated. I am lawfully given the authority to escalate further indignities towards you. Remember, it is not your perception that counts, but mine. Right or wrong, whether I am pulling you out of your car or home, breaking your bones, or shooting you… your job, as a mundane, is to TAKE IT… until it stops and you get a chance to get a lawyer… in which case, we will charge you with layers of criminal charges, many of them redundant, with the full knowledge that our DOJ has a 99 percent conviction rate. Your call mundane. Something WILL stick. Feel like resisting now? Even if I am abusing you?

          Face it, what is the percentage of LEO’s who are kicked off the force, versus those who are just given a paid vacation for their misdeeds? And of those who do face prison time, their incarceration is the minimal that a mundane would suffer.

          KNOW YOUR PLACE CITIZENS! Know where you stand in the Caste system!

    • That was the opposite of a “street sweep”; there, they swept everyone INTO the street. Like garbage, like dryer fuzz.

      And those people should have had a ceremony and been given GOOD CONDUCT MEDALS, for being so tolerant of those jack-booted asshats.

        • That should be your default condition, regardless of any specific event. That town’s been a punchline since long before any pressure cookers exploded…

  3. FOAD

    The Federal government has no Constitutional authority for any police power not involving counterfeiting, piracy, or treason.

    Government employees should not have any personal security provided by the tax payers. So disband the Secret Service.

    If you are so damn proud of what you do, post under your real name.

    • There are Federal agencies with much, much broader constitutional powers than what you have mentioned.

      If you don’t know what you are talking about just keep your comments to yourself.

      If you threaten the life of a Federal officer in any credible way you are going to get shot.

    • Actually a great deal of the laws are for the District of Columbia. If you read a lot of the Federal Statutes a state is Pueto Rico or Guam, ie terrotory. By and large the vast network of statutes apply to citizens of those federal areas. They get to use Commercial Law or Statute law there without regard to the Common Law as they have exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Also, Constitutionally they are relegated to holding land for docks, forts, arsenals and other needful buildings. Federal Parks and National Forests are not in the document, but that is just a point of interest….

      I have a degree in the field and served as a clerk for a judge. I have devoted over 30 years to my independant study of thelaws and the origions of the Constitution. Of course I have no Yale or Harvard degree. Since the Communists infiltrated those schools first, I am glad I don’t. I don’t read the modern “interpretation” of the Constitution, I read the Declaration, Elliots Debates of the Constitution from the notes of Madison who was the secretary during the debates, the Federalist Papers and Blackstone’s Commentaries as annotated by St George Tucker.

      THe fact is that if there is no amendment changing the Constitution there is no lawful change and any attempt to do so is usurpation and treason. Not my words but from the Federalist Papers. You can find these in PDF from on the net. Do some word searches and really see the truth. The truth will set you free.

      “My people are destroyed for their lack of knowledge”

      Hosea 4:6

      • Heyoka,
        AMEN…..I found most people without degrees are the smarter ones. The ones who do their research. Thank you.

  4. Rule number 1. The side of the road at 0130 is not the place to argue with a cop. That’s why we have lawyers and judges.

    Rule number 2. Getting physical to ensure that your constitutional rights, as you percieve them, are respected is going to be a life altering experience. If it doesn’t become life ending.

    The law men follow that old rule of gunfighting. They have a gun. And they have lots of friends with guns. You lose.

    • What if it’s in your bedroom, unannounced, at the same time? Submit now and find a sympathetic lawyer later? Take a principled stand no matter what?

      • Bob didn’t advocate a position one way or the other. All he said is what may result. Don’t you want to know?

    • If I lose, I lose. Maybe my children and grandchildren won’t have to. I am a very law abiding person, but I refuse to bow to evil. You make your own decision and I’ll make mine, if it becomes necessary. I was always taught to protect the innocent and resist criminals, but we’re all taught differently.

      • Merit, Robin, at what point did I say to bow to evil or not take a principled stand? My comment was about interacting with a cop on the side of the road and you turn it into a bedroom struggle.

        And I will resist evil and criminals. Of course, I don’t think that all cops are evil or criminal. I don’t know what sort of lifestyle you’re leading when you see a cop and you automatically start thinking of violent resistence.

        • Agreed about the side of the road, but the overarching implication is that you always obey, no matter what happens or how. In light of numerous recent events, the bureaucracy of the federal government is not exactly receiving high marks in the trust with absolute power category these days. My questions were real questions. What do you do?

        • I lead a lawabiding life and have never had a positive interaction with any leo. Thugs and tax collectors is all they are.

        • Merits, fair enough. At what point do you not comply? In my interactions with LEO’s over the years I’ve never had that Hollywood monstrous over the top cop. Twice in my life I’ve had cops point guns at me. Both times the situation ended peacefully and after an explanation from the cop I was okay with the use of the gun. It’s never a good feeling to have a gun pointed at you, but it’s understandable in a few well defined instances.

          When do we not comply? I haven’t seen that moment yet. Hopefully I never will.

        • @Merits, assess the situation and do what you think is required. Which could be anything from standing down to killing everyone you see.

          Nobody can make that decision for you.

        • Merits, when you are confronted with an officer of the government you have only two options. One: You can work within the guidelines of the system. You can obey, and petition for the redress of grievances, you can pursue all the legal and non-violent options open to you. Two: You can reject the system, remove yourself from it’s confines, and through violent means attempt to replace it with one you approve of.

          The thing to be aware of, is that as long as you remain within the system, you retain the option of choosing the other option in the future. But it doesn’t work the other way.

          The moment you step outside the system, you cannot choose to return to the process. You are no longer a citizen of the United States. You do not any longer have legal protection. Your right to take this step is affirmed in the Constitution, but this is where the Constitution ends. There is no more Constitution for you. This is the “Nuclear Option.” You are a traitor now. There is no such thing as “unreasonable search and censure. You do not have any property rights. If you succeed in you endeavor you may set up whatever new system you choose. Until then, you are not within any system.

          This is why, as the Founders said, it is the nature of humanity to endure the system as long as possible. Because as long as you do, the choice of escalation is in your hands, and you can achieve an end short of the destruction of the current system, and the establishment of a new one.

        • jwm, I’m actually a retired Army officer that truly believes in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. I haven’t been in trouble with the law since 1979 and that was an accident (well, I got a ticket for obeying the law but the officer chose to lie in court – does that count?). How many people were attacked who didn’t look like Dorner? Why does a Baptist minister get beaten half to death at an ICE checkpoint? Why does a minister get shot by police because he was talking to criminals? It seems to me that a lot of LEOs have declared war on on average people. When did their safety become more important than yours or mine? I’m sure a lot of Jews in Europe thought along the lines of complying with police, too. When do you take a stand? Only after you are personally beaten or an LEO kills your child? Is it after the SWAT team breaks down your door and shoots your 95 year old grandmother? It is time for all the good LEOs to start arresting the bad ones instead of advising us to get a lawyer. I’m not a dog that allows my owner to beat me. I don’t have a clue where your “bedroom” comment came from.

        • Robin, I was replying to you and Merit. His comment concerned the bedroom. Where do we draw the line? As long as we have a functioning system we work within it.

          You’re retired military. quite a number of our fellow commentors on TTAG consider the military to be as guilty in taking our rights as the cops. Jack booted thugs is one of the discriptions I’ve heard. It’s as untrue and unfair as the claim that all cops are the enemy.

