Recommendation 4.2: Permit the use of force only when necessary to resolve conflict and protect public and officer safety.

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel, a pioneer in police reform who established the London Metropolitan Police Department, reportedly articulated nine principles of policing. The sixth recommends that police “use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”[i]This principle still holds true. To apply it today, departments should: 

Provide protections beyond those afforded by the U.S. Constitution.  To meet constitutional standards, officers are required to make “objectively reasonable” decisions when using force. But force policies should go beyond this requirement and require “objectively reasonable” decisions not only duringuses of force but also in the moments leading up tothem. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), for example, considers an officer’s tactical conduct and decisions leading to deadly use of force to determine whether it was reasonable.[ii]

Specifically, and in keeping with international standards, force policies should require that officers use only as much force as necessary to address threats.[iii]They should clearly state that the “objectively reasonable” standard may not compromise public or officer safety[iv]and that using the least amount of force necessary builds trust and confidence in police.

Require force to be necessary and proportional.  To provide protections that go beyond the “objectively reasonable” standard, departments should require that force be necessary andproportional.These concepts are inextricable; when deciding to use force, officers should consider not only whether it is necessary under the circumstances but also whether it is proportional to the threat (i.e., it is the minimalamount, level, and severity needed under the circumstances).[v]The question becomes not whether the force is reasonable but whether it is avoidable.[vi]As the Seattle Police Department explains:

Proportional force does not require officers to use the same type or amount of force as the subject. The more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the level of force that may be proportional, objectively reasonable, and necessary to counter it.[vii]

Proportionality does not prohibit officers from using lethal force when necessary. If someone threatens to shoot an officer or other people, then deadly force would be proportional.[viii]To teach proportionality, instructors should train officers to assess the surrounding circumstances of encounters, including the severity and immediacy of the threat. Not all threats need to be met with equal levels of force. Officers should use only the force necessary to control the situation; they should not automatically ratchet up the level of force.

This recommendation departs from use-of-force continua that teach officers to use specific tactics or tools depending on the level of an individual’s resistance.[ix]This rigid approach can lead officers to believe that certain forceful responses are required when facing certain threats, even though lesser options may be equally or more effective. For this reason, departments have begun to train officers to evaluate “the totality of the situation” (i.e., all the facts known to officers at the time) when deciding what type and level of force to use.[x]

Policies should recognize that the circumstances of each encounter vary, so officers’ responses should vary, too. Force should not be used because it is more convenient or expedient, to punish or retaliate, or because it has traditionally been perceived as integral to maintaining public safety. It should only be used when community members or officers or are in danger and no reasonable alternatives exist. As the Seattle Police Department states, “[O]fficers will use physical force only when no reasonably effective alternative appears to exist” to achieve a legitimate and lawful objective.[xi]

Ensure officers use de-escalation tactics and exhaust reasonable alternatives.  To reduce uses of force and lessen the risk of injury or death in force applications, departments should require officers to de-escalate encounters when safe and feasible. De-escalation is defined as “[t]aking action or communicating verbally or nonverbally during a potential force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation and reduce the immediacy of the threat so that more time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve the situation without the use of force or with a reduction in the force necessary.”[xii]

De-escalation techniques — such as slowing down, maintaining a calm and composed demeanor, creating distance or physical barriers, and attempting verbal persuasion or warnings[xiii]— can reduce the need to use force. These techniques should be incorporated into all basic and in-service training curricula, as is the case in some states. Police officer certification commissions in Georgia and Massachusetts, for example, require annual de-escalation training,[xiv]and Washington state passed a measure in 2018 requiring de-escalation in basic academy and in-service training.[xv]

Force policies should describe affirmative and proactive tactics, strategies, and approaches that can de-escalate incidents and resolve situations with minimal or no force. These policies should require officers to reasonably exhaust all available approaches to resolve situations, address threats, and achieve required law enforcement objectives (such as apprehending a suspect) without using force or, if force is necessary, with the least amount of force possible.[xvi]

Officers should also be required to justify why they didn’t use alternative or less lethal uses of force[xvii]and should be prohibited from unnecessarily escalating situations. Many departments require officers to use de-escalation tactics. The Seattle Police Department, for example, requires officers to “take reasonable care that their actions do not precipitate an unnecessary, unreasonable, or disproportionate use of force, by placing themselves or others in jeopardy, or by not following policy or training.”[xviii]

