Use of Force Continuum

A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security guards (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. In certain ways it is similar to the military rules of engagement. The purpose of these models is to clarify, both for officers and citizens, the complex subject of use of force by law officers. They are often central parts of law enforcement agencies' use of force policies. Although various criminal justice agencies have developed different models of the continuum, there is no universal standard model.
The first examples of use of force continua were developed in the 1980s and early 1990s. Early models were depicted in various formats, including graphs, semicircular "gauges", and linear progressions. Most often the models are presented in "stair step" fashion, with each level of force matched by a corresponding level of subject resistance, although it is generally noted that an officer need not progress through each level before reaching the final level of force. These progressions rest on the premise that officers should escalate and de-escalate their level of force in response to the subject's actions.
Although the use of force continuum is used primarily as a training tool for law officers, it is also valuable with civilians, such as in criminal trials or hearings by police review boards. In particular, a graphical representation of a use of force continuum is useful to a jury when deciding whether an officer's use of force was reasonable.


This model is adapted from a United States government publication on use of force. It lists multiple tactics in order from least to most severe, but is only a partial model, as it does not give corresponding degrees of subject resistance.
Verbal command
Handcuff suspect
Use wrist/arm lock
Use takedown
Block/punch/kick
Strike suspect
Wrestle suspect
Pepper spray
Use baton
Use firearm
It can also be broken down into the standard police Use of Force Continuum:

1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray
(A K-9 unit would fall here)
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, Taser, etc.
6. Threat of Deadly Force
7. Deadly Force



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In the military we call this basic concept "escalation of force." The details are according to the ROE, which is overall more like operating guidelines. It's a little different than this, usually, but soldiers aren't training in some of the things listed and have a different environment they operate in. Usually it's more explicit... like "Shout a warning. Show your weapon. Display intent to use it by aiming..." etc etc. You're allowed to skip steps due to tactical necessity, which I think is true for cops, too.

Military police use this model.

Concurrently I learned in martial arts to use a proportionate response.

Also accepted: Justification of Force, Article 35.15 for protecting a third party.

One thing that is of interest to me is the way different martial arts address use of force/rules of engagement. Many schools don't even bother to teach this which is a shame because it really could get a student in trouble.

I would say one of the fundamental differences between Aikido and Hapkido is just this very topic.

Aikido seems a bit naïve to me regarding use of force. Essentially the goal of Aikido is to end the conflict without hurting the attacker or the attacked. It is a very disproportionate response. Because as an aikidoka you must not only protect yourself from harm but also your attacker, this can be very difficult if not impossible. It is certainly the moral high road but the price you pay is you could die!

Hapkido moves are very similar to Aikido and some are almost identical. The difference lies in intent. Essentially the difference is use of force. In Hapkido the response is proportionate to the attack. In other words if somebody is trying to kill you and they have the means to do it, lethal force is authorized. Certainly this is of a lower moral character than Aikido but it is far more practical for street level conflict.

Nothing wrong with proportional response, and nothing wrong with exercising judgment to determine what step to skip to.

Anyone who follows use of force guidelines is trained that it is acceptable to jump to any of the steps if it is escalated faster that you escalate.

Obviously if someone pulls out a gun, you don't start with verbal commands and work your way up.

It's a decent guide but level 1 can jump to level 5 in a split second. Knowing how much and when to use force causes a lot of grief for some police officers. The real root of the problem is beyond the basic police academy training little to no defensive tactics training is continuing(unless the officer takes it upon himself to pick up a martial arts study).

basically, force on force. react proportionately.