        • jwm,
          I have seen more than a few military officers removed for violating their oath (which includes obeying the law). I supported their removal and I still do. I have seen very few LEOs removed for violating their oaths. The good ones need to start standing up to the bad ones and their bosses before I start trusting them again. I grew up trusting the police and it was really hard to teach my boys otherwise. I trust the LEOs I know personally, but no others. The LEO did lie in court in my case and I reported his lying to the Chief of Police. No action taken. That was the last nail in the coffin of my trust for police.
          A lot of people despise the military without reason or rationale. Most are good, but the leadership tends to discharge the bad. When the police start doing the same, things might change. Once again, when did a LEO’s safety become more important than mine?

    • had a deputy show up a 13 yrs ago to serve a complaint against my ex (then) wife. She was being sued and yes, she was in the wrong. The original process server showed up and wouldn’t leave (and tried to force their way into my house when I opened door) so I grabbed J.E.D (my Jesus Educational Device aka Mr. S&W .357). Suddenly, the process server figured out this lawsuit was not worth a hollow point in the ass. So, anyhow, 3 hrs later, here is this deputy. at my door. I answered it and had JED on my hip. In my house. Process server was standing there near the deputy’s car. cursing. Deputy asks for my ex. I tell him she is not available, even though she is about 5 feet behind me. He puts his hand on the door and pushes slightly. I unbuckle JED. He asks if I intend to shoot him. I ask if he has a warrant. He says no, and I suggest that he reconsider his next move on a warrantless entry . . . or, since I was an officer of the court, he allow me to accept service of process for my ex. He figured that was a wise course and handed me the papers and left.

      Sorry, but I am from Detroit originally. RIP crews always pretend to be one of the alphabet boys and force their way into a home, hoping people don’t resist. if you come into my house with other than a kind word and my permission, you may meet Jesus if I pull out and use JED . . . . . and if I go, I am going in a blaze of glory.

        • all my weapons have names. JED was my first acqusition – nov. 1999 or so. I call it that because if i=I pull it out and point it you, you will yell “Jesus Christ” right before you meet my Lord and Savior in person. 🙂

        • And what specific model s&w device do you use to ‘educate’ these wayward souls into invoking the name of our savior, dear brother?

    • And the lawyers and judges will side with the LEO regardless and you still lose. Only way you might win is if you have concrete proof and the judge doesn’t feel like ignoring it.

  5. Bob,

    Thanks. Truly I mean it, not sarcastic.

    Serious question here looking for a serious reply. Do cops ever consider that loads of bad things can, and do happen, to cops when they use force? Meaning, even if you shoot a suspect, and the shoot is cleared buy IA or whoever, that you could very well end up a desk jocky for the remainder of your career? Do you ever worry about a video of you coing viral? If you maim someone during an encounter don’t you ever worry about the guy (or girl) coming back later and targeting you or your loved ones? Ever worry about using force on someone who is “connected” to powerful people in government or cartels? Etc. Etc. Etc.

    • I’m not Bob, but I can answer your questions from a state level…

      We do consider the consequences of using force. There are lawsuits, internal investigations, and long term psychological effects from using force. The first time I used force, it wasn’t even deadly, but I thought about it for a long time because of the damage I inflicted. Using deadly force has actually been easier for me because my options have been more explicitly clear. I don’t like using force because it can so easily result in someone getting injured, but if I am left with no other options, then I will reluctantly use it.

      As far as shootings, I have never seen or head of any officer ending up as a “desk jockey” after being cleared on a use-of-force, including those that are deadly. As a matter of fact, most of the cases I am familiar with, the law enforcement officer has been back on the street by their next shift.

      Videos are a fact of life – if anything, they mean we are more careful about what we do. Remember that we have our own recording devices also, so our employers don’t need to rely on the public to keep tabs on us, though they are certainly free to do so.

      What Bob said about collapsible batons is entirely correct – they destroy whatever bone you strike, and the damage can be permanent. People get sued over it, but if you are within department policy you have nothing to worry about. As far as someone trying to get even with you, it has happened – I am reminded of a district attorney that was shot at his front door by someone he convicted. The fact of the matter, however, is that almost every criminal is a coward, and some time in jail or prison cures them of the desire to “get even.” I hear the same talk here as I hear on the street – “I’m going to defend myself” or “I will fight tyranny”, etc., but I have yet to encounter someone who doesn’t decide to handle things in the court. There was a comment earlier about taking on the police so that their kids or grand kids don’t have to, but those people should find Randy Weaver and ask him if he would do things differently if he had the chance.

      Bob mentioned non-compliance on a traffic stop. He is completely correct. Disobeying an unlawful order will absolutely result in our using force, and my agency’s policy is clear on that.

      I think Bob’s article is excellent, and it mirrors the way things work for my agency. There is a a lot of outlandish and misinformed opinion regarding use of force on the internet and from some of the people on this website. It would be wise to find out what the facts are, particularly from someone that uses those facts on a daily basis. You may disagree with the constitutionality of those facts, but the bottom line is that the Supreme Court makes the final call, and that is the only opinion that law enforcement is going to follow.

      • To correct one of my statements above-It should be disobeying a “lawful” order, not unlawful.

      • Sure thing, cop, lets ask Randy Weaver about your preciuos rules of engagement. That worked out so well. As I recall the Government LOST IN COURT. I am sure you are wracked by guilt ever day when you go home about the excessive use of force you see daily but do nothing to stop it. Cops don’t rat out other cops, right? The blue wall and all that garbage. You probably don’t care about the USC ,it’s rights and privileges afforded to the common citizen.You have your seniority,and pension to be worried about. I unfortunately have the sorry privilege of having to work with LEOs on a daily basis as a forensic technician and have heard the lies, and seen the abuses wrought by too many LEOs at all levels. Every case I work usually ends with the same BS statement by some idiot cop and his pals, “Play the game, tech, and you will be OK,if not , we know where you live.” Tell me Bystander,where are you and your upstanding cohorts to protect the process? I can tell you where, turning a blind eye. I have sworn out affidavits too many times against dirty cops for tampering with evidence and procedure and NOTHING GETS DONE. Ever. Go ahead and get mad.

        • Chris 45. You admit to being part of a corrupt system where the rules and laws are routinely broken. You have great anger and contempt for the cops you work with. So why are you still working there?

          Is the paycheck and benefits package too good for you? You bring up Bystander’s seniority and pension, what about yours?

          You state that you have the sorry right and privilige to work with these criminals but you haven’t left that corrupt system have you?

        • Chris 45 – As I recall, the government lost the case against Weaver (with the exception of the failure to appear), and they had to pay penalties as well. However, that was not what I was referencing, and it misses the point. I suggest asking Weaver about doing things differently because he would likely tell you that losing his loved ones was not worth it when he could have complied. If he had, his family members would still be alive.

          Where use of force is involved, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that innocent people can get hurt. Weaver found that out the hard way, and others should learn from his mistakes.

        • Bystander,

          The lesson I took away from Ruby Ridge and Waco was that cops, especially federal cops, are rabid dogs, to be avoided when possible and eradicated when necessary. And to teach myself to cease thinking of them as human, so I will not hesitate when that necessary time comes.

      • There was a comment earlier about taking on the police so that their kids or grand kids don’t have to, but those people should find Randy Weaver and ask him if he would do things differently if he had the chance.

        And you have the nerve to think of yourself as an American.

        How I pity you.

