Episode 579 - Conversations on Appropriate Use of Force with Sergeant Jason Hamilton
In this episode, Jeremy and co-host Andrew Adams is joined by Sergeant Jason Hamilton to discuss the issues on appropriate use of force.
Conversations on Appropriate Use of Force with Sergeant Jason Hamilton - Episode 579
Jeremy and co-host Andrew Adams follow up on Episode 567 where they talk about the Appropriate use of Force. In this episode, Jeremy and co-host Andrew Adams is joined by Sergeant Jason Hamilton, a Vermont law enforce, to discuss the issues and provide a unique perspective from law enforcement on the appropriate use of force. Listen to learn more!
Show Transcript
You can read the transcript below.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Hey, what's happening everybody? Welcome! This is whistlekick Martial Arts Radio episode 579. Today, Andrew Adams is back and we're joined by Sergeant Jason Hamilton as we continue to explore the subject of appropriate use of force. It's an interesting conversation and we go deep. This is some good stuff. If you at all enjoyed the last one that we did work, even if you didn't, if you missed it, whatever, stick around. We've got some good stuff for you. Now, who am I? I'm Jeremy Lesniak. I'm your host for the show. I'm the founder here at whistlekick and I love the traditional martial arts. So, we get into all kinds of good stuff around the traditional art and in fact, whistlekick, that's what we're dedicated to doing, getting into stuff for the traditional arts. That includes everything from content like this to products to services, you name it. We're doing or were looking to do it. So go at whistlekick.com check out everything that's happened and maybe find something in the store that floats your boat. Use the code PODCAST15 and you get some cool new shirt or hat or whatever it is. And we get some money to cover the expenses of all the things that we're doing. If you want to check out more about this podcast, we've got a snazzy shiny website whistlekickmartialartsradio.com. That's where you're going to find every single episode we've ever done. Yes, all of them are available for free. And we bring new videos and links and photos and transcripts and all kinds of good stuff to help you get the most out of each and every episode. 2 episodes every week with the goal of connecting, educating and entertaining you with the traditional martial artists of the world. If you want to help us out, you can make a purchase like I said, you can also share up an episode, tell people about our mission or you could support our Patreon. patreon.com/whistlekick. We post stuff up there several times a month and depending on how much you're willing to throw our way. We're going to give you more and more stuff back. Check it out episode 567, Andrew and I responded to a listener question about appropriate use of force and how it can vary depending on who you all are in the circumstances. Andrew and I, we did some exploration on that but we both agreed. There was the opportunity to go deeper if we could find someone who knew more about the subject from a legal perspective. Now, of course, there are plenty of professions that might have some expertise on the subject. We've had people on the show before who are experts on the subject but we reached out, Andrew reached out and had someone in his circle who is a former law enforcement officer and also a martial artist. That gave us the opportunity to ask some questions to learn some things and you get to come along for the ride. So, check it out, enjoy and help you learn something. And welcome to whistlekick Martial Arts Radio.
Andrew Adams:
Welcome to whistlekick Martial Arts Radio. Jeremy, how are you doing this morning?
Jeremy Lesniak:
I'm doing great and how are you?
Andrew Adams:
I'm great. I'm great. I was re-listening to a recent episode that we did episode 567 on the appropriate use of force and realize it, I know it was appropriate considering we have a guest today, who I thought might be able to help us expand on some of that discussion. After listening, I realized that I had a good friend of mine, sergeant Jason Hamilton who is a sergeant in the minister of municipal police department in....
Jeremy Lesniak:
Harvard municipal. [00:03:37-00:03:39]
Andrew Adams:
That's rough. And so, you know, I've known Jason for a few years now and he has a background in karate as I do and also being a police officer. I thought it would be a good idea to bring him on and kind of expand on our discussion we had a few weeks ago.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Should you welcome him?
Andrew Adams:
Yes, I should. Here is sergeant Hamilton. Welcome to whistlekick martial arts radio.
Jason Hamilton:
Thanks guys. That's wonderful.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Thanks for making the time.
Jason Hamilton:
No, no, no, not at all. I got a chance to listen to the podcast after you pointed out that you guys are doing this and I got to say somewhere up front that hey, this is not the law, this is just logic. We're just trying to be a sort of reasonable assessment of stuff but I think you guys, I mean you got all the way around it.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Hey. all right. And that's the end. Thanks for joining us.
Jason Hamilton:
I think I can help you expand a little bit then sort of drill down on some things but I think, for those interested in this topic you guys did a good treatment of it.
Andrew Adams:
That's good I mean at least we got something from someone. Right? That's good to hear. It's reasonable. So, I'm curious where there's things in particular that you heard that were like oh, yeah, okay that someone as a police officer, I suspect, thinks of things differently than those of us that are not involved in that line of work. And was there anything in there that you specifically wanted to touch upon?
