5 things cops need to know about PTSD

An estimated 10 to 30 percent of first responders will have some type of traumatic stress injury during their career

Jun 27, 20

When I was in the academy I never heard anything about the psychological effects of a police career, and now at least we have started to have a conversation about this threat. The continued stress of a 20-plus year career — with the daily ups and downs — slowly wears away at our psyche. Add in a major traumatic incident such as the death of a co-worker, child, or someone attempting to take your life and you will likely feel the backlash of trauma. It is estimated that between 10 to 30 percent of first responders will have some type of traumatic stress injury during their career.

Awareness is the key to managing traumatic stress. June 27 is PTSD Awareness Day — as a matter of fact, the Senate has designated June as National PTSD Awareness Month. In preparing for this article, I read the Senate Resolution designating this day. It was initially created for military veterans, but like raid tactics, medical techniques, and equipment that has been so readily adopted by law enforcement agencies and its members across the country, PTSD Awareness Day needs to be adopted as well. 

PTSD is just as real of a threat to law enforcement officers and other first responders as it is to military members. Like any other injury sustained in the line of duty, it is not automatically the end of a career or your life; but to maintain both of these things you must be aware, prepare in advance, and seek immediate care if things are becoming unmanageable.

Here’s what we need to be aware of: 1.    It’s normal: Like every other system in your body, the mind will do what it believes is necessary to maintain itself. Unfortunately as the brain tries to protect itself, the manifestations can have some adverse effects. The backlash from the traumatic incident may result in anger, memory issues, sleep disruption, depression, or any number of other stress responses.

2.    Early intervention results in a better outcome: If you are bleeding from a GSW, do you want to see a doctor now or a month from now? Rapid assistance from a professional counselor or peer support team members is more likely to lead to more rapid recovery.

3.    Knowledge is power: Knowing the signs and symptoms can help us identify traumatic stress injuries in ourselves or others. We need to recognize that something is wrong before we are aware that we need help.

4.    We can (and should) intervene: We wouldn’t let our supervisors, subordinates, or co-workers, take on an armed subject by themselves if we had the option of being there, even if we were never requested over the radio. Someone dealing with the fall out of post-traumatic stress needs us to be there even if they didn’t call for us.

5.    There is no single answer: What works for me may not work for you. Each of us manages stress in our way and while some may benefit from one type of therapy others may need a different kind. The key is to handle the stress and not let it control us.

Someone you know will benefit from your awareness and that someone may be you. Traumatic stress injuries can be just as dangerous as physical ones and are more likely to occur to someone at your agency. You don’t have to have all the answers; you just need to know that the stigma of mental health issues is harming first responders. If your department does not have a mental health plan for officers and dispatchers, be proactive about getting your administration on board. Find local resources now before they are needed. 

Get help via the mobile-friendly 1st Alliance site, which just launched 1st help. It can anonymously help you find PTSD assistance in your area. 

About the author

Jeff McGill is a 20 year veteran of law enforcement having been assigned to Patrol, Street Crimes, Sex Offenders Unit, Gang Intelligence and as a U.S. Marshal Task Force Officer. He now works full-time in training. Jeff is a state certified law enforcement instructor, teaching legal, firearms, first aid, law enforcement medical trauma care and reality based training. He has a Master’s degree and is currently a full-time Doctoral student in Criminal Justice concentrating in Organizational Leadership. Jeff is a founding member of 1st Alliance and co-author of “The Price they Pay.”

Civilian self-defense vs. police excessive force: It's not that simple

Resisting officers is becoming more prevalent and socially acceptable by certain groups

Does a person being detained or arrested by a police officer have the right to self-defense if the person feels the officer is using excessive force? The answer to this question as written is obviously "no," but with the current climate of resisting officers becoming more prevalent and socially acceptable by certain groups, the question needs deeper exploration.

The follow-up question that is not as simple is: "Does a person have the right to self-defense if the officer uses excessive force?" Notice the subtle difference in the two questions: The first includes the subject’s subjective belief while the second is more generic and definitely needs clarification if asked.