    • David,
      Bystander’s response is spot on. A couple of things to add:

      1) The consequences of using force are always on my mind. That is why the best UOF scenario is one where you are able to use no force at all. Smiling, being polite and treating everyone with respect will cut the number of UOF incidents in half, provided you still convey preparedness.

      2) A good shoot will never get you in trouble. If it does, you need to switch agencies/departments.

      3) Any cop who fears being videotaped should take a tactical pause and reevaluate the way they’re doing business.

      4) I have a job to do. If I am disrupting/dismantling a criminal organization to the point where they target me specifically then I’d say I’m doing a really good job. As a rule though, I don’t drop below condition yellow. I was bathrobe-carrying before Robert Farago made it sexy.

  6. At last! We have the answer to Monty Python’s query:” What do we do if someone attacks us with a pointy stick?”.
    Seriously, thanks”Bob”. That was an excellent overview of the force continuum.

  7. I don’t get why Bob is getting his b@lls broken here. All he did was report the facts. I didn’t see him claiming the right to hassle people for no reason. He just tried to tell what happens when situation go sideways. I understand that we don’t like the message, but killing the messenger is stupid.

    Here’s what he said: if you fight an officer, you’re headed for trouble. You may be willing to accept the trouble and turn a minor stop into a kill or be killed situation, but if you’re not, then don’t. Is that so hard to understand?

    I know that you guys are fearsome keyboard commandos, having destroyed many of the walking dead in your video games and all, but don’t you want to know what you’re really up against? Or would you prefer to remain pig-ignorant?

    • Because he seems to think he’s coming from a position of moral authority, when he is in fact the enemy of liberty in America.

      • Jason, I didn’t get the sense that he felt that all LEO activity was moral or superior. I did get the sense that he tries to do the right thing.

      • Or, just maybe he’s the enemy of anarchy. It depends on your perspective, does it not? From my perspective, old Bob holds the moral high ground.

    • Ralph, some folks read into statements of fact to be offended. To add flavor to their day.

      Because obviously bringing no strings or inflection attached information makes you bad if you are a LEO and know what goes on. I figured that out after a couple go rounds.

      Cop=Fascist Pig and that gets trolled. Not a procedure I like but apparently explaining the Continuum by which you can criminally charge a cop if it goes to court is not useful. At all. And Bob should quit his job. Apparently.

      Maybe you don’t get the last laugh for him kicking out your teeth for laughing in his face. Read what Bob said and getting your teeth kicked out for a perjorative is not allowable. So you saw a cop break the law on you and get criminal and civil action openings. But this would require actually reading the post. Not the comments. Not the fact that Bob said “defeat is not an option for the agent.” as the moral. But that Bob wants you to know that there are rules YOU can exploit if things go south. He doesn’t advise any particular course of action. Just what the Continuum says.

      I would like to thank Bob for setting this information out here. It could be vital to someone here some day and is a good reference.

      Or more Getstapo propaganda. Whichever.

      • Rules. Bullshit cool-aide for the masses. From what I’ve seen, Bob’s alleged “rules” are just guidelines for how to phrase the report so as to get away with whatever criminal act the LEO or FLEA committed. I wouldn’t trust a LEO/FLEA – ANY LEO/FLEA – as far as I could shotput a fully loaded Greyhound Bus. So far as I’m concerned, all FLEAs should be treated in a manner consistent with that accorded to the insects that their acronym is spelled like. I am utterly and totally convinced that a rebellion/revolution/insurrection is coming and when (not if) it does everyone wearing the uniform of a LEO or FLEA will convert to targets. Those shiny badges will make very nice aim points, indeed.

  8. Thanks for the article. Very informative.

    I hope all the guys who want to “pile on” understand that whether they agree or not this is reality. Any LEO is always going to ratchet up the level of force until they achieve compliance.

    Don’t be dumb – in this country they aren’t going to “disappear” you. Play nice, take the fifth. Retain the best attorney you can find. Beat them in court.

    There is nothing in this world that is more expensive than paying an attorney to lose. Have a good one.

    • “Don’t be dumb – in this country they aren’t going to “disappear” you for now.”

      There, I fixed it for ya. The NDAA explicitly allows for this. It is becoming increasingly clear that the government that is in place is not the entity that ultimately makes the big decisions. There is a turf war going on between the Pentagon, the NSA, the CIA, and whoever else has a bone in that fight. We’re just all stuck in the middle.

    • While I agree it is probably safer and better to fight in court, a normal person will most likely still lose there. The courts are always on the LEO’s side, they always take their side. Even if the LEO lies the court will take their side. If the LEO was in the wrong the court will most likely take their side. If you somehow have ironclad proof that you are fully 100% in the right, it is still very iffy they will take your side. Lawyers and DAs just agree to the “going rate” plea deals over lunch together to close the case as soon as possible and move to the next case. It’s not like TV where they fight tooth and nail over every case. They don’t care about winning or losing, they care about getting the case closed as quickly as possible and moving on to the next. This is besides the LEO’s friends “convincing” you to drop the case. What has many upset here is that the whole system is designed to be stacked against citizens no matter who is in the right or wrong. While I am glad Bob explained this UOF Continuum, it’s also pretty disheartening as this can be abrused very easily. I understand LEOs need some sort of guideline but how it is set up just makes it seem no matter what, a citizen is just screwed.

      What if the LEO, for whatever reason is the first to escalates and does so wrongly, what do you do? If you resist you are screwed. If you try to take the matter to court later you are probably still screwed. Alot of LEOs still believe testilying isn’t corruption but yet another way to “get the job done.” It is often hard to convict an LEO of following the blue code or other forms of corruption because LEOs are protected by defense of immunity, which is an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens, the second class citizens. There was one study that showed excessive use of force was the crime most commonly shielded by the blue code. Sadly this UOF Continuum only shows if one ever gets caught up in such a situation regardless of guilt, the only thing to do is obey with demands and hope for the best. Sort of like obeying an armed robber hoping he doesn’t kill you anyway. That you can try the courts afterward but will probably just be a waste of one’s time and money (court costs). There is no real happy ending, just a potential for a less sad ending. It is enough to make any non LEO sick.

      • Spot on. Also it cracks me up how all these folks say just go to court and get justice there. As if the folks who have the time and money to do that get harrased by these thugs. They know who they can get away with trampling constitution and who they cant get away with.

      • LEO’s total reliance of the courts must be related to the fact that they rarely lose their arguments in the good old boy’s club, and because they don’t have to spend a dime on lawyers and court fees. For the rest of us, the deck is stacked – and even if we “win” after grueling months or years of weary hearings, we have a new boatload of debt to look forward to. And no, I’ve never been arrested or experienced it for myself, but I’ve known more than one friend that has gone through “the system” on trumped up charges, plagued by corrupt, lying LEO’s & prosecutors. The whole system is befuddled BS. State and federal agents of any kind are not worthy of trust. Avoid them and the corrupt court system like the plague.

        • I contested a traffic ticket once. Watched the cop lie his a$$ off under oath and the judge barely listen to me. I’ve just paid them since. System is stacked against the peasants.

        • Contesting traffic tickets isn’t profitable for the state. You have been properly conditioned to pay on demand and are now in compliance. Not that anyone can blame you. If you keep doing silly things like demanding that you be presumed innocent is bucking the system. Obviously anyone not complying is guilty of something, dontchyaknow. The Holy High and Divine +Supreme Court+ (bless thier holy name) says so, and holy submission is the heart of the law.