Jason Hamilton:
All with a bunch of things that I specifically wanted to touch upon things that you guys did a really good job with. I thought, even though you didn't know the particular words or phrases that we use for these things, you did a very good job staying vague. I guess that doesn't sound quite as cool as I'd like it to. By not being specific or not being rule bound in your approach. Letting everybody walk themselves through all of the particular individual content every situation and will not get bogged down if this and that. If there's this and that, there should be that kind of mechanical sort of analysis which is just generally incorrect and I think several times, you guys sounded as though you were tempted to and it's a very tempting thing. It's, you know, everybody that went through. Any use of force for training with police always. I really wanted to despite my martial arts background when at the academy. I really wanted to kind of do a task if this and that kind of almost algorithmic kind of approach to deciding whether or not these things are okay. And you completely cannot do the other thing that you guys did. I thought what really good was you either said or danced around in [00:07:05-00:07:09] sort of. Needed in every situation, you analyze this idea of reasonableness. Does the key legal factor when determining whether or not a use of force, I use that terminology, the terminologies as police, or use of force is appropriate or self-defense of the program. So, to expand a little bit upon that, I got a bunch of notes here. Most well-known. So, most of the laws in the jury instructions the other place that this is found on the most commonly, they include some sort of right, I just pulled one that I thought was fairly represented. It even says the use of the minimum level of force that you reasonably believe is necessary to safely resolve the situation. A lot of our explicit self-defense laws in the jury instructions on self-defense are at issue using that phrase. So, you used the word ‘reasonable’ a lot. Props for that.
Jeremy Lesniak:
I think it was an accident… I don't think that Andrew and I... I mean maybe Andrew knows more than I did. I was just following him now. He's shaking his head.
Andrew Adams:
No, no.
Jeremy Lesniak:
I think that we just think in our efforts to be new ones to not overstep your bounds.
Jason Hamilton:
Well, that's the way. Courts, juries, and law enforcement. As we're doing our jobs created as well. The standard for these things, it starts with the word ‘reasonable’ So, it's essentially what is wrong, what would be considered reasonable by a peer of yours. So, for me it's a police officer. Well, for me my private life would be defending myself or somebody else. In my private life. it's going to be a reasonable citizen. For me and my job, it's what we, police officers, think. [00:09:26-00:09-28], you guys before offline. One of the jobs of a sergeant is to review the uses of force by other officers. If I wasn't in particular involved in that situation or whatever, it was that and there were reports about the force that they needed to use in order to complete their task. Come to me and I review the report written by them about what they did, why they did it. In a review, we need body camera footage a lot more than any other video that's available and any other evidence that's been collected and decide whether or not. I think it was reasonable, that sort of the main grounds and used forces will be judged on legally. Under what circumstances are you reviewing these? I would imagine you're not reviewing every interaction, every officer in your department has with every individual. So, there's some kind of threshold that will trigger when force is used; Our general standard is how many gets a little bit technical but anything is beyond compliant handcuffing. Where we tell someone that they're going in handcuffs and then they do the things that we're telling them to do in order to be put into handcuffs. Essentially, that's the line. So, if you're telling people to do stuff and they're going into handcuffs and they're not doing the things you're telling them to do, some level of being physically coercive now comes into play. Are you going to do what I say or tase you? Are you going to do what I say or I'm going to square you up? Even by someone's behavior using the tool in the tool hasn't actually been physically applied and no one caused pain. Those situations, all that use of force reports I'm reviewing. Police reports that the officer was giving instructions that were being listened to and made his instruction a little bit more assertive and it changed a person's behavior but because he used this tool, the struggle for us to change a person's behavior that invoked the process of reviewing the force that they used.
Jeremy Lesniak:
I'm going to jump on it some real quick and make sure that I'm understanding it because I think it's important, you're talking about that. By your definition within your departments, simply to put out a baton, not necessarily striking with it, but just its deployment is considered use of force along what's called a spectrum?
Jason Hamilton:
Yeah. Essentially, if I pull out a baton, make it known that I'm using it like I got my baton behind my back fairly regularly, I'm concerned that someone may escalate to a point where force needs to be used. They may become assaultive or physically resistant to a level that requires that route to be prepared for that sort of thing. But I keep it concealed and don't use it to change their behavior now. But, as long as I can see it and it's used to alter their behavior, an attempt to alter their behavior, yes. Anyway, it's important to remember we're going back to reasonableness. Here it is important that ideas resemble and apply repeatedly throughout the situations. First, we must reasonably believe that force is going to be used against us or others. We can't just imagine because that guy has a mean looking face or she's bigger than me or I saw someone who looks like her in a fight the other week. that's not reasonable than to believe that they're going to use force against you or somebody else. Imagining some far-off distant future where that person is going to become a vigilante and killing baby Hitler, this is also not acceptable. It has to be reasonable in the media. So, they must have taken some steps. Right? Then and there. But let us know that they are going to use violence against us or somebody else.
Andrew Adams:
And that could be either verbal or physical, correct?
Jason Hamilton:
Verbal physical through action or inaction. So, someone's in your house they're not welcome in your house, hey, you're not welcome here. I don't know what you're doing inside my house. The breaking in your house in the first place is a pretty big clue that you know things are not going particularly well already. In the situation they're refusing to leave, in action they're demonstrating that force is going to be used in order to remove them, that's going to be necessary. So, we must also reasonably believe that the force in question poses a threat. Right? It's all well and good to say, I know that this 5-year-old is going to use force against me. It is not that reasonable that I use an overwhelming level of physical force to stop the 5-year-old from doing this. I can’t...
Jeremy Lesniak:
It's not binary. The moment... The moment the 5-year-old is believed to be about to apply force. You don't get to use any at all force at your means. That's where the word reasonable comes back in.
