Raising the Bar: The Mission of Continually Improving Our Police

On Friday, January 29th, I had the privilege of participating in a meeting with over 200 of the nation’s most prominent police executives. Accompanied by high-ranking members of the Justice Department, the White House and notable members of the nation’s press, the purpose was to discuss and formulate a plan for improving how police work is carried out in the United States.

The meeting was hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum, (PERF), a policing policy think tank based out of Washington DC, and was held at the Newseum, in their seventh-floor conference rooms. The focus of the meeting was to create a broad spectrum of policy initiatives that, if implemented, would qualify as some of the most sweeping reforms to hit the law enforcement community in a quarter century.

The name of the conference was “Taking Policing to a Higher Standard,” it was part of a trilogy of meetings and was the culmination of nearly two years of effort by PERF, and the law enforcement community. These efforts were aimed at providing solutions to some of the most pressing issues facing the nation’s police. Most persistent were the discussions surrounding the “sanctity of human life” and how police departments train and apply their “use of force policy” when encountering the various forms of resistance that police officers find themselves faced with. 

Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Forum, opened the meeting by stating that "we need to raise the bar for all police departments,”and the majority in attendance, including myself, agreed. The call for raising the bar comes in an era where events like the police involved shootings of Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago dominate the news and the aftermath of which consists of violent riots and public outcry.

I challenge that we, the members of the police service, need to embrace this as an opportunity to improve our training and further, to move the bar ever higher for our profession. We have the responsibility to improve the level of trust the citizens of our country have for their police.

The philosophy concerning the preservation of human life was translated into “just because an officer is authorized to use deadly force, does not mean we necessarily should or even must.” For the uninitiated, and even for those who are familiar with the legal justifications surrounding the use of deadly force, there exists the 1989 Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) decision in Graham v. Connor. Although many rules were solidified by this case, one ruling in particular concerned the utilization of force by police officers. Chief Justice Rehnquist summarized the majority opinion when he wrote;

“The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application." (Emphasis added by the author.)

 In practical terms this means that the deciding factor as to whether or not to use force is what the police officer thought at the time he or she decided that a particular level of force was reasonable and necessary, and further, it is predictable and moreover acceptable that his or her decision may be clouded by the fact that the situation itself did not allow for the time to consider other means of resolving the issue. All this sounds pretty reasonable… if a police officer is dealing with a man who is trying to kill him; he or she would be authorized to utilize whatever amount of force they deemed necessary to prevent the offender from carrying out their intentions, even if other options that come to light in a hindsight review may have been able to be utilized and may have resolved the issue with a lesser degree of force.

However, and here come the complications…all officers have different minds and mindsets, they all have different abilities, varying levels of confidence and fear, and will ALL make different decisions in the same situation, based on these and other unpredictable and unknowable factors. This has played out with hundreds and thousands of officers across this country, which, in turn has resulted in what clearly appears to be unreasonable uses of force as reported by the media.

So what is it exactly that PERF and those in attendance are trying to accomplish?

In order to answer that question, one must understand how police departments have interpreted and trained in the use of force, in communication tactics and in policy formulation. Briefly, it would be fair to say that the majority of today’s police officers have been trained that they are under no obligation to retreat when faced with force. As a matter of fact, many states have codified this into a “no retreat clause” in their laws, meaning that police officers, in the performance of their duties, are under no obligation to back down; New York is one of those states. To be completely forthright, I philosophically (and on its face) agree with the concept here. The police should not be obligated to retreat; they should have the legal authority to stand their ground whenever they, in their interpretation of a situation, and based on their training and experience, feel it is reasonable and necessary to stand their ground, i.e. an immediate threat to their life or the life of another person.    

 The above being said, across the country entire departments and the majority of our nations police officers have been trained that they should not retreat, and that they have the obligation to stand their ground and, in reality don’t have the choice to retreat when faced with a person who has a knife or other form of potentially deadly force who intends to harm the officer or another. PERF has raised the issue of why? Not because PERF is looking for our nations police to run away from a situation and allow knife-wielding people to run amok. Clearly, that is not the case. PERF and the majority of the leading law enforcement leaders in attendance want to train our officers to make a real and concerted effort to de-escalate the situation FIRST, and if possible, try to slow the situation down, create time and utilize that time to more peaceably resolve the situation. Historically, a police officer would be more likely to exercise their legal authority to use deadly force in the first instance. This is a main focus of the efforts and it is this paradigm that we, the leaders of the nations police, are trying to adjust.