First, it is important to understand that every person has the ancient and esteemed right to self-defense in general. But even this does not fully answer the question

In California, there are several pertinent penal code sections that shed some light on the not-so-easy topic that some want a simple yes or no answer for. The Model Penal Code, developed in 1962, eliminated the right to resist an unlawful arrest on two grounds. First, there were better alternative means of resolving the issue; second, resistance would likely result in greater injury to the citizen without preventing the arrest. By 2012, only 14 states allowed a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest. These states are Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The first section is an unknown section to those it applies to, California Penal Code Section 834a. This section clearly places a statutory duty and obligation upon a person to not physically resist an officer’s arrest.

Note that the section does not specify lawful arrest as a condition but only arrest. I believe this is due to the fact that the lawfulness of an arrest is not to be argued in the street but in a court of law. If the subject feels like the arrest is unlawful, there are other remedies that the subject can seek. In a civilized society, resorting to force or violence to argue the validity of an arrest - during the arrest - is not acceptable.

The next section is directly related to the first. California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) is the punitive section that covers the situation when a subject resists an officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office, including trying to arrest a subject. From these two sections, it is clear that there is no right to physically resist or assault an officer during an arrest.

WHAT IF THE OFFICER IS USING EXCESSIVE FORCE?

So back to the question: What if the officer is using excessive force? Some experts will point to other statutory laws to support their view that a person can resist if they feel the force is excessive. They look at California Penal Code Sections 692 and 693.

While these sections are self-defense protections for citizens primarily related to situations outside of "police brutality" claims, some experts will claim the public offense (crime) is related to an assault/battery under color authority type of crime. Note that in section 692, the resistance must be in response to the actual commission of the public offense.

An officer’s force response in the grand majority of arrests falls far from this standard and the published statistics bear that out as well. It is a rare circumstance when this assault/battery under color of authority actually occurs and an officer is charged, not because of some great law enforcement driven conspiracy but because it rarely happens. 

Section 693 requires that even if the officer were committing a public offense (crime), only that "self-defense" force that is sufficient to prevent the offense may be used. In other words, the subject may only use force to simply stop the assault/battery under color of authority and never any more than that.

Quite honestly, physically resisting an officer that a subject "feels" is using excessive force is a dangerous game of chance in most cases. If the force is found to be reasonable (as it is in the majority of cases) but the subject continued or increased his resistance because he believed the force was excessive, that subject will not prevail in his claim of self-defense and most likely exposed himself to more injury.

In order for a claim of self-defense to be valid, a finding of excessive force must be made by the trier of fact first. That is the jury (jury trial) or judge (bench trial). The excessive force must be to a degree that the trier of fact would believe it is excessive, not just the subjective belief of the person in the field resisting the officer at that moment. Only after a finding has been made that the force was excessive can the "self-defense" actions of the subject be excused as not being a criminal act. In other words, the physical resistance can be "forgiven" as self-defense only if the force is found to be excessive after the fact and not the other way around.

REASONABLENESS IS VIEWED FROM OFFICER'S PERSPECTIVE

Another way to examine this is to understand that the evaluation of the reasonableness of an officer’s force response must be made from the perspective of the officer and the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time. It is not made from the perspective of the subject. It would be impossible for the subject to fully understand the officer’s perspective and therefore impossible to determine if the force is excessive.

I do not believe the majority of society is willing to accept the idea of a subject with a mere singular and subjective belief (and honestly a self-serving and in most cases an uninformed belief) that somehow an officer’s force response is excessive and therefore the subject has the right to defend him/herself with force. This thinking is clearly a "putting the horse before the cart" type of rational. If society were to accept this thought, every person being arrested in the future could freely physically resist with impunity from criminal culpability on charges of battery on an officer by simply stating, "I felt the force was excessive."

About the author

Ed Flosi is a retired police sergeant from San Jose, California. Ed has a unique combination of practical real world experience and academic background. He has worked several assignments including Field Training Program, Training Unit, Narcotics, Special Operations — K9 Handler, Research and Development and Custody Facility Supervisor. He has qualified as an expert witness in state and federal courts in police practices/force options and is the Principle Instructor for PROELIA Defense and Arrest Tactics. He has a Master of Science degree from California State University Long Beach. Ed is a Certified Force Analyst through the Force Science Research Center.