Jason Hamilton:
Exactly. So... And then, sort of adjacent to that but also very important. And important in a number of other places, we must use a reasonable amount of force. Both for our own safety and for the level of crime or trying to suppress. It is not true that you may only use force to stop violence. I guess. I mean we end up there because the amount of force that we're going to use to stop someone from grabbing on a wall and picking our back pocket or pulling off your shoulders or getting in our car and driving away. It's going to be significantly less. The amount of reasonable force in that situation is going to significantly less. That doesn't mean that we have to allow ourselves to be victims of these things necessarily.th Now, this is one of those places that get that sort of the fringes of my knowledge. I've done some background on other states as you said in front of Vermont. That's where I'm most comfortable but there are some... There are various doctrines. We've all heard of the castle doctrine and delivered it to 3 states. That can change some of the stuff.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Talk about those 2 things.
Jason Hamilton:
Okay
Jeremy Lesniak:
Not everybody may be familiar with those 2 concepts.
Jason Hamilton:
All right. Well. I have a couple of things.
Jeremy Lesniak:
I apologize if I'm forcing you out of order. If I'm asking these questions and you’re covering them further off your outline. Just tell me to stop or later.
Jason Hamilton:
Would be back to this stuff
Jeremy Lesniak:
Okay, that’s fine.
Jason Hamilton:
Okay. I just want to make sure that people don't think that we are, universally, I can run out and bust someone in the head when I see them trying to jump in my car in my driveway. That is a universal thing. There are states in legal situations in which it is acceptable to use unfortunate situations. Again, it has to be reasonable for the situation. The crime you're trying to suppress.
Andrew Adams:
Yeah, and I think it's important to note that we are in this podcast, thinking that anything that is said here is relevant to every single person no matter where they live. We have, you know, you may be living in the UK which has a completely different set of laws on this type of thing. So, you know it's important to note that we are speaking with you and your knowledge and expertise in Vermont. So, I think that's important.
Jason Hamilton:
That's part of it. I think so. What I'm going to talk about is broadly applicable in the United States because the court rulings are, some of them are... The federal court ruling, so, essentially, every state of the union falls in line somewhere under that. How each legal system accesses those things can be a little bit different but beyond the United States? Now, we're getting into something that is well beyond my [00:19:04-00:19:06] I would suggest some caution with that. In general, to sort of continue on the scene of general. U. S. courts recognize that the force that someone uses in self-defense force the officers use depending the public in competition or legal tasks. The courts recognize that frequently in order to overcome forcing the outside the force that we use must be greater than that. So, I mean it… again, defies mechanical if this, then that logical stuff.
Jeremy Lesniak:
But I think anybody who trains gets that concept. Yeah, you know whether we're working through because yeah, you're on as an officer but you're also on as a martial artist because this is a martial arts show. And I think about if I'm training self-defense scenarios or I'm sparring or I just have somebody as you know before in class, a friend of mine, just goofing off with me. If they're going to you, let's say they come out with the four, for me responding with a 2, doesn't really do anything. It's not enough. There has to be... I would imagine. Not only in a probe. You know the appropriate reasonable use of force but the belief that there's more beyond that. Yes, otherwise what's going to get him to stop.
Jason Hamilton:
Yes, and that's another one that I would want to circle back around to. It's sort of... part of our police training. And when you might be a little bit too specific to that for a more general audience. Most people beyond the sort of martial art world, even exam martial artists haven't really come to this concept where in a self-defense situation. The survival situation. We must use force that is greater than the force we're trying to overcome.
Jason Hamilton:
We're not in the business of sparring [00:21:26-: 00:21:28] could be stopped. There are new rules. Competitors have been matched up by size, strength and skill who are trying to determine who is stronger, has better training and has better strategy. You know, it's not about [00:21:48-:00:21:52]. We're just trying to be safe when confronted with dangerous situations. So, it was Angela that originally brought this question.
Andrew Adams:
Yeah, it was Angela.
Jason Hamilton:
Yeah, all comments to her. She has touched upon something that I think most people kind of forget. And it's maybe not the easiest thing to talk about. All the factors that bring up around her, potential uses of force or important to look at. In determining whether or not self-defense and the amount of force that we use in self-defense is reasonable. So, most of the jury instructions that I've seen and laws in particular. As well as court rulings. have suggested a non-exhaustive list of factors you can consider in determining whether or not a particular use of force was reasonable. So, weapons, number, size, strength, stamina, gender, training, injuries, auction, terms of factors the people are involved in. Right? So, go over that again. All other weapons are people with building weapons. What is the number of people? Do I have someone helping me? Do they have someone helping them or more than one person? Are they larger or smaller? Are they stronger or weaker? What do we know about stamina? Am I exhausted from chasing them down? Am I exhausted because I just had a really good workout? Just got 2 hours in the dojo. Am I injured in some way? Are they injured in some way? What's their gender? What do I know about their level of training, my level training? Some people, we sort of know we have this information from going back. There are environmental factors, what's the service, what's the lighting, what's the spaceflight, are there weapons available? Even if no one is already picked up and starts using it. Right.
Andrew Adams:
It's a lot here. Yes, yeah and the stuff we didn't think of. What we did with our initial podcast.