 On its surface, especially to the non-police readers, this adjustment seems very easy, even to the point of some people stating “I can’t believe it’s not that way already.” However, the SCOTUS wisely gave police officers a rule that considered what the officer’s state of mind was at the time they took action; which makes perfect sense. It is not an untrained civilian who is tasked with dealing with these situations—it is the nations police. The most critical piece of evidence in many of these incidents is; what was the officer thinking when they took a person’s life or used deadly force? Were they in fear for their life or the life of someone else? Was there a threat to their life or the life of another?  If the answer to one of these questions is yes, the courts will weigh the evidence and if the evidence supports the officer’s statements, as a matter of law the judge will side with the officer and justify the officer‘s actions as reasonable and necessary.

To complicate the issue further, many academies and departments across the country train with a rule called the “21 foot rule.” Originally formulated by a Mr. Dennis Tueller, a trainer and Sergeant out of Salt Lake City, who researched, developed and demonstrated the rule in a video that became widely popular in the law enforcement profession. An example of Tuller’s rule in practical terms is a follows. Should a police officer be faced with a person with a knife, and the person charges at the officer, the officer would not be able to un-holster his weapon, gain target acquisition and fire a round at the individual to stop him before the knife wielding person could reach the officer and potentially stab him (on average the amount of time it took volunteer’s to cover the distance was 1.5 seconds). This “rule” is still generally true for the most part and for most people.

 Unfortunately, the rule has been misinterpreted in serious ways. In many places across the country the “21 foot rule” has been interpreted to be a “reactionary gap,” meaning if a person crosses or is within that 21-foot distance, the officer becomes authorized to use deadly force against the person with the knife. This is untrue and particularly troubling! My first question and the obvious thought should be, WHY CAN’T WE CAN BACK UP? The answer is, we can and we should train to be dynamic in our approach in order to enable officers to safely reposition themselves behind cover, a car, a door, etc. and to keep the offender more than 21 feet from the officer or another, when possible and practical.   This is the crux of tactical repositioning. American law enforcement must take the time to evaluate how they have trained their officers and then, if necessary, re-train our departments to think more dynamically and tactically and to focus on the de-escalation options before resolving to utilize deadly force. We, the police should be thinking, “how can I resolve this or any situation peacefully, FIRST.”

 Please, do not misinterpret my words here as saying that the police in America are hell bent on killing people and not preserving lives. I have been in this business for nearly three decades and nearly every cop I have ever met dreads the thought of having to take a person’s life, even if justified to do so and many officers do take steps to de-escalate and reposition themselves in order not to have to utilize their weapons. However, that does not mean that most officers, when faced with a real threat, aren’t simply going to rely on the focus of their training. Police Officers resoundingly respond to situations according to how they are trained and the options officers think to implement when faced with a crisis situation are primarily based on what they were trained to do and what department policy and law gives them permission to do. Going forward police training must not only focus on the officer surviving the encounter, but also on the preservation of all lives in a situation whenever possible.

If a department is training to “stand your ground,” and to utilize whatever force is legally justified to preserve our positions, we are losing many, many opportunities to slow thing down, create distance, and use the time we have to communicate, reposition, call for other non-lethal resources, and give the situation and the offices the opportunity to resolve the situation without their firearms.

 While the above was a major portion and focus of the conference, there were actually 30 recommendations put forward for consideration and development. They are:

1. The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of everything an agency does.
2. Departments should adopt policies that hold themselves to a higher standard than the legal requirements of Graham v. Connor.
3. Police use of force must meet the test of proportionality.
4. Adopt de-escalation as formal agency policy.
5. The Critical Decision-Making Model provides a new way to approach critical incidents.
6. Duty to intervene: Officers need to prevent other officers from using excessive force.
7. Respect the sanctity of life by promptly rendering first aid.
8. Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited.
9. Prohibit use of deadly force against individuals who pose a danger only to themselves
10. Document use-of-force incidents, and review your data and enforcement practices to ensure that they are fair and non-discriminatory
11. To build understanding and trust, agencies should issue regular reports to the public on use of force.
12. All critical police incidents resulting in death or serious bodily injury should be reviewed by specially trained personnel.
13. Agencies need to be transparent in providing information following use-of-force incidents.
14. Training academy content and culture must reflect agency values.
15. Officers should be trained to use the Critical Decision-Making Model.
16. Use Distance, Cover and Time to replace the concepts such as the “21 foot rule” and “drawing a line in the sand.”
17. De-escalation should be a core theme of an agency’s training program.
18. De-escalation starts with effective communication.
19. Mental Illness: Implement a comprehensive agency training program on dealing with people with mental health issues.
20. Tactical training and mental health training need to be interwoven to improve response to critical incidents.
21. Community based outreach teams can be a valuable component to agency’s mental health response.
22. Provide a prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the likelihood of unnecessary force.
23. Training as teams can improve performance in the field.
24. Scenario-based training should be prevalent, challenging and realistic. 
25. Officers need access to and training in less-lethal options.
26. Agencies should consider new options for chemical spray.
27. An ECW (Electronic Control Weapon) deployment that is not effective does not mean that officers should automatically move to their firearms.
28. Personal protective shields may support de-escalation efforts during critical incidents, including situations involving persons with knives, baseball bats, or other improvised weapons that are not firearms.
29. Well trained call-takers and dispatchers are essential to the police response to critical incidents.
30. Educate the families of persons with mental health problems on communicating with call-takers.  

