Police shootings all too often demonstrate the dangers of “de-escalation”

Recent reports have shown that police officers are repeatedly shooting people with knives and other sharp weapons. These cases, which often involve people in distress, point to two deadly problems: the effectiveness of “de-escalation” is limited. And police officers are too often hesitant to use non-lethal force, allowing the situation to spiral out of control.

In recent years, police officers across the country have often seemed reluctant to use legitimate force to end a standoff incident when verbal attempts to get the offender to give up have failed. This hesitation to use even nonlethal weapons – in situations that clearly call for them – often leads to a police shooting, because at some point, as de-escalation efforts drag on without success, suspects may suddenly attack.

People outside of law enforcement sometimes feel that shootings can always be avoided if officers consistently try to deescalate confrontations with disturbed individuals—as if deescalation is a panacea. But there is no panacea.

De-escalation is undoubtedly an important tool for police officers. It is one of the first things I learned as a young police officer in 1976: talk rather than fight when the situation allows. The hope is that by communicating effectively with the resisting victim, the intensity of the incident will be reduced and he or she will be persuaded to comply. It works when it works (which is the norm) and it doesn’t work when it doesn’t. Therein often lies the fatal mistake: recognizing that de-escalation doesn’t work but hesitating to use non-lethal force for fear of the administrative, legal and media consequences.

This pattern is seen when police are in a standoff with someone armed with a knife. Normally, officers would keep their distance, talk and listen to the person, and maintain communication to resolve the situation peacefully. Instead, with the best of intentions, officers “talk the person to death.” When police fail to recognize that talking won’t work and then refuse to use nonlethal means such as tasers to subdue an armed person, the result is often the opposite: the person becomes more agitated as the standoff drags on, and attacks officers or bystanders with the knife. In such situations, shootings occur.

If only officers had refrained from de-escalating on their own, instead of waiting for the suspect to end the situation by attacking him. If only officers had used a Taser or other non-lethal option and saved a life—not to mention an expensive shooting investigation and trial—rather than “talking” the person to death.

As a longtime consultant on police use of force, I believe officers should talk in most situations, but must assess each case individually as to how long they talk without acting. I think it’s likely that officers have become gun-shy because so many of their colleagues have faced backlash after shootings, but extending that attitude to nonlethal force serves no one. Don’t let an overemphasis on de-escalation endanger the lives of civilians and officers. Don’t hesitate to use tools like Tasers and other use of force options when necessary. Fewer and less severe injuries from nonlethal weapons are preferable to preventable shootings.

It is unrealistic to hope that all police confrontations can be ended with conversation. But can most be ended with conversation or non-lethal means? Absolutely – and in fact, most confrontations already are. The exceptions that result in shootings are the cases that make headlines. We can make these exceptions less common through better policies and training, and a cultural shift that encourages the use of non-lethal weapons at the right time.

The public and the media have a role to play. Just as public pressure and equipping officers with a variety of nonlethal weapons have helped reduce the number of police shootings compared to decades ago, public support can make a difference in getting officers and departments to use less force — before a standoff turns into a shootout.

_____

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Copy the story link

” Previous