Directions: Overview Department policies regarding the use of force govern police officer’s actions during a wide array of encounters. These encounters can be everything from compliance to violent resistance by an offender. Many departments report low Taser effectiveness rates. For example, Indianapolis reported only a 54.7% effectiveness rate and Los Angeles 57.1% (Gilbert, 2019). Also, offenders can be under the influence of stimulants, such as “Bath Salts” or “Angel Dust” (PCP), or maybe emotionally disturbed and in an agitated or chaotic state. Persons under these influences often possess superhuman strength and extreme pain resistance, rendering pain-compliance techniques useless. Incidences involving persons much larger than an officer or who are on stimulants can cause a disparity of force, which may cause that officer to utilize physical restraint techniques above simple pain-compliance techniques. In 2007, the Canadian Police Research Centre conducted a national study on neck restraint in policing. The study’s finding was “while no restraint methodology is completely risk-free, there is no medical reason to routinely expect grievous bodily harm or death following the correct application of the vascular neck restraint in the general population by professional police officers with standardized training and technique” (Hall, C. & Butler, C. 2007. Pg. 76). Instructions For the initial post, If you were creating a use-of-force policy for your police agency, would you recommend physical restraint techniques above standard pain-compliance into the policy? Why or why not? Provide two examples of potential repercussions from your recommended policy.