Click Here For The Full PERF Recommendations.

Making the Change

Currently, I serve as the Commanding Officer of the Nassau County Police Academy, located on Long island, New York. As part of our commitment to continual improvement, we have implemented the vast majority of the training recommendations contained within the PERF recommendations above and are in the process of evaluating and incorporating many of the policy and equipment recommendations as well. The NCPD is well ahead of the curve in this regard. 

The Nassau County Decision Making Model

One particular initiative that we have been incorporating in our academy is the concept of the Decision Making Model recommended in numeral 15 above. In Nassau, we now teach our recruits a modification of the National Decision Making Model developed in Great  and reported on by members of Police Scotland, during the January 29th (and prior) meetings. The model is designed as a wheel. In the center of the wheel are the Department‘s Mission, Vision, Values and Ethics; these are the foundational principals utilized when all decisions are made, especially those concerning the use of force.

On the wheel or perimeter of the model are the questions or steps of the model that are taken when making a decision. Again these steps are taken ensuring that the tenets at the center of the model are adhered to; the component(s) that make up the axis of the model are to be used when formulating any decision. We still teach everything in the law, all about the SCOTUS decisions and many other critical court cases, however, we have added in the Nassau County Decision Making Model as a way to systematically consider the pragmatic approach we already use so well. The Nassau County Decision Model is a framework for making decisions and for assessing and judging those decisions. It is designed to help determine whether an officer made the right decision and whether improvements could or should be made to the decision that was implemented.

Briefly, here is how an officer “spins” the model:

There are five steps when considering how to act in a given situation. Again, an officer’s actions are always based on the ethical, moral and integrity based foundation at the center of the model. Here are the five steps that are used to develop the approach to be considered/used in any use of force situation:

1. Information and intelligence gathering; this is where an officer gathers initial information about the call for service.
2. Assess threat and risk and develop a working strategy; the officer considers the specific threat and what the risks are (known or unknown). The officer is trained to assess the risk as well as the most likely outcome and possible alternative outcomes. This is designed to determine the level of risk and how best to counteract it. Thought should be put onto deciding what resources may be needed to deal with the risk and situation.
3. What are the legal powers and policy considerations; Officers are trained to consider what powers and police policies might apply in determining a remedy to the particular situation? Which police powers and department polices are in play for the situation and are the guide for actions developed?
4. Identify options and contingencies: officers use the information gathered to determine exactly what options are open to be used. Officers consider the possible outcomes and how the officer can arrive at these outcomes; this will guide the officer to ascertain which de-escalation techniques are the most applicable or practicable, if any. The officer will consider what can and may go wrong so that they can create contingency plans that may be implemented in the event that things do go wrong.
5. Take action and review what happened; officers need to work out the most appropriate action as well as how to appropriately implement those actions, and then apply them to the situation. If the chosen path does not bring the situation under control or to a successful conclusion, the officer must implement an alternative action(s) until resolution. If the situation is brought to a successful close, officers consider the actions they took, and consider why they took them, in order to enable learning and to determine if something may be accomplished more effectively or efficiently if faced with the same situation again.

While this method is new to our department, it has already benefited the academic environment inasmuch as trainees are now being taught how to think and to do so more systematically. The model teaches how to articulate “the who, what, where when and why” of the situation and how to give a more comprehensive explanation of an officer‘s actions and decisions.

Sergeant James Young of Police Scotland, made the point that in Scotland, officers are finding that “…there is great benefit when utilizing the model. It helps in formulating their thoughts, explaining their actions and helps to cohesively organize their reports.” The consensus is that the reports are more comprehensive, and when an officer uses the model to shape their report, the report is more accurate and well organized. Furthermore, when considering courtroom testimony, the Scottish Police force is finding that officers are more easily articulating their actions and are able to do so in a more clear and concise manner. Furthermore, the District Attorney’s in Scotland are utilizing the model as a basis for organizing their questioning of officers on the witness stand.

