Thread: Pre-Assaultive indicators
10/03/2009 4:08pm, #11
10/03/2009 8:50pm, #12
Some of these things are obvious, like a guy taking up a boxers stance. Watching someone switch his stance to a 45 degree is go time for me.
When im mad i dont so much clench my fist, as flex it open and closed (part of this is a conscious effort NOT to clench my fist). Either way its a dead give away when im cranky.
I'm not sure what they mean by a "target stare" I've follwoed guys walking through the bar who are obviously looking for someone in particular, maybe that is what they mean.
I find anytime a guy turns around at the exit to the bar, there is a high chance he is turning to smack you and then run off. Not very sporting IMO...
10/03/2009 9:49pm, #13
10/03/2009 10:05pm, #14
For those of you who haven't, google "Pre-Assaultive indicators".
Also, some persons may not exhibit indicator cues. Has this happened to anyone?
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 10/03/2009 10:17pm at .
10/04/2009 10:25pm, #15
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Vancouver, BC
The recent surge of kids on the Autism Spectrum means that soon we will have more adults on the Autism Spectrum.
10/05/2009 1:10pm, #16
The below are taken from the Minnesota Rules for Autism Sprectrum Disorders and list behaviors common to the "Autism Spectrum". This may answer your question.
Also, while reading, imagine you are conducting a street interview for burglary/assault/whatever. Persons with autistic disorders may not respond to stress well at all. That said an officer who feels the interviewee is not cooperative may induce stress (implied treats, unpleasant outcomes, bad things happening to the interiewee) to gain cooperation. Without knowing the person and with your own situational stress, how would you as an officer intent on making an arrest, perceive these behaviors. As a mental excercise, think of the different personality types within LE an how those personalities may respond to a noncompliant subject exhibiting these behaviors. It might turn out to be a bad day for everyone involved. Consider it as an important issue even if only when you have to deal with it.
Items relevant to the twin topics have been marked bold face.
(1) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as documented by two or more behavioral indicators, for example:
- limited joint attention and limited use of facial expressions directed toward others;
- does not show or bring things to others to indicate an interest in the activity;
- demonstrates difficulties in relating to people, objects, and events;
- a gross impairment in ability to make and keep friends;
- significant vulnerability and safety issues due to social naivete;
- may appear to prefer isolated or solitary activities;
- misinterprets others' behaviors and social cues.
- not using finger to point or request;
- using others' hand or body as a tool;
- showing lack of spontaneous imitations or lack of varied imaginative play;
- absence or delay of spoken language;
- limited understanding and use of nonverbal communication skills such as gestures, facial expressions, or voice tone;
- odd production of speech including intonation, volume, rhythm, or rate;
- repetitive or idiosyncratic language or inability to initiate or maintain a conversation when speech is present.
- insistence on following routines or rituals;
- demonstrating distress or resistance to changes in activity;
- repetitive hand or finger mannerism;
- lack of true imaginative play versus reenactment;
- overreaction or under-reaction to sensory stimuli;
- rigid or rule-bound thinking;
- an intense, focused preoccupation with a limited range of play, interests, or conversation topics.
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 10/05/2009 1:15pm at .
10/05/2009 3:29pm, #17
As an officer I have taken numerous classes on dealing with "special needs populations". As someone interested in Pre-Assaultive Indicators I have also been presented with the "Autism Question" as well.
All I can say about the issue is that sometimes you can tell when a person is handicapped or has a medical condition and sometimes you cant. I would not want to impress upon officers that they should "assume" that someone exhibiting the indications of aggression is Autistic or "not a threat" by default. The best that can be done is make officers aware of the Autistic symptoms so that they can make the best decision possible at the time.
10/05/2009 4:34pm, #18
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Memphis, TN
it's a different world down here some times.
Too OT? Sorry...
10/06/2009 2:28pm, #19
Please note that the below is follow up from post #8 and while a slight derail is not meant as questioning the value of pre-assaultive indicators or the OP.
Is it possible the officer in theat situation might face sanctions if not prosection for federal civil rights violations?
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 10/06/2009 2:32pm at .
10/06/2009 4:11pm, #20
"Handicapped".."special needs"..."medical disability"..... I think that we have become too enamored with forming "acceptable" terms IMO. Does anybody really believe that what a person thinks "inside" is changed just because they use a more PC term? I'd rather address a persons actions. People can talk all the PC lingo and still be wrong minded. Conversely you can use non-PC terms and still be fair and just. I don't buy into the "this term is going to cause officers to act unfairly" program.
The bottom line in law enforcement is what the cop "reasonably believed" at the time of the encounter. Even if the officer was aware of a subjects Autism I would not recommend that he ignore indications of violence. He may have to temper his response based on that information but Autism doesn't mean that a person is not capable of being a threat. We can exchange "what if's" until the cows come home, but if an officer was responding reasonably to what was presented at the time then I have no issue.
I read a book (cant recall the title) describing a police encounter with an Autistic subject. During a pat frisk the subject turned and punched the officer. The subject was arrested and charged. When asked why he punched the officer the subject communicated that 'No, I didn't mean to hurt the policeman. I just wanted him to stop touching me.'"
Now. Having Autism doesn't exempt you from a pat frisk, and I'm not going to just accept getting punched without reacting, knowledge of disability or not. However. If I find out the person is Autistic after the fact I can take that into consideration when deciding to charge or not.
If I know ahead of time I can hopefully remember to use simple and direct commands to prevent confusion in the subject. Avoid physical contact unless necessary and be aware that the persons actions and vocalizations are not necessarily a threat. NOT that they are NO THREAT but that these signs could be symptoms of their disability.
A crime is a crime. If Autism is going to be used as a "defense" that needs to be proven in court, not on the street. The issue here is fundamentally one of fair treatment and justifiable use of force. I will go with what is presented to me, tempered with any additional information I may gather at the scene. If someone is acting like they are going "to roll", I'm not going to be asking them a slew of medical history questions...I'm just not.
Sometimes you have no idea what a persons "issues" are. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you can sort of "figure it out". Simply being aware that Autism can cause some of these indicators helps some officers "figure it out". That's the best you can expect IMO.
Here is a good LE and Autism website:
Last edited by tgace; 10/06/2009 4:40pm at .