Jason Hamilton:
There are also some other things. Right? Special status tends to a rapidly evolving situation which is being a little bit more of a police thing but I think it still applies. Specifically, in Graham v. Connor which is the big court ruling that brought in the police reasonableness standard in the judicial system. Courts recognized that frequently when officers are choosing to use force. which is whether or not to use force. They're making split second decisions in tense situations in which we have less than a second to figure out what the right thing to do here is. So, I mean there's no way that is not true in self-defense context. So, you guys did a very good job. I think with this and you said it explicitly like this. We're not standing and analyzing. I punched it once.
Jeremy Lesniak:
The world will be much simpler if we could do that. If we could, you know, press the pause button and think about, you know, I didn't count but it sounded like you had roughly a dozen factors there to consider. And that's overwhelming. It's a tremendous amount of information. I know the majority of people in training when I've participated or run drills that require adrenaline. Coming up most people make the wrong choice first, I don't know, 0 times, thousand times but it takes a long time and I'm glad I've never had to make a decision that has had to be scrutinized.
Jason Hamilton:
It's tough, it's all tough but remember when looking at these things. What I'm reviewing things for my officers, when I’m determining whether or not someone uses self-defense on steam with, you know, someone might be arrested here for assault. We can stand in the sort of protection in the law that folks are making split second decisions with thousands and thousands and thousands of potential factors. I don't want people to get bogged down like I know this list of factors and I need to consider every each and every one of them. Sensei Donnie, he was very fond of making fun of the idea that you know the martial artist status is standing in front of their assailant. Opens up their book of techniques. And okay we got a whole bunch of left hand into the right side of my face and I have to say that the Hong Kong phooey cartoon centered on. He would talk about it constantly. I don't think that folks are going to be mechanistic again. Turning their way through all of these factors. Your sense of what is going on is going to include these things already. And how whether or not something that is justified is going to involve taking those things into consideration. So, if you're explaining what you did after the fact police to show up. For example, on this factor, this factor, this factor. All of those things are going to come into play and maybe we ought to be ready to talk about them.
Andrew Adams:
And consider them.
Jason Hamilton:
Should be noted that all reasonableness. This is important.
Jeremy Lesniak:
What does that mean?
Jason Hamilton:
There's no benefit of ‘2020 hindsight’. That is to say, if someone is making deadly threats and is reaching for something in their waistband. We do not get to go back after the fact and stay. Well, the person was reaching for their waistband, for their phone, so the friend could come pick them up and bring them to the ice cream stand. That's not the way this works, it is what is known to the person at that moment, that specific moment.
Jeremy Lesniak:
So, just to say it in another way because this, you know, and let's not go the political route that we could. Let’s not follow this down, the rabbit hole that I'm sure listeners know where I'm going and I'm not even going to say the words because you know where this could lead. We don't get to arm Monday morning, armchair quarterback. We have to continue if we're going to look back on the situation. We don't get to introduce any new information to that bubble; it exists in that moment in time fixed as to what was known then and any additional information. While it may be relevant to other things, it is not relevant to the determination of the appropriate amount of force.
Jason Hamilton:
Right now. it's nice. Yeah, I mean, I think we should have avoided the political session just because. I mean. we haven't had it just, maybe...
Jeremy Lesniak:
I would not. We work really hard to keep politics out of the show because it's everywhere else.
Jason Hamilton:
Okay. Determining whether or not a person was reasonable in defending themselves and using the amount of force they did to defend themselves; we need to put ourselves in their shoes at that moment. We cannot look back with 2020 hindsight and say well. This person was actually just a crazy person who didn't even know that they were there and was talking to themselves. And none of that stuff matters really.
Andrew Adams:
Because we would have known that in the moment.
Jason Hamilton:
In a moment, we did not know. if we did, we’re expected to take it into consideration. So, in my list of factors things like special status. Does a person have some mental health issues? Something that we could consider if that's something that we knew.
Jeremy Lesniak:
All right. So. I've got a feeling this might derail or come back up later. So, kick it down the line if need be. What about you should have known?
Jason Hamilton:
You should have known it was a thing. It is possible then one would make that argument that goes to the reasonableness. I'm sorry, the reason for the amount of force. And the reason we believe that force can be used against us. Right. So. let's say, we got someone reaching for something in the waistband. If we know the fact that thing wasn't a gun. And we believe at the time that it wasn't a gun, it is going to be questioned. Should you have known that wasn't a gun? Based on its placement size and shape. Its other characteristics. And could legitimately become a question that dams self-defense. If we have very solid evidence that you should have known that wasn't. Now, there's a lot of things that can muddy those waters. And with police in particular, trained on a lot of things that are very specifically in those waters. We definitely seen [00:33:02-00:33:04]. It is a question that could come up provided that there's evidence for and no, that wasn't going to come back up later. And what I was saying so thank you for asking. In my experience, in most cases, the police are the ones they're going to make a determination of whether or not someone was defending themselves. More to make a determination about whether or not self-defense is relevant to the case at all. If 2 people are fighting. We're going to be determining whether or not some one of them was defending themselves and the other one. That's what we think. Usually, the whole process of including self-defense in criminal justice, sort of the whole criminal justice flow from there and out. Starts with the police and frequently it ends with the police. And I have numerous cases that I was involved in as an arresting officer, as someone helping somebody where that was the case. So, yes, I would say in general my experience is these things and this is again not going to be universal. Most people who won the face of things are acting in good faith to defend themselves or others are never charged. That can go in there, can go the other way.
