Police Use of Coercive Force, Consent Decrees and the Responsibility to Deescalate

Policing often involves coercive force – anywhere from mere presence all the way to deadly force – and it is rarely a pleasant occurrence that causes people to either call police or causes police to investigate a suspicious activity. The bottom line is this: officers must control all of their professional encounters. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue point stating, “The risk of harm to both police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.”?Michigan v. Summers, 551 U.S. 692 (1981).??It is nearly always the suspect’s responsibility to “deescalate” a situation, not a peace officer’s.?

?????????All the latest rage in newspapers (and even in some police magazines) about “deescalation of force training” concerns me as a peace officer, attorney and citizen. Deescalation might be appropriate when there is not an imminent threat to officers’ lives or other innocent persons. Well thought out training, like that offered by Force Science Institute, to cover such instances is prudent. However, the media’s repeating the mantra “de-escalate” ad nauseam creates unreasonable expectations in the both the civilian and police community about how police should use force to control violent situations. It often sets them both up for failure.

?????????As an example, consider anyone who has to wrestle a 35 lb. 2yr old in ER – how many docs and nurses does it take to give that child an IV???One fighting subject is possibly an?imminent?threat of grievous bodily harm, either from hand or foot strikes to the officer, or by grabbing officer’s weapons [17-20% of cops killed in the line-of-duty are shot with their own weapon by a suspect who gained control on that weapon].[1]?Too many good men and women in blue are killed in situations like this. An assailant only needs to get lucky once, while an officer can never afford to be unlucky.

?????????Add another suspect or two to the fight and that risk increases exponentially. Cops are not trained to be the fictional characters of Chuck Norris movies.??And, in reality, two average fighters can overwhelm even Chuck Norris, because all one assailant has to do is to distract Chuck for that precious moment while the other bad guy sticks a pencil into Chuck’s eye. It will be game over for Chuck (or a peace officer similarly situated).?

?????????Fights are vicious, bloody and extremely dangerous. People to do not have a right to fight with police and if they do, society ought to expect that police quickly and violently subdue the threat. Why are the media portraying things otherwise???I understand (but don’t condone) the monetary incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys to do so, but the media ought to seek ought the truth in such instances.??And, in instances where an alleged suspect dies – think Mike Brown in St. Louis or Freddy Gray in Baltimore or even George Floyd in Minnesota??– the “victim” was often the author of his own misfortune by violently resisting arrest and engaging in patterns of misconduct never before tolerated in a polite, lawful society.??

?????????Over 66,000 times a year, police are assaulted.??Of that number, 15,500 are assaulted with a dangerous and deadly weapon. As a matter of law, if an officer is assaulted with a dangerous and deadly weapon, deadly force is authorized. Yet, well less than 1,000 suspects are shot and killed by LE nationwide. So, this notion that it is “open season” on anyone is a politically driven fantasy. Writing “deescalation” clauses into use of force statutes and policies will only perpetuate this myth and make officers’ jobs more difficult and dangerous.[2]?As do inane Department of Justice “Consent Decrees” as there is nothing consensual about them. The DOJ has deep pockets and can bankrupt state and local jurisdictions who try to fight them.??Moreover, the lawyers writing these decrees are often intellectually lazy and insert their own notions of reasonableness on a populace that bears little reality to the situation on the street.?

?????????This is not to say that police recruitment and training needs does not need to be better tuned in order to bring into the profession virtuous Peace Officers.??I say “Peace” rather than “Law Enforcement” officers, because a robot can enforce laws. Society needs savvy, mature officers who can use discretion when necessary and not just be out looking to boost their arrest or ticket stats.[3]

?????????Hiring and fielding virtuous men and women means selecting and training officers who are morally courageous, competent, possessing self-control and seeking justice for all citizens.??When you have a virtuous organization, humility and service – as well as a striving for magnanimity – begin to sprout.

?????????These issues and many more need to be discussed throughout society so that both police and the populace they serve gain a better understanding of their interrelationship. If not, chaos as seen in my hometown of Baltimore will erupt.?

#crime #lawenforcemment #DOJ #ConsentDecrees #leadership #training

[1]?See, E.g., Lam, Katherine, “A Massachusetts police officer died Sunday after a man attacked him with a rock, then took the cop's gun and shot him in the head and chest, officials said”?Fox News, July 15, 2018. The unknowing or willfully ignorant – usually members of the plaintiffs’ bar or faux civil rights groups – would suggest the officer should have used “minimum” force or only that which is “necessary” (as recent efforts in the California legislature attempted).?

[2]?E.g., on August 12, 2023, in Middletown, Connecticut, Detective Karli Travis was brutally beaten with a hammer by Winston Tate. On her body camera one can hear Travis repeatedly order Tate to drop the hammer. She should have shot him the moment he refused and stepped toward her … such hesitation to shoot individuals clearly needing to be shot is amplified by the “de-escalation” and anti-police rhetoric.?

[3]?For example, while a patrolman in Baltimore the author often came across groups of teenagers smoking marijuana in parked vehicles. I made the kids dump their weed and paraphernalia down the sewer then sat them down on the curb and told them, “A marijuana arrest can ruin your life. Consider this a warning. And, if you have to smoke dope, do it in your basement not on my post.??If I catch you again, you are going to jail!”??Sadly, too many of my colleagues would have locked-up all the kids and gotten “credit” for five narcotics-related arrests.