          Comply and be at peace. Go and sin no more.

    • I am convinced that there should be a special entrance to every courthouse specifically for all criminal defendants. Over the door should be the following inscription:
      “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

      U.S. prosecutors enjoy a 97% conviction rate. Neither they nor the LEOs and FLEAs who do their dirty work give a tinker’s damn about the rights of their nominal bosses.

  9. Though I don’t like a lot about, I would guess, the FBI’s UOF doctrine. I thank you for taking the time to write this.

  10. Your bullshit is so ingrained you don’t even realize you are refering to us as subjects and not citizens.

  11. Thanks for the information. I am concerned that non-threatening behavior is called compliant. That indicates a kind of attitude that law enforcement takes toward people. Civil would be a better term.

    • I couldn’t agree more. The continuum could do with a level below compliance. It could be defined by a lack of reasonable suspicion, which would alter the interaction and mindset at that level.

      • IF there is lack of reasonable suspicion…what was the reason for the interaction in the first place? The whole LEO/citizen contact, and this continuum is based on the idea that the LEO has reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause to stop you in the first place?

        • Lots of everyday situations. Most commonly, a person who has approached and engaged the FLEA, not the other way around. Other examples could be consensual encounters, speaking to a witness, etc.

          By the way, the continuum is not necessarily based on suspicion. If a random person attacks the FLEA, he/she will respond accordingly. They aren’t going to refrain from self-defense because the person wasn’t suspected of a crime at the time of the attack.

        • I’m partially with you there, and I see what you’re saying. But compliant is complaint…call it civilized, call it whatever you want…same thing…consensual or not…semantics maybe?

          And attacking a cop IS in fact a CRIMINAL ACT, which puts it into the realm of probable cause, which puts it on the force continuum. But I see what you’re saying: if someone attacks me as a citizen I’m going to respond accordingly too, regardless of law or use of force continuum. I’m gonna survive!

        • SOME LEOs will stop you just to do a fishing expedition with you… to see what they can turn up.

  12. “Bob”, I just wanted to thank you for putting this up. I noticed that you’re taking a lot of $#!& for it, but I wanted to let you know that 95% of us appreciate the info.

    • I will add that many police in the US have risked their careers to standup against politicians who have attempted to legislate the 2nd amendment out of existence. Most police know that they could be RIF’ed at any time because of budget cuts or whatever, and they would lose their credentials to carry concealed. trust me, there are a lot of police who support he 2nd amendment.

      • You so funny. Cops are obsessed with their benefits and their pensions. Those come first. Paying lip service to the second amendment is nice. When the SHTF, cops are choosing pensions, not worrying about the peasants and firearms.

      • Now that is a bunch of crap. If that were true, there should have been hundreds of thousands of Policemen standing with gun owners in 1993 and 1994. There should have been NO Policemen willing to be used as props when Klinton signed the Brady Law and the AWB. But they showed up when ordered to and nodded and smiled. They could have said “No, Boss! I ain’t doin’ it!”, but they didn’t.

        Bullshit!

        • As disheartened as I was to see the officers who flanked Clinton when he passed the draconian measures in the 1990’s, I was equally heartened to see the majority of our state’s county sheriffs stand up against the latest round of gun-control laws passed by our Democratically-controlled government. (More details here: http://kdvr.com/2013/05/16/majority-of-colorado-sheriffs-bringing-lawsuit-against-gun-control-laws/). Their federal lawsuit in defense of citizens’ 2A rights has caused them quite a bit of grief in the press and among many of their constituents and could be career-limiting. I know one of these sheriffs personally and he stated that he and the others filing the lawsuit consider it their duty to protect the rights of the citizens of their counties, even if it costs them their jobs.
          On a side note, the Colorado Senate majority leader who told his colleagues to ignore the wishes of their constituents, to not break ranks but vote for the gun control bills has just been given notice that he will be the first lawmaker in Colorado state history to be subject to a recall election (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23486124/organizers-submit-sufficient-signatures-recall-sen-john-morse).

  13. I take it you’re not part of the FBI, which considers a woman holding a baby enough of a threat that their sniper killed Vicki Weaver. Or the ATF, which considered a compound full of unarmed kids brainwashed by religious zealots enough of a threat that they burned Waco to the ground. Or the Secret Service, which routinely arrests people for saying things about the president that I won’t even mention, for fear of arrest. Or the SEC that arrests people for being too successful in the stock market, while ignoring real criminals like Bernie Madoff, because they’re too busy watching porn. Or the IRS that arrests people and steals their property, because they have the temerity to believe in self-ownership. Or the NSA which spies on us in blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. Or the CIA which meddles with the internal politics of foreign countries for its corporatist allies, causing blowback. Maybe you’re from DHS, which considers gun owners, military veterans, Ron Paul supporters, and people who want to follow the constitution potential terrorists.
    I’ve got it! You’re from the agency that polices those agencies, punishing those out of control feds. Oh wait…there is no such agency.

    Read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Unless you investigate counterfeiting at the treasury, fight piracy at the coast guard, or work for INS, your job is a blatant violation of the Constitution.

    As for “keeping us safe”. My risk of getting killed by a private sector criminal is pretty minimal. My risk of getting killed by a foreign invader is effectively zero. But apparently my risk of getting killed by a Fed is high enough that you feel the need to write this article. Yeah, I feel “safe” with you around.

    • They killed those kids at Waco because, in the words of Janet Reno, “babies were being beaten.”

  14. I agree with Ralph all the way. Bob lays it out in Dick and Jane language and it is all common sense. Actions have consequences , be prepared for those consequences and don’t have your head in rectal defilade placed in a situation of having to deal with Fed law enforcement.

  15. You forgot how people should deal with LEO’s when they live in Boston for example and are forced at gun point to exit their home while the unconstitutional LEO’s take over your home temporarily.

    If you work for the gubment you are the enemy. Gubment is out of control and needs to be CRUSHED!!!

    • I’ve heard this line before — but not from anybody in Boston.

      Oh, I know. They’re just sheeple.

      • There was a mislabeled video on YouTube: So now the entire country thinks the Boston PD went all storm-trooper. Clearly Bob’s post was intended to focus on educating people who profess an interest in carrying firearms, not as a doorway to debating the local Bar Association or MC Club on the fine points of reasonable suspicion. I have issues with the manner in which confidential informants are used, and the zealous prosecution of cannabis crime simply because it’s easy, but I have no problem with Bob’s description. In fact it’s a good vanilla description probably of benefit to at least a few comment writers.

  16. Generally, you comply with all requests of LEO, even when they are actually wrong. There is no justification for physical resistance.

    Your sole recourse is a Civil Suit after the fact.

    So unless you are prepared to have a felony conviction or die, dont resist.

    Pick your battles wisely

    • How disrespectful is it to everyone that died for our freedom over the last 300+ years to imply that their life was worth your freedom, but your life isn’t worth being protecting freedom for our children’s children.

      Maybe it’s time to shut off the Kardashian’s, Dave.

    • “Pick your battles wisely”

      Bingo.

      Just because you think you’re in the moral right to resist when an officer asks you questions/to hand over your weapon/step out of the car doesn’t mean you need to. If you feel you’re rights are being violated because the cop asks you to put down your AR15 while he asks you a few questions, sue him later. Getting belligerent isn’t going to solve anything. Being super polite if you haven’t done anything wrong generally will. And if not, you can sue later.