I know if deadly force is used even if we think that it seems like it was used in self-defense, we're significantly more cautious and were already consulting with prosecutors because they're the ones that are actually on the prosecutor and prosecuting these things. So, we're including them in our decision-making process and there's an abundance of caution in terms of judgements when it comes to that stuff and I'll talk a little bit more about that one of my cases here. Many times, I have had situations in which on the face of it, it seems like they're just trying to defend themselves and that person never interested, never gets charged, never really gets looked at. Again, their name comes up in the affidavit of the charging the other person. As a witness and that's just about it. Don't assume the police are going to trust your account of what happened. I can't say enough. You know, you're an honest person, you know you're a good person, you know that you are going to try to represent things as they happened. You're not going to make yourself seem like a superhero. You're not going to cover up the things that you think might have. You might have done better. Any of this, other sort of stuff, you're not just simply going to lie. You know that you're going to do that. I have no idea. People lie to me all the time. Almost like the taxes, it is an absolute fact of where we are in the world and there is nothing written on your face. The determinants for me that you were the person that is telling the truth. And the other person is lying. I start with the assumption that what everyone tells me is at least a little bit wrong. Even if your intention is to be completely honest and upfront, it's your perspective that you're telling me about which means it's not. You know it's not the all-knowing third-party view of what happened. It's yours. Subjective. When we do any investigation essentially it always starts with talking to a person and getting the account of something that happened. We're always searching for information to support or refute what people told us. When you are thinking about whether or not a particular act of self-defense is going to be justified. Now, we're looking around for other sources of information. Be there other people, be they be cameras, be they physical evidence that shows that one account is more culture is married to the truth than another. We're looking for other elements that we can elect on other pieces of information that can confirm or deny what someone is telling us.
So, to go over a couple cases these are today’s accounts that are merely in the mind. As I was thinking about this, just because they were, you just got interesting from this perspective. I was dispatched to a report that someone had been stabbed at the time one of our local drug compasses. And I got there and we had everybody separated and we called the whole space of cops there. We had some... cops from a neighboring agency that were already in town and they showed up and helped us and we sort of got everything working. There was someone actually stabbed. He was taken to the hospital pretty immediately and everything else for a peaceful... we kind of separated folks out and made sort of a safe space for everyone to be interviewed and everything you can look at. The story that I eventually got from the man who stabbed the guy in the hospital is that the fella who is in the hospital was trying to push his way into his house. He said “no” there's sort of a battle over the door. He gets to the door and gets to come inside your house because I know there's a drug dealer in there and I want to buy drugs from him. No, you don't get to my house. I'm saying no. That turns into some fisticuffs. The man who was stabbed was holding the knife. Got to the ground. According to our stabber, he's losing and is getting pushed over background in this fight and is now suing out on the deck. There's a very, very, very, large drop-off of the back of the stack and he thinks he's going to fall to his death. It actually gets his hands on the knife and sticks him. I tried to talk with the ‘stabby’, the ‘stabby’ was really, really, really, high and just kind of couldn't give me a great breakdown of what happened. Here, I got some statements from some other people that were mostly the [00:41:03-00:41:04] of that's generally what happened to them, certainly fighting. I don't really know what it's about. The drug dealer himself is of course not going to tell me anything at all about anything. “Nothing happened. I don't know, that's just people’s things. Who knows? I don't care”. In the end, getting what I could get out of it. There wasn't a camera that recorded it. I really wanted that. There used to be a camera right back there that no longer worked or didn't work at the time. And after consulting the state's attorney, we... The person who is trying to break into the house was, we call it the primary aggressor, the person who is choosing to fight. That's the person we would have arrested but we were also going to charge, we did charge all the other fellow, the stabber. How we determine was probably mostly defending themselves or at least, but based on the majority of our evidence was defending himself. We didn't end up arresting the ‘stabby’, the one was not about himself and brought the knife because he was stabbed and you needed to be in the hospital. So, we should involve citation and we charge them. I don't know exactly what happened in court with that but I thought that example is interesting to see what circumstances can kind of be involved. We are trying to determine who is defending themselves based on very incomplete information. Very vague info from a lot of people that are going to lie to us and difficult circumstantial evidence that only somewhat, only corroborates that actually something happened and not who is on the right.
Andrew Adams:
Not the details.
Jason Hamilton:
Not the individual. Videos, great when you can get it but...
Jeremy Lesniak:
That's interesting to me because there are so many factors. There are so many things going on. I think it might be easy for someone listening to say, oh, well, you know whether or not they were the person going to buy drugs or they were the person who, if I understood we were saying correctly, the person who was in the home was harboring someone selling drugs. You know, you're both in the wrong. So, it doesn't matter. They should both go to jail but it doesn't work that way. We don't get to do that.