The duty to de-escalate should apply not only to officer’s specific decision to useforce but also to their decision-making process and performance leading up to and during an incident.[xix]Officers should also be trained to recognize when an individual’s resistance wanes and to reduce the level of force accordingly.[xx]The New Orleans Police Department, for example, states:

When feasible based on the circumstances, officers will use de-escalation techniques[;] disengagement; area containment; surveillance; waiting out a subject; summoning reinforcements; and/or calling in specialized units such as mental health and crisis resources, in order to reduce the need for force, and increase officer and civilian safety. Moreover, the officers shall de-escalate the amount of force used as the resistance decreases.[xxi]

Ensure officers are trained in communication skills.  Critics of de-escalation claim that it promotes “soft” policing because it prioritizes communication skills, which they say risks officers’ lives by encouraging them to hesitate during dangerous situations.[xxii]This approach is sometimes referred to as “hug-a-thug” policing (a term with racist overtones).[xxiii]In fact, de-escalation protects public and officer safety because it teaches strategic communication skills that enable officers to affirmatively defuse crises and gain voluntary compliance. Basic training should cover de-escalation skills, such as:

• Allowing people to vent feelings and frustrations.
• Actively listening to people without attempting to dissuade or argue with them.
• Showing interest in people through eye contact and attentive body posture.
• Controlling voice, speech, and tone.
• Reading body language.
• Responding calmly and evenly to curses, insults, and nonviolent challenges to authority.[xxiv]

Ensure officers are trained in repositioning tactics.  Policies and training should instruct officers to enlarge the “safety zone” between themselves and people suspected of crime.[xxv]Officers who know how to create distance and take cover during potentially dangerous situations have more time to respond and more tactical options to consider if people are noncompliant or threaten officers or bystanders.[xxvi]

The strategic use of distance and cover shows how use-of-force policies have evolved over time. In the 1980s and 1990s, many departments and officers formally embraced the “21-foot rule,” which stated that “it was entirely possible for a suspect armed with an edged weapon to successfully and fatally engage an officer armed with a handgun within a distance of 21 feet.”[xxvii]

Officers trained in this rule often misapplied it; many mistakenly believed they had carte blanche to shoot anyone with a knife who approached within 21 feet, a.k.a. “the kill zone.”[xxviii]Law enforcement officials claim that fewer departments train officers to follow the rule, but it is still taught informally.[xxix]The Police Executive Research Forum, an independent research organization, recommends that departments remove any reference to this outdated guidance from policies and training.

[i]Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Policing, N.Y. Times (Apr. 15, 2014), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/nyregion/sir-robert-peels-nine-principles-of-policing.html.

[ii]Los Angeles Police Dep’t, Office of the Chief of Police, Policy on the Use of Force – Revised (2017).

[iii]U.N. Office of the High Comm’r for Human Rights, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials art. 2 (1979),  https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/lawenforcementofficials.aspx(“Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.”).

[iv]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 94-95 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[v]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 21 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf; James “Chip” Coldren et al., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Collaborative Reform Initiative: Six-Month Assessment Report on the Philadelphia Police Department 13 (2015), https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0792-pub.pdf(“The primary duty of all police officers is to preserve human life. Only the amount of force necessary to protect life or to effect an arrest should be used by an officer.”) (quoting Phila. Police Dep’t Directive 22).

[vi]See Seth Stoughton, Police Shouldn’t Ask If a Shooting Is Justified, But If It’s Avoidable, N.Y. Times (Apr. 9, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/09/are-police-too-quick-to-use-force/police-shouldnt-ask-if-a-shooting-is-justified-but-if-its-avoidable(arguing that, for police officers, “the use of avoidable violence is a failure, even if it satisfies the legal standard.”).

[vii]Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.200 – Using Force, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8200—using-force.

[viii]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 22 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[ix]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 19 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[x]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 19 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xi]Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.200 – Using Force, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8200—using-force.

[xii]Int’l Ass’n of the Chiefs of Police, Police Use of Force in America 2 (2001), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/2001useofforce.pdf.

[xiii]See, e.g.,Santa Monica Police Dep’t, Policy Manual 1-2, https://www.santamonicapd.org/uploadedFiles/Police/Policies/Policy%20-%20Force%20De-Escalation.pdf;see alsoInt’l Ass’n of the Chiefs of Police, Police Use of Force in America 6 (2001), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/2001useofforce.pdf.