      • There have been innumerable instances over the last decade where legal OCers were harassed. Most complied, filed suit, and accepted hush money to go away, rumored to be around $10,000 – $15,000 per incident. That seems like fair compensation for a few minutes of being inconvenienced and having your rights violated.

  17. I think we are seeing just how far the government, especially at the federal level has lost the trust of it’s citizens. After all the abuses and steamrolling of our rights and liberties, it’s hard to put our faith in “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

    Yet, right now, here in corrupt Illinois, about 20% of our county States Attorneys have stated publicly that they either will not, or the more politically timid among them, probably will not, continue to enforce UUW charges in the state of legal murkiness that currently exists here over concealed carry. And I expect that number to continue to grow.

    I WANT guys in uniforms and squads patrolling my city. I want them to be willing to protect women against abusive spouses. I want them to stop drunk drivers that threaten the safety of my loved ones. I want them to arrest robbers, burglars, and thieves. I’ve done all that. And, yes, my use of force continuum was about the same as outlined. Only difference, my states attorney thought the occasional punch in the mouth was something that cops should just shrug off as part of the job.

    Those of you so hateful against the cops – Are you going to do those things? I’ve gone solo into a hot domestic and rolled on the kitchen floor with the perp, who’d already punched me in the mouth as I crossed the threshold. As I’m trying to cuff him, the same women who greeted me with, “Help, he’s killing me!” is now screaming, “Don’t hurt him!” while hanging from my neck in the company of her three kids. And I’m trying to watch the block of knives on the counter.

    You wanta do it?

    I am a libertarian. But, we need somebody to help enforce the social contract.

    We desperately need to rein ’em in. Clip their wings. Remind them of that whole “To protect and serve” that used to be emblazoned on the side of every squad. Do away with all these laws that make criminals of us all. Do away with all the victimless crime laws. Do away with most of the alphabet agencies.

    But we will always need cops. Cops who are citizens first, not this paramilitary, faceless, formless army that we are learning to loath with every blustering badge heavy bully we see on Youtube. (Tyler, Tx – “We don’t have to follow the law!”) But we need ’em.

    Look at Illinois again. So far about 20% of our States Attorney’s and Sheriffs have chosen to follow the constitution instead of State Law. Look at the CSPOA – Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Sherrifs who voted UNANYMOUSLY not to enforce unconstitutional laws.

    Don’t let your distrust of government and your hatred for the tyrants among them blind you to the fact that there are still some who wear the badge honorably.

    • @Bruce B, well said and clearly heartfelt. The problem is that we can’t tell the good cops from the bad cops. The bad apples have spoiled the whole bunch. So we don’t trust any of them. Can’t.

      • Now, Ralph…take that statement you just made and apply it from the cops standpoint…think about it for a minute. THEY can’t tell us good citizens from the bad ones sometimes either. There are plenty of bad apples out here too, so they don’t trust any of us either. Here we are…

        • No, Killercod, it’s not that easy. I don’t have a badge, a club, a taser, a radio and a thousand friends backing me up. I don’t have the force of law behind me no matter what I do. I sure don’t have a union.

          And when was the last time a “civilian” planted evidence or rammed a plunger handle up a cop’s @ss?

      • 50% of all humans are no damned good, with or without badges. We need a system that works, despite our knowledge of this fact. I think we’re doing pretty well in this country at the front lines. Now in Congress, that’s a different story. And the percentage on K Street is 95.

    • When a cop rolls up on someone, he has no idea if he is a bad guy or good guy. But, spending a lot of time with bad guys many who wish to harm him, he assumes that everyone is bad and many LEO treat everyone as if they are a crook. Which lead to Joe Q Public. The crap that is happening in D.C., the many bad LEO and often PD Administration that allows some LEO to get away with things they should not, the bad LEO has made many look at ALL LEO in a bad light.

      There is an old Italian saying that goes “The good will always suffer because of the bad”

      My comments have been consistent although sometimes with different words — The bad LEO paint all LEO as bad and we have the same issue, we have NO idea whom the good or bad LEO happen to be.

      Add to this, an ever more oppressive government at all levels and LEO are the enforcement arm of the government, the two are seen one in the same. One the oppressor and the other the enforcement arm of the oppressor.

      The problem we have is that many good people remain silent and do not act.

      There is a social contract and right now it is broken. There is too much happening with the government and the many rights it is trying to take away that no one in the government nor in LE can be trusted.

      There are many who trust the government without question, there are some that say, trust and verify, myself, I don’t trust it at all and its actions tell me just how much I should trust it or not.

    • There are no more police. There are only militarized troops that say “protect and serve” but act like “trample and imprison.”

      I serve as my own security – as do other members of my family. The police can stay the f*ck away – we’ve got it covered.

    • “I WANT guys in uniforms and squads patrolling my city. I want them to be willing to protect women against abusive spouses. I want them to stop drunk drivers that threaten the safety of my loved ones. I want them to arrest robbers, burglars, and thieves. I’ve done all that. And, yes, my use of force continuum was about the same as outlined. Only difference, my states attorney thought the occasional punch in the mouth was something that cops should just shrug off as part of the job.

      Those of you so hateful against the cops – Are you going to do those things?….But we will always need cops.”

      Do we now?
      Articles from the Albuquerque 1975 police strike:

      http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00610FA3A5E157493C6AB178CD85F418785F9
      “Rate of Crime Believed Lower In Albuquergue’s Police Strike”

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2506&dat=19750719&id=-JhbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lFENAAAAIBAJ&pg=6096,3643054
      “‘Burglars would rather confront a policeman than irate citizen. A policeman is trained to use restraint. A citizen is not,’ said Captain Tom Chappell.”

      The so called “justice” system in the U.S.A. is not the solution to crime; it is part of the problem. We, the people, don’t need you police nearly as much as you think.

  18. Several weeks ago I drove to a small town near my hometown looking for ammunition. Driving slow looking for the store, trying not to obstruct traffic, just trying to be careful on strange streets, I came to a school with no cars in the lot (it was late in the afternoon), where the streets were kind of confusing. Anyway, as I look to my right I notice a stop sign moving past my door. There were no cars in the cross lanes, thank goodness and only one car on the other side of the street. When I looked in my rear view mirror, you guessed it, the undercover car turned on it’s lights, turned around and pulled me over.
    I follow the normal instructions. Pulled over, put my window down, put both hand on the wheel, and waited. I did have my 9mm with me. A Missouri Highway Patrol officer walked up to my window, looking in, and started talking with me. Asking if I noticed the sign, which I told him I did and explained how I didn’t notice it in time to stop, expecting to get a ticket. We chatted more. He didn’t ask for my license, but did suggest I pay a little more attention to my driving. I even asked him where the gun store was and he told me.
    I was polite, as was he, no ticket was given, found where the gun store was and actually had a nice chat.
    I have received speeding tickets in the past from MO Highway Patrol, but always found the very professional and friendly. Other states have not been as friendly but most (not all) have been very professional. I know a lot of you don’t like law enforcement, but in general, almost all I have ever had dealings with have been professional.

    • It is not a matter of “like” or “not like”. Many of us simply do not trust them and we must be vigilant. They are people, like all people, some are good, some are bad and some are some place in between. The issue is they wield a lot of power that can be easily abused.