Jason Hamilton:
No. Certainly in situations where there's been visible attention to whether or not. There were also drugs. It is a very, very low violence drug. Very, very, very, very, very, very important. It's like the most important job. Drugs. Some people make decisions about things to do with your life. I can’t make decisions for them when this person does. We're not super concerned about that. It is a factor and it's part of the story but I did not arrest anyone for protection. Put it that way. Another case. I was dispatched to a family fight. Domestic violence kind of a thing. Some people that I knew. And I found one of the leading. He had a giant [00:45:15-00:45:18] swollen bruise. I knew him from repeated reports about him being abusive in the relationship. That he wasn't in a place that I was going to. And all other relationships in the past in other departments are done too with other women. We've seen him. We went to the house. Got a story from the other half who said that. She hit him. That he had demanded something from her that she wasn't willing to give, that he had been credibly abusive in the past and that she always lied to us which is correct. Very well with our experience at the [00:46:15-00:46:16] corner. And that should eventually lash out at him to defend herself. And so, the guy with the physical injuries, the person that I arrested here. Because of the things that I knew about their relationship in the past and because of who could reasonably be seen based on gender and strength and size. Who could be determined to be afraid of another person? Who could reasonably have seen the force used by the other person as dangerous to them? That's one of the things we made earlier for nationals. So, to go back to the factors I listed before, we had something on the wall here [00:47:08-00:47:12] Disparity. Male vs female. And a history here that would just leave the reasonable person looking at the situation is and now, she was absolutely defending herself. 100 percent. Right. I wish she had gotten some help with the situation earlier on and had lied to me so many times about it but again, service situations while others are going to play out. I can't make good decisions for people. I'm hoping...
Andrew Adams:
So. I was going to say so, in this particular situation even though she was “the aggressor” in terms of she admitted she didn't physically hit him, it was determined that because of these other factors. She did reasonably fear that she was going to be in an altercation. And that's why it was deemed that he was the one that was arrested.
Jason Hamilton:
Exactly.
Andrew Adams:
Yep, okay.
Jason Hamilton:
It should be noted, I guess, that in Vermont where I work, assault can also be through putting someone in fear for their safety through physical [00:48:25-00:48:28] that you can be part of the aggravated assault and aggravated assaults welcomed the situation. I feel like those are good examples. I mean we can go back to the case history if you want to but I don't know how much time we have really.
Jeremy Lesniak:
We've got some more time, not a ton but what I like about those 2 examples is that they're really not murky. They're not cut and dry. They're not the scenario that we talk about within martial arts circles of, I was on the street minding my own business and someone came up to me and demanded my wallet. Maybe they’re listening and saying, well, you know, Jeremy, how much does Sergeant Hamilton is talking about related to martial arts. If you're a martial arts instructor, you've been teaching more than a few years, I would consistently guarantee that you won't [00:49:37-00:49:38] but guarantee that you've had women who have been in abusive relationships in your class. If you've been teaching a little bit longer than that or maybe even a similar time, I don't know, the data points but you've probably had some children who have been abused. This abuse as initiating circumstances for self-defense is a really broad and relevant aspect. And it's one that we don't talk about because it's murky and it requires painting with some shades of gray. It is instructors when we talk about self-defense, we don't like to talk about shades of gray because it can be very, you know, that there's part of responsibility in telling people. You know, you brought up if this then that, you know, that it's not that cut and dry. Do you have any cases with what's even more cliche? Example of a person minding their own business, in let's say, a public space or a bar or walking down the street and someone comes out of nowhere. Is there one of those we can unpack?
Jason Hamilton:
Yeah. I mean this one immediately comes to mind and frankly, I'm not entirely sure that I did the right thing. So, it's a little bit of a hard one to get exactly right, maybe because it was hard enough at the time. I don't know what we did but this is a good example of the 2020 hindsight thing. Yeah, just to recall, people visibly fighting on the sidewalk seemingly for no reason. Get there, they're literally still visibly fighting. We’re pulling people apart, restraining folks, someone's reading from scripts on the pavement and it's a woman. The total of a larger square kind of athletic strong woman and a skinny guy who is [00:52:04-00:52:06] like obviously, slurring his words doesn't make any sense. Talks and confused circles over and over again. Reeks of alcohol and someone that I just know from prior experience to have to walk this way. And you usually go to the bar and get himself smoked, drunk and walkable. He, despite being kind of willowy and hammered, is significantly more of a threat to her other than the guy involved. Just a passerby like a late-night job, we're kind of an older fella. It is like well. I came across the two of them and they were starting to fight and she was trying to kind of defend herself and so I just jumped in and helped get the guy on the ground and then someone called and that's when they showed up. So, we have a [00:53:18-00:53:20]. And sort of hard to know exactly what was going on. It is definitely not a “give me your wallet” sort of situation. We talked to her. Yeah, she tells us that he's sorts of drunken spinning out of control and that you know, she's trying to help him. And help him home because he wasn't walking very well and it just escalated to a fight. That's when the older fellow stumbled upon and jumped in to try to help her to keep her from being injured. I didn't know or didn't remember at the time but this is a person that I knew and knew to have fairly significant mental health challenges. So, I mean this includes them writing “you're following a drunk guy home from the bar and done helping him”. This is a situation where you're asking to be in some sort of trouble or some sort of physical confrontation. He’s not your friend, you don't know them. What a normal person is going to do in a situation like the drunk guy who maybe doesn't want to talk to you and go home on his own. You can go home easily and safely. And I think the mental health issue sort of led to her. Sort of following the guy and the 2 of them eventually, getting into it with one another. Not really understanding each other or understanding where each other was coming from. But I mean, that's some 2020 hindsight as we were talking about before. But at the time on scene, we're talking about… I don’t know. Kind of innocent woman trying to help this guy home and he’s drunk and out of control and served 35[00:55:33-00:55:]. This one out. I don't think that... It's not a particularly serious case of the violence. We charged it with disorderly conduct which is kind of like stepping down. You were sort of violent, tumultuous in a public place and scary, potentially threatening and dangerous but maybe you didn't actually assault someone. You didn't hurt somebody, causing injury or anything like that. Again, not our typical, none of these things, were not many of them anyway, I have come across that where you usually find yourself training in the martial arts dojo.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Unfortunately.
