De-Escalation Works, But US Law Enforcement Hasn't Show Much Interest In Trying It

from the shoot-first,-answer-questions-72-hours-later... dept

Deescalation isn't something most police officers want to talk about -- especially those who allow their unions to do all their talking for them. But shootings by police have achieved critical mass, forcing the issue to be confronted by law enforcement officials. There are no national guidelines for force deployment. Local law enforcement agencies don't have much in the way of best practices or standards, pretty much allowing officers to decide how much force is necessary on their own, relative to the amount of "reasonable fear" officers can later credibly swear to in court.

Cities and police departments may be forced to confront this sooner, rather than later, if for no other reason than to limit the bleeding -- both literally and metaphorically. Civil rights lawsuits are filed daily and settlement amounts continue to escalate. Officers in the US kill ~1,000 people per year, with that number being completely untethered from the "safety" of the job -- at least as compared to violent crime rates and/or officers being killed in the line of duty. Generally speaking, there's less crime in America than there has been for decades, but cops are "fearing for their safety" like it's 30 years ago.

Over the past several days, police station CCTV video of a Bangkok police officer disarming a knife-wielding man has gone viral. Instead of greeting a threat with violence, Officer Anirut Malee greeted the potential attack with words… and neutralized the threat completely with a hug.

For this act of bravery, Officer Malee was given an award by Thailand's national police chief. And he's become the unofficial poster boy for deescalation. Every situation is unique, some will argue, and what worked here won't work for every person wielding a weapon. This is true, but in the US almost every situation involving a mentally disturbed person carrying a weapon is handled the same way: with a deployment of force, most of it deadly. So, arguments about nuance are worthless in a law enforcement climate where officers are allowed to calm their nerves by firing guns.

And the situation above really isn't that unique. A recent controversial killing involved mental distress and wielded knife. Only this one happened in Seattle, and ended in the shooting death of a pregnant woman.

It's not as though the officers went into the situation unprepared. They were responding to Charleena Lyle's call to report a burglary. Audio recordings of the officers included discussions about her mental health issues and previous police interactions. And the seemingly-inevitable shooting was preceded by cops telling Lyle they weren't going to shoot her. This shooting took place under a DOJ consent decree meant to curb the use of excessive force by Seattle officers. It doesn't necessarily indicate the decree isn't working, but it definitely doesn't suggest the Seattle PD is approaching these sorts of situations with deescalation in mind.

It's almost impossible to imagine a US law enforcement officer approaching a situation like that confronting Officer Malee without a weapon drawn and a whole lot of shouting. There's very little reason for officers to change their approach -- not with courts continually deferring to assertions of fear by police officers and cops who do deescalate situations being fired for supposedly endangering other officers.

But the problem isn't just going to go away. Cities and PDs need to address this now, if for nothing other than purely mercenary reasons. It costs money to defend lawsuits and more money to pay settlements. Even if officials don't really care whether the police maintain a healthy relationship with the communities they serve, they can't keep asking taxpayers to pay for the sins of government employees -- not when there appears to be little effort made by these employees to improve the level of their service.

Filed Under: de-escalation, police, policing

Police Department Thinks 'Two Bullet Limit' Will Prevent Questionable Shootings

from the you-now-have-two-shots-to-de-escalate-the-situation dept

Two months ago, five San Francisco police officers surrounded a man armed with a knife and shot him 21 times. In response, the police department has introduced reforms meant to keep this sort of "interaction" to a minimum in the future. On the positive side, the reform efforts include training that will hopefully lead to fewer tense situations being resolved by officers emptying their weapons in the direction of their target.

Recruits must attend two-hour classes on de-escalation tactics, which teach how to deal with people in crisis, consider proportional force options, respect the sanctity of life and slow down incidents when possible.

This is undercut, however, by a new policy so completely asinine even I'm against it, despite my theoretical ownership of timcushinghatescops.com.

New pistol training guidelines require police recruits to hear the command "threat" before they fire at targets, to shoot only two rounds at a time, and to stop and reassess threats after every two shots.

In what is likely to be referred to as the "Barney Fife Rule," officers will only be allowed to shoot two bullets at a time, no matter what the situation is.

In some cases, this won't be enough bullets. In far too many cases, this will still be too many bullets. The push towards de-escalation is undermined by a permission slip that says two (2) bullets may be fired per officer (at minimum) even if the situation would be better served by the methods discussed in the mandatory training session officers slept through/mocked/interrupted with logical questions like "the hell is this two-bullet limit?"

In the case of Mario Woods -- who was shot 21 times by five officers -- he'd have only been killed by ten bullets. I suppose this is how the SFPD has chosen to interpret "less-lethal force." On the plus side, surrounding homes/citizens are far less likely to be the recipients of wayward bullets. And it will definitely make it very difficult for any officers pulling a "Brelo" to explain why they unloaded 49 bullets in 30 seconds at a suspect from point-blank range.

What the rule does, unfortunately, is make it more dangerous to be a police officer. In exchange, it does nearly nothing to lessen the danger of being a citizen. Lose-lose. The correct response would be to throw the entire weight of the PD's upper echelon behind de-escalation training.

A two-hour class officers are forced to attend won't make the message stick. What will make it stick are rules that make it explicitly clear that lethal force is a last resort -- something that should be used only very rarely. Any shooting should be accompanied by a raft of paperwork and a full investigation, overseen by an independent review team. The "shoot first and shoot often" mentality is only partly addressed by the two-bullet limit, which itself is illogical, unworkable and -- at worst -- a guaranteed way to avoid additional scrutiny for questionable shootings. After all, if only two bullets were used (and it only takes one to kill/maim someone), then it's a by-the-book shooting that warrants no further examination.

If nothing else, the fact that the policy can so readily be linked to an incompetent law enforcement officer depicted in a Golden Era TV show should have been enough to deter the SFPD from moving forward with the initiative. It should have limited itself to altering the mindset of its officers, rather than giving them a two-bullet "out" that undercuts the department's "will this do?" approach to de-escalation.

Filed Under: de-escalation, police brutality, police violence, san francisco, sfpd, training, two bullets