      For instance, the state PD in CT continues to fight to prevent citizens from video taping them regardless of past SCOTUS cases. I am told, if I have nothing to hide to cooperate, I say if they are doing nothing wrong, then they should not mind being video taped. I DO NOT TRUST THEM do to the fact they are fighting to stop video tapping.

      Otherwise, off duty, there are several LEO I have met at the range, at competition and at a bar a frequent. Many are fine people, their ability to abuse their authority is what I am always vigilant about.

  19. I wonder how many of the people that are bashing Bob have actually seen LEOs in action other than the few idiot ones on TV and stories on the Internet. I know some LEOs do crappy things, but I have been on many ride-alongs with cops, and I have to say that I am still amazed of how good of a job they did. They took more crap from drunk and drugged up idiots than I would have. One drunk guy was acting so badly that I wanted to kick his ass, and they didn’t even give him a ticket or anything.

    I am not saying every LEO is a saint, but someone has to enforce the rules and the ones I have see have done a pretty good job. As Red Foreman says, “if we didn’t have rules, we would be a bunch of tree climbing crap flingers.”

  20. Bob, thank you for that lesson. It confirms most of what I already assumed, and honestly I don’t disagree with it. To those screaming “traitor”! Here’s the thing, as Bob mentioned 99% of the guys he works with are good guys. In a small percentage of scenarios they are being ordered to do things that don’t sound quite right. I know you’ll all start talking about Nazi’s, but there is a serious difference between doing an unconstitutional house to house searce and turning on the gas in the showers. If anything when it comes to Boston, take it up with the residents that were applauding the police state actions. They’re the one’s that are voting your rights away and they seem happy to be living under martial law to obtain a little temporary security in exchange for their essential liberties. “Bob” and the other personnel there were just doing their job to the best of their ability, and yes, “following orders” may not be an excuse, but again, take it up with Congress and the voters that put them there. I’m pretty sure if the order were to open fire on the civilians rather than simply clear the houses their answer would have been no, at least for 99+% of them.

    In my dealings with police I have always been uber polite. Very infrequently has this not worked well to my advantage. Only once in dozens of stops did the officer cross any lines. In every event I had in fact done something wrong, speeding typically. Most often the encounter ended with a warning. I had friends that would get all tough, they weren’t gonna let “some pig” push them around. They always got really big tickets from “that prick”, or outright ended up spending the night as a guest of the department.

    Consider your own SA and conflict resolution. Police can’t avoid stupid places or stupid people as its their job to interact with those, so their only hope is to avoid stupid things, which pretty much means don’t get shot, an don’t overreact and shoot someone they shouldn’t. They’ve got wives and kids to go home to just like you. They don’t need shit from someone proving a point. Think things aren’t going to go right for you? Pull a videocamera. That’s your best and should be the ONLY defense you use against a member of law enforcement. You’ll get your day in court, the video will be your best witness to the events.

    Are there bad cops, agents, etc? Sure. But almost every one I knew didn’t end up collecting their pensions. John Connolly comes to mind as a very public example. On the local level I knew several, about half ended up doing time for one thing or another and the other half were fired.

    We speak of the day the tyranical government comes for us. It hasn’t happened yet. Could it? Well, we do seem to be headed that way. However, when it actually does come down to confiscation, concetration camps, etc. most of these guys will be the ones standing next to you. We tend to speak of police in the abstract, but consider the one’s you actually know. Are they really evil menaces hell bent on locking up everyone?

    Short version is none of us want to fight the next Civil War. Don’t like the way things are going? Great, me either. The Founders gave us a framework to change that. Call your reps, and even more importantly, talk to people on the other side. Politely! Calling someone an ignorant A$$ hat ends the discussion. You’re not going to chenge their mind tomorrow. Keep up the relationship and slowly work to nudge them to your way of thinking.

      • I grew up in Salem, MA, so my dealings with Police were in Salem, Peabody and Lynn mostly. Cops that certainly had their share of troublemakers to deal with, and I had my moments. That and the random Trooper on the highway. I’m much older now and haven’t done stupid things in stupid places with stupid people in well over a decade…

        I’ve also known quite a few cops on a personal level and still do, especially now, lots of cops are gun guys/gals. They’re all also just peopleto paint them with a single brush is as bad as any other form of categorical thinking.

    • You kind of indirectly addressed the problem. Yeah they are just guys doing a thankless job, the institutions train them to be confrontational and arrogant. Part of the problem lies in the basic lack of training in investigative techniques, and a reliance on tricks to persuade an ignorant public into relinquishing their rights. Part of the problem is us citizens remaining ignorant and allowing it. I am happy for you that the cops where you live are always polite and respectful, I have lived in a lot of places all over this country and have never had a leo treat me with respect or any form of politeness. I am always a yes sir no sir “subject” but I do know my rights and that alone provokes individuals to anger because they are not trained to deal with it.

    • “I’m pretty sure if the order were to open fire on the civilians rather than simply clear the houses their answer would have been no, at least for 99+% of them.”

      Tell that to the Branch Davidians…

    • I’m pretty sure if the order were to open fire on the civilians rather than simply clear the houses their answer would have been no, at least for 99+% of them.

      LOL

  21. FYI, please do not consult an attorney about use of force. None of us have any freaking clue what we are talking about. Yeah, we’re good at bs, but seriously, we know nothing. Not even Ralph. (No offense, Ralph.) If an attorney advises you what to do, run. Even the most hard core criminal defense attorney is guessing. (But, I can draw up a really good employee handbook for you. Just call 1-800-……….)

      • Said with all due respect, Mr. Ralph. I guess it was a bit harsh to our profession. But give me an inch on this one? Too many variables, and I would never want to take responsibility for anyone’s decisions under the heat of the moment.

        • I am not going to comment on where I went to law school or how I did at whatever law school I went to. I could be a complete moron with a knowledge of the law no better than a street cop in Peoria, and I probably am. (And I apologize to my brother-in-law who is a street cop in Peoria.). But to those who rely on small town attorneys, some are awesome and some are not. Some are more brilliant than the $600/hr. attorneys in the biggest city in your state. Others are not. But, please, dear God, learn the law yourself. The commentators on this blog are smart. Use those smarts. Use your own smarts.

        • God save your majesty!

          I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

          The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

          Nay, that I mean to do.

    • JeffR, if you’re a licensed attorney you’ve just brazenly violated a key ethical rule, so I assume you are not a licensed attorney. You went through the same “no lawyer knows…” bit in the discussion of the Salinas v. Texas case. I have an extremely precise knowledge of the law governing the use of force in Pennsylvania, whether by the general public or agents of the state. Find a new shtick, please.

      • Hey, there are good attorneys out there. Many of them know little about some subjects until they study up on them. Besides, justice is more important than the law.

        • JeffR: I wasn’t giving you legal advice. I was, however, suggesting you shouldn’t give others the advice not to get legal advice. Call me, if you will, over-solicitous of my fellow comment-writers’ well-being.

  22. I don’t have an issue with being compliant with federal (or state or local for that matter) officers. What I have an issue with is being entrapped by an overzealous ATF agent who tells me something is legal to persuade me to do something illegal then slaps the cuffs on me and gives me a bogus court date so when I don’t show up on time they come and shoot my wife in the head and take out my dog for good measure.

    Cops shooting someone who’s beating them to the point of losing consciousness doesn’t bother me.