Jason Hamilton:
I mean we usually are walking through being bullied, we’re walking through being robbed, we're walking through being kidnapped, someone trying to break us, being targeted essentially by someone we don't know. When faced with things, you'll find situations or people we know. A lot of it comes up in the drug trade. For a lot of our violence comes from. And when it isn't those things, it usually has something to do with Mental health issues, drunk people but no health issues, a lot. So, the combination can be extremely violent.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Given all the stuff that we've talked about and again, I'm going to come back to the word murky, multi-faceted is probably another good word. What advice might you have, you know, we're not going out on our own here and you know, it's okay if we go over. But I want to give people some actionable information, isn't the right word but some takeaways. I know that there's a lot of new ways and things going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But given what you've seen, given that you have a context for violence that fortunately the vast majority of the population will never have. And knowing that you're speaking to martial artists, if they're still listening at this point episode, they're interested in the subject. What advice as a martial artist who is able to speak and responsible for violence from an authoritative perspective? What would you tell them?
Jason Hamilton:
[00:58:20-00:58:23] is likely to occur. Yeah, I mean, I’m talking to an audience of people that are probably generally doing a good job of that but we can all kind of look around and roll in where violence is likely to occur. I think understanding the dynamics of violence which I can go over just a little bit here. Also, a good idea but just keeping yourself out of the situation, just sort of the first thing. The reality is that for normal citizens encountering violence outside of personal relationships can be incredibly rare. And we do things appropriately to keep ourselves out of situations that sometimes turn violent. We've done, we are at far greater risk from things like. [00:59:23-0:59:24] than we are. From suddenly being accosted and robbed on the street. So, violence dynamics. There's a great book actually. Has it sitting right here? This is what I recommend for folks facing violence by Rory Miller. He goes over some of the dynamics of violence. Divided them up essentially into 2 categories. The first very common categories, social violence. In the less common categories, asocial violence. Social violence is, well, basically breaks down into four categories. The monkey dance sort of the dominance contest. I'm the bigger monkey. No, I'm the bigger monkey. No, I’m the bigger monkey. We can definitely see the... there's almost anything because of the monkey dance because there are almost guaranteed steps for it. With the just passed out and the squaring off and the sort of tit-for-tat word exchange. Eventually evolved into a like a reaching pointing. You know, the finger in the chest with a finger in the face thing off and then the big looping, stupid, totally monkey brains. I'm not thinking up here. I’m thinking back here. Overhead punch like it's almost clockwork. The way those things go on for martial artists. You just don't have to participate in that stuff like get up and leave your name on it. You do not have to dance this dance with anybody. That's totally a choice.
Jeremy Lesniak:
I feel like I've said that before.
Jason Hamilton:
Yeah, there is a group of monkey dances which is sort of the same thing but also often involves some sort of territory stories. A lot of that sort of stuff that goes into larger scale violence. Super, super important, if you don't want to be in other kinds of monkey dances, don't join a gang. It's just not going to help you avoid violence. Don't drink. That's good advice.
Andrew Adams:
Yep.
Jason Hamilton:
There is also the educational beat down. And some are facets of our society. Stil, awesome subcultures. Sometimes we are learning things by being silenced upon because we are violating some kind of unwritten social code. So, folks will experience violence as a way to correct their behavior. So, the way to avoid that is to not be around folks that think that violence is a good way to teach folks. Things are also to know if you are in one of the situations and try to understand when social norms in those situations might be being violated and don't do that. There's no need to. Even if you find yourself caught in one of these situations, there's no need to be, you know, politics work. they usually go everywhere. If you are someplace where you speak the language. Just about everyone will take, “okay, I didn't know that was wrong. I am sorry”. So, long as we are honest and honest enough and are you brave enough that we are able to apologize for offending somebody... I think we're good enough. The last is the status seeking show and this is listed as the only one, outside of predators that I would say you’re... Careful person can still kind of run afoul on this. The non-alpha, non-dominant. A member of a group in which violence is sort of an example part of life. Trying to raise their perceived status within a group by beating up someone who's not part of things.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Sounds like bullying. Sounds like a general description of bullying.