While, it is still not fully known if the model will realize the same positive effects in the U.S., it is more than reasonable to expect that officers who are taught a systematic way to approach and organize their method of decision making will help to create a more competent and conversant officer who will, at the very least, have been trained to think more broadly and critically about the situations they find themselves facing.

Leading up to and during the implementation of the Decision Making Model, there was concern by some officers and trainers that the model may “slow down the decision process” and cause officers to think too much before making a decisions taking up valuable time when immediate decisions need to be made. Being a bit of an amateur behavioral economist and behavioral scientist, having read no less than 30 books on the subject, I have no reason to believe this will be the case. Additionally, The empirical evidence out of Great Brittan and Scotland, amongst others tells another story.

I will utilize the following analogy to explain:

I am sure almost everyone reading this article has a driver’s license. I want you to recall the very first time you ever got behind the wheel of a car and were about to drive. You sat there, probably had to be told or at least figure out, where the key went and you started the car. You had no idea what it would feel like on your hand, how the steering wheel would feel, and what kind of pressure needed to be put on the gas pedal to rev-up the motor. When you decided it was time to move the car, you put your foot on the break pedal, probably pushing too hard or too soft, and then tried to put the car into gear. When the car finally engaged into gear and you decided to actually move, I would bet that the first time you pulled from the curb, it was less than elegant…the car probably jumped forward or possibly moved so slowly that you felt and looked pretty ridiculous. When you needed to stop for the first time, I’ll bet it was a very short and quick stop or maybe an elongated process that again took too long and too much distance. And so it went…

Now try to remember your drive to work this morning… I would bet you have no recollection of starting the car, or how you put the car in gear, or how much pressure you used to put on the break pedal prior to engaging the transmission. Further, I would bet that you were probably talking on the phone, or listening to the radio or thinking about something other than driving, and yet you made it to work having no idea, at least consciously, how you got there!

The difference between these two processes is this, when you first were learning to drive, everything you did in the car was a conscious effort and required purposeful thinking and energy to accomplish; nothing was automatic, nothing subconscious. Now when you drive a car over 90 percent of what you’re doing has been taken over by your subconscious brain and is automated. This is why, when you want to stop at the store to buy milk on the way home, and you’re talking on the phone while driving or talking to a passenger, you will often times find that you have driven home instead of picking up the milk. Why? Because you went on autopilot, and your subconscious brain took over and drove you home.

Conscious thought takes a lot of energy and time to accomplish. Subconscious thinking is very fast and takes much less energy. Your brain is always looking to automate as much of what you do as it can. Your brain remembers each time you have an experience, and if you have enough repeated experiences, your brain will begin to automate or move the task to the subconscious; your response to the situation will become more automated. This is why we can type fast and it is also why we react as police officers to real world situations in the manner we were trained to react. We have practiced the response to certain situations over and over and therefor we respond how we train.

By training our brains to think along the lines of the Decision Making Model, the processes will become subconscious and automated to the point that we can gather Intel, assess the threat, recognize policy and law considerations, think of a plethora of responses, choose the response and then adjust our responses in the blink of an eye to a change in the situation! We do this already, but we do it subconsciously, and unknowingly. By learning how to systematically think about and then recall what actions we took and why, we give ourselves the opportunity to improve our response(s) and to chose more appropriate courses of action with the benefit of review and reassessments.

It is the responsibility of those in positions of leadership to move the law enforcement profession in a positive and proactive direction. Waiting for a mistake to be made by an officer, or worse to know that we can do better than we are doing and not do so because our actions are justified and legal is the antithesis to our mission; to protect and serve.

While I am in agreement with the decisions of the SCOTUS mentioned above, I also know that we can do better than we are doing right now as a whole. American law enforcement is outstanding! We live in the safest, most free and peaceful country in the world. If we ask ourselves “How did we get here?” We will realize that it was because as a county we wanted things to be better than they were and we, as a people, are not good at accepting things simply because “that’s the way we do things around here.”

We have the obligation to improve and to take a harsh look at our actions as a profession and move things forward. We, the leaders of American law enforcement can do this ourselves in a manner that is purposeful and morally correct or we can have a judge in some courtroom view a video,who is feeling tremendous political pressure to make a decision against one of our brethren do it for us!

I pose the challenge that we the leaders of our nation‘s police move our profession ahead and implement as many of the 30 PERF recommendations as we can, in a manner that will benefit our officers and the public we are sworn to serve. While not all of the recommendations will be suitable for your particular agency or population, by implementing the majority of the recommendations  everyone benefits; officers will be better trained and equipped to deal with critical situations and the public will feel a greater sense of trust and cooperation with and from their police.

Thank you for reading. Ron Walsh