    • they come and shoot my wife in the head and take out my dog for good measure

      And don’t forget killing your son and wounding your best friend. BTW, the best friend actually did kill one of the officers. He was acquitted and then paid almost $400,000 by the Feds for his injuries.

      • Yea, I didn’t feel compelled to go to Wikipedia to make sure I had all my facts straight, so I went with the short version.

        Anyhoo, the point is, as long as the federal agents are doing their jobs in accordance with the constitution as the US Supreme Court sees it I don’t think I’d have a problem. But what do you do when the agents are clearly overstepping their authority? What do you do when it’s kill or be killed and your opponent is a federal agent?

        Of course a gun grabbing liberal would counter with, “Oh that’ll never happen!”

        • You have a right to self defense. The legal odds will be stacked against you in court, so you’ll need Gerry Spence. In which case you’d better get into trouble soon, since he’s 84.

      • I believe Kevin Harris returned fire in self defense, after the Feds shot Sam Weaver, then ran away from the confrontation. Yes?

  23. Upon further reflection I believe this not some anonymous fibee, but rather a propaganda piece by whichever office at the Fbi monitors this extremist website. It actually looks like a warning the more I think about it. IE: Its all fine and dandy for you folks to discuss your rights, but resist us and this is what will happen to you. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me by identifying yourself “Bob” and the office you work for. Cant win the prize if you are anonymous. Also I am a little disgusted with TTAG for even publishing it.

  24. Hopefully the boys in blues know the rules as well.

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.

    Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    You get the idea. You better have your ducks in a row. Your warrant ought be valid and applied appropriately and your suspicion better be reasonable. Yes this isn’t S stuff but there is precedent. All that aside, i jut boils down to an officer acting outside his authority has no protections the uniform might provide him when he is within those bounds.

    • Not the law in every state. Maybe not the law in the cited states. And be careful with old Federal cases unless you’ve Shepardized them thoroughly. They may not be precedential in the Federal system or binding on States.

      I’m not going to Shep the cases for you. But if you do, I’d like to know of the results. Post ’em!

      • I guess it doesn’t matter. I stand on the logic that an officer acting out of his authority is not an officer and I can treat him like any thug assaulting me. Break down a door on a no-knock…good luck with that.

        I suggest another guide. How not to be a jack booted thug. Quit the ATF/CBP/DEA/ICE/FBI/DHS/USMS/USSS/FPS yada yada yada. Stop enforcing unconstitutional laws and get on the side of liberty. If you are libertarian as you proclaim, exercise some civil disobedience and quit feeding the monster that oppresses you. This mirror is burning my eyes right now as I find my way out to a more honorable career. Hopefully it is burning yours as well ‘Bob.’

  25. Thanks Bob, always nice to know what the UOF is for Federal Agents.
    Thanks for making an interesting read.

    As for the title, avoiding getting shot is easy – I read the earlier story on the FBI report about how often they actually hit their target, and figure I am safe as long as I am about 5 yards away! 🙂

  26. I understand a lot of these policies are meant to keep the FLEO safe because of their higher probability of being in a situation which could end their life. Information provided in this article is nothing new, but presented in a different format. I appreciate the time taken to write this. Thanks for that.

    Now, the scary part or the required part depending on which side you are are:

    1. There are institutional policies and trainings in place training every FLEA to think that their assessment is correct & hence act according to it. This is problematic (See below).

    2. “If you’ve been paying attention, you also noticed that the Agent is always authorized to exceed a subject’s level of force by one degree in order to gain control.”

    The above statement is scary in many ways if always true. This essentially takes away our ability to defend ourself. If I speak/argue with the FLEA, he can now escalate this to physical altercation. If I defend that, now, he is justified in using lethal force.

    You lose either way.

    The whole article can be summed up in two lines.

    YOUR COMPLIANCE IS REQUESTED. THIS REQUEST IS NOT REALLY A REQUEST.

    • “The above statement is scary in many ways if always true. This essentially takes away our ability to defend ourself. If I speak/argue with the FLEA, he can now escalate this to physical altercation. If I defend that, now, he is justified in using lethal force.”

      Negative. Please re-read my writing in further detail.

      • @Bob: Maybe, you should read your article again and I am not saying that in a condescending tone. A significant number of interactions with LEOs end in a non-confrontation because the subject decides to totally comply with the officer. Any small deviation from that almost always guarantees a bad outcome for the subject no matter what. This is not a good thing. If the LEO arrives at a bad judgement, then he/she should be the one to suffer the consequences. You are tacitly approving otherwise in your article.

        Just look at the comments your article generated and it’s not just anti establishment drivel being spouted. If you cannot see that, well, that’s a shame.

        • Your arguments depend on the logic-leap that arguing = resistance. You yourself define deviation as “If I speak/argue with the FLEA, he can now escalate this to physical altercation.” Yet nothing in my article ever stated anything of the kind. In fact, every single example of resistance I showcased was PHYSICAL resistance. I never, ever stated that arguing, disagreeing, speaking, yelling, cussing or discussing were forms of non-compliance. They are not. That is your own incorrect assumption, which is why I asked you to re-read. If an action doesn’t qualify as resistant/assaultive/deadly force then the agent loses the ability to use any tool or technique outside of the “compliant” phase of the continuum. Period.

          So, if you follow the rules I have given logically, without inserting false data as you have done, then you cannot logically arrive at the following conclusion: “If I speak/argue with the FLEA, he can now escalate this to physical altercation. If I defend that, now, he is justified in using lethal force.” Furthermore, your statement to Ralph: “Wouldn’t that assure that the natural outcome then would be an escalation of the situation every time? Esp if both the agent and the subject can meet with a little more force. Who will be the “attacker” in that scenario?” is solely reliant on the premise that the subject in question has made the decision(s) to escalate, not the LEO. If you cannot see that, well, THAT’S a shame.

          People “deviate,” are rude to me, argue with me, disagree with me and slander me pretty often in the course of my duties. Any other LEO on here will tell you the same thing; oftentimes criminals don’t actually self-identify as such. So, when they get questioned or detained, I become the bad guy in their eyes and they become the victim. Never mind the criminal activity.

          Now, if an agent makes a bad judgment call about UOF then that is on them. They will almost certainly pay for it either civilly, criminally or administratively. If you, srikanth m, suffer any consequences from that poor-decision making then that is tragic but statistically anomalous. There are scenarios where LEOs do terrible things and make awful decisions and their departments still go to bat for them. However those scenarios are EXCEEDINLY rare, in my experience. Some may say it’s crazy-talk to use those rare examples as an anecdotal justification for assuming every LEO can’t be trusted. But I couldn’t possibly comment.

    • “If you’ve been paying attention, you also noticed that the Agent is always authorized to exceed a subject’s level of force by one degree in order to gain control.”

      The above statement is scary in many ways if always true.

      @srikanth m, when it comes to “civilian” self defense, many states have the same rule. It’s called “+1.” It means that the defender is entitled to meet force with a little more force than the attacker is applying.

      • @Ralph

        Wouldn’t that assure that the natural outcome then would be an escalation of the situation every time? Esp if both the agent and the subject can meet with a little more force. Who will be the “attacker” in that scenario?

  27. Let’s say 5% of the trees in a forest are sentient and kill hikers. Let’s say that 95% of the trees are also sentient but never defend the hikers. What does that say about the forest?

    • Squiggles, that says you’ve done too many shrooms and spent too much time with Frodo and gang.