Jason Hamilton:
Yeah. It is a hierarchy stuff. If I pick someone to pick on that seems kind of tough and I do a good job. Other people will see me tougher and I will move up in status. Again, we can avoid situations where folks think fights show the status of men. Avoid places where those folks congregate, don't be involved in them and don't go to where they are. I just don't need to be around any of that stuff. So, that's half of violence. It's a lot more than half of violence what sort of half or split of the general dynamics of violence. The other half is asocial violence. Resource predators and process spreaders are kind of the predator types. Resource predators are after something that you have that they want. I mean as much money, as usually money. This is the robber, I want to say Robber, I do not mean thief. I mean ‘robber’ meaning that you are assaulting somebody or assaulted him during contamination or your resource off of them. This is going less and less common as it becomes harder and harder to get done but it is still present. And there's so beyond that resource predators. Also, the process predator and this is like truly scary. Serial killer stuff which we know existing. It is incredibly rare and also incredibly, incredibly, incredibly scary. They have… With predators, the 2 strategies we see with them are charms and the blitz is you don't see it. You don't know what to look for in a warning. There isn't like, hey you. Just [01:06:35-01:06:38]. Predators aren't looking for violence. They're looking for getting either through their process or getting their resource. So, the more that they can maneuver the situation into a situation where you're not going to fight back at all, that's what they're going to do. These are folks that are looking to inflict violence potentially or use violence to get the resources they want; they do not want resistance. This is not for status; they don't need to be seen doing this. This is the victim of somebody. Someone will try to charm folks in situations where they can't fight back. Some will just, where you can watch and then blitz when they feel like situations 4 [01:07:34-01:07:35]. So, knowing those things. Reading. There's a lot more detail about that stuff in the book. I think he does a very good job of parsing out. All of those different types of violence and what to look for and how to avoid them. What various kinds of responses can be useful both physically or non-physically. So, I recommend the book for folks again, Facing Violence by Rory Miller. We didn't go over a couple of the legal things but I think we're kind of winding down your time.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Yeah, yeah. if you get to a good point where I mean, again, you know, we may bring back for part 2. You know, especially folks have questions but you know what? You look for a good place for us to wind down here.
Jason Hamilton:
Yeah. No. Yeah. Well, I guess so. I don't really want to go too far down in this. Well, I guess the last thing I'll leave you guys with this. You guys touch on this, you will touch this in a separate podcast. We are fighting. When you're defending yourself, when the police are trying to overcome resistance, whatever we're doing, we're not fighting [01:09:34-01:09:35] this mechanical distinction that you do this, you do that, made all of these things. [01:09:44-01:09:45] kills somebody. All of these things are just convincing the other person that it is no longer useful to them. [01:09:54-01:09:57]. The case is outside of killing. The cases of police completely, physically, incapacitating someone like breaking all their arms and making them totally incapable of resisting are. vanishingly small. Zero essentially. We're not fighting minds, we're fighting bodies. We’re convincing folks that it no longer works. And that point is going to vary depending on circumstance and it does once again, not really lend itself to mechanical distinction. You know, maybe a pain in the legs. To this person it's not often. We're going to just remember in general eventually, this person in order to be overcome. we're going to have to convince them or how to overcome their mind, their willingness to be resistant. Whether willingness to try to hurt us. But it's going to be here, they're going to make a decision at some point. Hey, this just isn't worth it. And the one thing that I really like telling martial artists about violence, partially cases are so murky, just because of our dojo environments can be so sterile. We're actually talking about physical violence; we are not talking about sport. We're not talking about boxing; you're not talking about any. All these things are contests of skill, strength, speed, endurance, impact, tactics. A real fight is a survival contest. The stakes are far too high for rules and fair play. I can guarantee you will not be attacked by someone who thinks it's going to be a fair fight. People are not here…
Andrew Adams:
Good point.
Jason Hamilton:
They're here because they think that they can win. And because they get something out of winning. They haven't chosen into this because they think you're going to beat them or because this would be an interesting contest. So, for cops, I would say… so, work related hazards. Violence is a work related haphazard. We are under no obligation to prove our manhood. We are just looking to accomplish a few goals and go home safely. Or a normal person and themselves, just looking to go home safely. The only good kind of kill is overkill and means presenting with more force than the other person is willing to stand up too.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Sounds like a good place to end.
Andrew Adams:
Well said.
Jason Hamilton:
If you want to get into other sorts of legal stuff, I dug up some jury instructions for self-defense arguments in our work in the states here and we can go over some court cases and that's our stuff up but maybe another time.
Jeremy Lesniak:
Sounds great. I appreciate you being here.
Jason Hamilton:
Absolutely. Thank you, guys...
Andrew Adams:
Sergeant Hamilton, I also want to thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate you taking the time out of your data. Have a good chat with us. Always happy to talk about stuff. This stuff is my stock in trade as big.
Jeremy Lesniak:
I had an absolute blast with this conversation. I learned that one and I'm glad to know that my instincts, our instincts. We're more or less spot on. Always make me feel good to not get stuff wrong but I really appreciated how much deeper we were able to go. And the specific examples and just to further understanding I had. This is one of the things we work hard to bring you on the show is educational, entertaining, and connective content. So, thank you Sergeant Hamilton for coming on. Thanks for your time and thank you, Andrew, for that connection. Thanks to both of you for making this such a great show. Thank you to you, the listener, for giving us a reason to do the show and all the other things that we do. If you want to show your support, remember patreon. Go to whistlekick.com. whistlekickmartialartsradio.com share stuff. Tell people to leave reviews and buy a thing. You know lots of options. Check out, do it. Thank you. We appreciate you. You've got feedback or guess suggestions or topic suggestions, email me at jeremy@whistclekick.com and on our social media is @whistlekick everywhere. Until next time, train hard, smile and have a great day.