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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2017 @ 6:19pm


    I've read the to and froing about respect and the salient point is that the police as an "authority" as the ones that destroy any respect that may be nascent in the general population.

    You have, in your own backyard of NYC, an example of a man (a citizen, not an "authority figure") who could and would walk into the middle of gang wars and bring about peace and cessation. They trusted him enough to listen, to de-escalate, to put down their weapons and talk. A man who could do what the police were afraid to do.

    It behooves the police (and any "authority") to respect those over whom they have "authority" first and foremost. If they show that they can be trusted and that they will protect those over whom they have "authority" then respect will be built.

    The other side of this coin is that the "law" in place must be just and applied equally to all (including those who administer the "law") for it to be respected. Just because something is the "law" doesn't make it right or just. This argument has already been brought up in other articles on this site.

    An unfortunate feature of US jurisprudence is that there is a segregation of how the "law" applies to the general v=citizen and how it applies to those in "authority". In effect, the "authority" gets a pass (get out of jail free card) where the general citizen will be thrown in prison and the keys thrown away for doing the same actions for exactly the same reasons.

    This kind of thing will cause the general citizenry to "disrespect" the "law" and the "authorities" real quick.

    To make your claims that it is NOT the fault of the "authorities" and only the fault of the citizenry for the problems is hiding your head in the sand.

    Go and study that incredible work of Wisdom called the bible and you will see that when a people are ruled by those who are corrupt, then that people is corrupt, when they are ruled by those who are righteous then the people become righteous.

    Today, our governments and attendant law enforcement (of every kind) are corrupt and so the people suffer and become corrupt. It doesn't matter if there are some who are not corrupt, if the majority of those who are in charge are corrupt (which they are), then corruption will flow throughout society.

    A good parallel is to look at Rome and what happened within its society in the first and second centuries AD. Similar types are happening now in many places of the world. We are going to hell in a handcart, in sports car, in a big bus, in a fats train, in a fast plane and a big ship.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.