    • Let’s say 95% of the trees in a forest are sentient and defend hikers. Let’s say that 4.5% of the trees are also sentient but never defend the hikers. Let’s say that .5% of the trees are sentient and kill hikers. What does that say about the forest?

      There. Fixed.

  28. Bob made a point in his post that I glossed over until just now. The part about an officer being on the ground losing the fight to a suspect, having his head banged on the ground and using deadly force to end the attack. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Zimmerman.

    • I thought the same thing. Only highly trained LEOs get a pass on that obscure technicality. Commoners don’t know about it and get persecuted.

      • Remember, that the police were not going to charge Zimmerman until the politicians stepped in and ordered them to. Can’t really blame the cops on that one because it was politics, plain and simple. Whether or not you agree with the charges, it’s clear that the police had no choice but to arrest Zimmerman once he was charged as they would any suspect. I’m mad at the politicians on that one, and don’t take this one defense of the police to mean that I have some overbearing love for the police. I don’t. I think in many ways they are the standing army the Founding Fathers warned us about.

  29. Thanks for presenting this info. It’s useful to see this from the FLEA point of view. I appreciate what you do for us. You know what I fear the most at the moment? That I comply with orders, and my dogs will still get shot. This happened to a friend of mine years ago in another town as his sweet Lab frolicked in the woods. A local cop killed the dog, right in front of my friend, because the dog ran up to the officer to play. That was a long time ago, but we hear similar stories of this all over the country right now, of LEO’s shooting dogs that are tied up, or cowering in the bathroom. The police in my suburban village don’t do that, but I hope the city, state and fed guys I meet have the same restraint.

    Also, about 10-20 years ago, we had several of sex offenders on the city force, so when I got pulled over for speeding one time, I only cracked my window enough to hand over my license.
    I know every human group has bad apples, and 99.9% of the time I really appreciate what y’all do for us.

    Bob, I’d like to ask, what is your agency’s policy on dogs? Obviously, some dogs are very dangerous and need to be shot, but does your agency provide guidance on that?

    • Agent discretion, based on reasonable belief that the dog will inflict serious injury. Training on recognizing and responding appropriately to canine behavior is something all LEOs need. Sadly, few ever receive that training.

  30. The indignation people are responding with is the residue of the American spirit of freedom and independence.

    By itself, the rules given here are all perfectly reasonable. It is rational to need control over criminals. The real problem is not these rules but the fact that we all know that there are too many laws that make too many of us casual and often unknowing criminals. Too many of our people are behind bars.

    The rational side of me agrees that these rules are good but the patriot side of me rankles that it is far too easy to become subject to them. I don’t consider myself a subject of anyone.

  31. Maybe I missed it, but where does the right to resist an unlawful arrest fit in this UOF Continuum?

    • It doesn’t law enforcement agencies stopped operating on the innocent until proven guilty thing a long time ago. Resistance of the subjects is justification for escalation of force, the safety of the protected class is more important than the rights or safety of the subjects.

  32. So every time I encounter a FLEA I have a 5% chance of dealing with an armed psychotic thug with full legal authority to kill me if he feels like it. Okay. Got it.

      • Read the article twice before responding. I believe that if a FLEA killed me by ignoring UOF, he would be covered for by the agency and the courts. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, NSA scandal, IRS scandal, countless ATF outrages prove one law for Feds, different law for peasants. UOF is meaningless window dressing that Feds ignore at their whim. Feds already ignore the Constitution and a host of laws. They will ignore UOF too.

      • Roger Ralph 🙂 The percentage of bad apples is certainly up for debate and open to interpretation. However, the assertion that the FLEA has “full legal authority to kill me if he feels like it” represents a diliberate misinterpretation of UOF. As do many other comments thus far, as LC Judas has indicated. But it’s all good. I knew I would need to put on a pair of kevlar boxer shorts when I submitted this 🙂

        • Actually, I’d have to agree with your assessment of the percentage of problem children in law enforcement generally. It was the same in the military, and also among lawyers, doctors, teachers, and ministers and 7/11 clerks. The vast majority are doing the best the can. Then there’s the psychotic few who are determined to wreak havoc, maybe just because they can. They’re the ones who make the news.

  33. The only thing that amazes me about all this is that its safe for any LEO to do their job. If this police state crap keeps going the way it is it might not be. I mean the anti-gunners really believe they are going to take away our guns. You may not hear a lot of legitimate sources say that (I have been told by an elected representative that’s all the gun grabbers in Albany, NY talk about on the floor) but count how many times the communists in control have said that’s not what they want to do and then have gone and proposed more onerous laws leading ultimately, I believe, toward confiscation. When they finally get their way its not going to be a good time to be a cop.

  34. Just two issues:
    Fortunately – most WORKING local and even state LEO’s know that we can not protect people and are pretty much an after the matter fact. Therefore, it is totally OK by us and very much recommended that all honest poeple fight to keep their rights to be armed.
    Unfortunately – Federal officers are not, for the most part, respected by local and even state LE. And I don’t mean just “not getting along”. There are FAR more than 5 percenter problems. Maybe the most crucial issue is that FLEAS are WAY too much affected by their political bosses, the top one being the president and his regime. So, in our present state of affairs, I would expect things to get much worse.

  35. I don’t really have a problem with anything on the continuum. The only problem I have is that you’re “working quite hard to keep you safe”.

    The only thing any law enforcement agency should do is investigate crimes and arrest criminals. The second amendment allows the well regulated militia to take care of the rest. If an LEO is trying to arrest someone they believe to be a criminal, even if they’re wrong, the use of force outlined above seems reasonable, but when LEO’s are given the authority to walk around and act like sidewalk babysitters with guns, stopping whoever they like, then it becomes a problem.

    And yes Ralph, the people in Boston were sheeple, or rational adults that knew that resistance to tyranny at that moment was not a fight they could win.

  36. What “Bob” fails to realize is that we are well aware of the tactics of SRTs serving warrants, and you can take that UOF matrix and set it on fire, for all the truth it portrays.

    They hit your door with a ram, toss in a flashbang, enter and shoot just about anything that moves, including non-threatening pets.

    I don’t know why “Bob” is trying to sell this shit, but I ain’t buying it.

  37. Funny photo. If you took the “FBI” off their chest in the photo – they look just like terrorists!

  38. There are good cops and bad cops. This article raises my ire because it begins with a certain sanctimoniousness, suggesting that only a very tiny percentage of the people who are given authority by the law to hassle people and kill them if they resist, are bad apples. In my experience, the percentage is significantly higher. I don’t think anybody would have a problem with cops (or FLEAs, or insert acronym/police force of choice) if they generally conducted themselves in a polite manner, as one civilian does to another. They might have a certain authority to act against lawbreakers, but they are not any different in that regard than a civilian -the difference is that they are paid by the state to deal with those problems full-time, whereas the ordinary civilian is not, and so therefore generally does not unless he is personally concerned. Many of them, though, sadly go out of their way to be as difficult as possible, slavishly and officiously following asinine policy manuals, and generally leaving a bad taste in the mouth. A little of this experience goes a long way, and many of us have had more than a little of it if we’ve had occasion to have any contact at all with police officers in our lives.

    Sadly, when I see a cop, I don’t think of Officer Joe who’s a swell guy and helps keep our town safe, I think of Officer Jack@ss who drives around in his heavily-tinted police cruiser filling the town coffers by pulling people over for insignificant traffic infringements, while three blocks away there are drug de