Reconsidering The Arguments Against De-Escalation: An Introduction
Over the last couple of years, I have watched the debate about the use of de-escalation tactics within law enforcement with a lot of interest. In our country, where every single issue has the ability to polarize people to one end of the political spectrum or the other, it has been interesting to hear the views of those who either love or hate the fairly recent focus and attention on de-escalation initiatives. With a number of high profile reports demanding police reforms, to include the report released by The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing in May 2015 and the Police Executive Research Forum report about “Guiding Principles On Use of Force” in May 2016, the conversation has remained very political with conversations having a very clear “us vs. them” tone. People have seemingly been forced into a corner of either being with the police, or against them.
While I naturally become a bit antagonistic towards anyone who argues for an absolutist look at the world and refuses to consider anything that isn’t at one of the two extreme ends of the spectrum, my decision to write this series of articles came after seeing the negative response from many people, to include police officers, to the Los Angeles Police Department’s creation of the “Preservation of Life Medal” that they began awarding in November of 2015 to officers who could have used force in a situation, but didn’t. When opposing political views cause someone to criticize the accommodations that result from a police officer’s heroic actions in the face of danger, it becomes clear that the debate is no longer rational or rooted in common sense. As a result of that realization, the goal of this series of articles is to take the conversation out of the realm of politics and frame it in relation to a police officer’s and police department’s ability to accomplish their mission. Only then can we have a rational and objective conversation and debate to identify the most effective ways to craft law enforcement strategy that ensures the safety of the public today and into the future.
Before we get into the articles, there are a few disclaimers that need to be made. As any series of articles will naturally reflect the writer’s perception of events, their perspective and their life experience, I prefer to make it clear up front what my opinion is and why it is that way so that there isn’t any confusion moving forward. I know that not everyone will agree with me and, while I welcome reasonable conversation and debate about the merits of de-escalation, let me make a few statements about some things that shape my views on the issue.
1. My perspective on de-escalation is a result of my experience as a Marine Infantry Officer.
While many of our clients are law enforcement agencies at the federal and local level, I have never served as a police officer. I have never worn a police officer’s uniform and have never walked a beat here in the states. There are similarities between law enforcement and the way I operated in Iraq, from working in a community to dealing with an adversary who blended in with everyone else, developing intelligence and making decisions about who to detain, but this conversation isn’t just about policing. It is about how to accomplish the mission of upholding the values of our Constitution. It is about strategy and tactics.
From Sun Tzu’s lessons about how to win battles without bloodshed to modern day military doctrine that emphasizes bypassing adversary strengths to cause the collapse of their will to fight, there has always been the goal to win engagements without using force. De-escalation isn’t about being “soft on crime” or putting officers at risk. My views are purely focused on ways to win this battle against the predators hiding within our communities. It doesn’t replace the need to be capable of winning fights through the use of overwhelming force when the situation calls for it; it is about providing officers with options and alternatives to accomplish their mission when the situation doesn’t require that approach.
2. We believe in using the least amount of force needed to get to a successful outcome.
A conversation that we often have with our clients revolves around an occasional misperception resulting from the “kill-capture-contact” decision tree that we teach in our military and law enforcement training programs. These options are what we teach police officers about what they can and should do once an anomaly has been identified. In our pursuit to get and stay left of bang, we embrace the pursuit of the military strategists who have come before us and, since our goal is to always win an encounter without fighting, we teach that warriors, guardians and protectors should use the least amount of force possible to get to a successful outcome. The “least amount of force required” principle doesn’t limit an officer’s ability to use lethal force when it is required, but it does distinguish between what an officer “can do” and what they “should do” when force isn’t necessary.
As our strategic view of mission accomplishment involves protecting the community from crime and violence, we do consider the court of public opinion in our program since those are the people our nation’s police officers are serving. We go beyond simply teaching the legal elements to consider when moving through the “kill-capture-contact” decision tree, but also discuss the moral and ethical components to decision-making. This is done while acknowledging that officers are often forced to make snap decisions in situations where they only have access to a limited amount of information and only have a limited amount of time available to them. In order to do this effectively, it will require a re-examination of the way officers are trained and educated before going on patrol.
3. A focus on de-escalation improves officer safety.
We reject the claim that de-escalation strategies and techniques will only put more officers at risk than they would in the absence of the approach. There are numerous tactical and strategic advantages that come with a de-escalation strategy and in the third and fourth articles in this series, I’ll show why it will only be those police officers whose departments have failed to prepare them for these situations that will be exposed to increased risk in the near term.
Since it is not enough to simply say that officers should be “prepared,” the fifth article in this series will provide a framework to understand the four approaches to de-escalation and provide officers with learning objectives to understand their capabilities as they are learning how to de-escalate effectively on their own. Because we do embrace a long-term capability-building approach, this doesn’t undermine the need for personal protective equipment. As the article will show, officers still need to develop confidence in their combative training to compensate for the risk of attack while they are moving through the learning curve. The goal for the article is to show that the approach might be simple, but that doesn’t mean the approach is easy at first. It will take effort and work, but these are necessary steps, in our opinion, to accomplish the mission police officers are tasked with.
4. I welcome conversation.
As I mentioned, my only goal for this series is to provide a different perspective on the debate over de-escalation that I don’t believe is currently being voiced. I’m not a politician and I’m not a chief of police, so the final decisions about a way forward are not mine to make. I do have an interest and have something at stake in the outcome of this conversation, as many of the beliefs I’ve highlighted and those that will be expanded on in this series of articles are fundamental concepts in in our Tactical Analysis Training Program and are considered in my book that I co-authored with Jason Riley, Left Of Bang: How the Marine Corps Combat Hunter Program Can Save Your Life. We don’t say that our approach is the only way to view the law enforcement mission and the safety of officers on the street, but can speak confidently based on the experiences of our students and clients operating here at home and overseas.
If we are going to debate the merits of one approach to ensuring the safety of our communities over another, we need to be able to take a rational and objective look at what works and what doesn’t work. Because we don’t believe that maintaining the status quo is the best way forward, we are interested in having dialogue with people who:
Accept and understand that the operational environment has changed
Don’t resist change because it isn’t “the way you were brought up”
Can consider opposing views or dissenting opinions rationally and objectively without yelling or feeling personally attacked
Don’t resist change simply because it requires effort
If those characteristics describe you and you would like to discuss this, please feel free to share your thoughts with us by reaching out to us through our Contact us page to send us an email.