[xiv]Ga. Peace Officers Standards and Training Council, 20 Hour Training Requirement Update 1 (2016), https://www.gapost.org/pdf_file/20_hour_update_2016.pdf(mandating 1-hour de-escalation training annually); Mass.gov, Training Year 2019 In-service Training Requirement, https://www.mass.gov/mandate/training-year-2019-in-service-training-requirement(mandating 3-hour in-service Integrating Communications, Assessments, and Tactics (ICAT) training annually).

[xv]See Initiative Measure No. 940 (Wash. 2017), https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1372.pdf; Steve Miletich, Initiative 940, modifying law regulating police use of deadly force, passes with strong support, Seattle Times (Nov. 6, 2018),https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/initiative-940-modifying-law-regulating-police-use-of-deadly-force-holds-strong-lead-in-tuesdays-returns/; Wash. State Crim. Just. Training Comm’n, De-escalation Training, https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=495&Itemid=424(providing information about training that is available).

[xvi]Int’l Ass’n of the Chiefs of Police, Police Use of Force in America 3 (2001), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/2001useofforce.pdf(“An officer shall use de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to higher levels of force consistent with his or her training wherever possible and appropriate before resorting to force and to reduce the need for force.”).

[xvii]SeeU.S. Dep’t of Justice, Principles for Promoting Police Integrity: Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies 4 (2001) (“[O]fficers should assess the incident to determine which nondeadly technique or weapon will best de-escalate the incident and bring it under control in a safe manner.”), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/186189.pdf;The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2, 20-21 (2015)(recommending policies that emphasize de-escalation), http://elearning-courses.net/iacp/html/webinarResources/170926/FinalReport21stCenturyPolicing.pdf; Police Exec. Res. Forum, Re-Engineering Training on Police Use of Force passim(2015), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/reengineeringtraining1.pdf(recommending use of de-escalation techniques); Samuel Sinyangwe, Examining the Use of Force Policies in Ending Police Violence 1, 4 (2016) (connecting the largest reductions in police-involved killings with policies that require “officers [to] exhaust all other means before using deadly force”) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56996151cbced68b170389f4/t/57e17531725e25ec2e648650/1474393399581/Use+of+Force+Study.pdf.

[xviii]       Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.000 – Use of Force Core Principles, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8000—use-of-force-core-principles.

[xix]Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.000 – Use of Force Core Principles, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8000—use-of-force-core-principles.Seattle enacted a stand-alone de-escalation policy in 2015 requiring that officers “attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options and resources are available for incident resolution” “[w]hen safe and feasible under the totality of circumstances.” Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, §8.100 – De-Escalation, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8100—de-escalation. The policy clarified that officers will be accountable for failing to attempt de-escalation where appropriate during the sequence of events leading to use of force.  Carmen Best, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Dep’t Manual, § 8.000 – Use of Force Core Principles, Seattle.gov (Sept. 1, 2015), https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8000—use-of-force-core-principles.

[xx]New Orleans Police Dep’t, Policy Manual, Law Enforcement Role and Authority 38 (2014),  https://nola.gov/nopd/publications/documents/new-orleans-police-department-policy-manual-2014-1/,(asserting that “[t]he degree of force used must be reasonable, and necessary, and in a manner that avoids unnecessary injury to officers and civilians” and permitting officers to “only use enough force to overcome the amount of resistance or aggression met. When such resistance or aggression is reduced, the officer must correspondingly and immediately reduce the degree of force he/she is applying, or the use of force is NOT legal” (emphasis added)).

[xxi]  New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Use of Force 5 (2015), https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-Force.pdf/.

[xxii]Tom Dart, ‘Verbal judo’: The Police Tactic that Teaches Cops to Talk before They Shoot, The Guardian (July 21, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/21/verbal-judo-police-shootings-deescalation-communication.

[xxiii]Tom Dart, ‘Verbal judo’: the police tactic that teaches cops to talk before they shoot, The Guardian (July 21, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/21/verbal-judo-police-shootings-deescalation-communication; John Wilkens, Police Embrace ‘De-escalation’ to Reduce Shootings, but Some Officers Remain Skeptical, L.A. Times(Oct. 1, 2016), http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-elcajon-tactics-20161001-snap-story.html.

[xxiv]Laurence Miller, Patrol Psychology 101: Communication and Conflict Resolution, PoliceOne(Apr. 18, 2008), https://www.policeone.com/health-fitness/articles/1685390-Patrol-psychology-101-Communication-and-conflict-resolution/;see also Int’l Ass’n of the Chiefs of Police, National Consensus Policy and Discussion on Use of Force 9 (2017), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/n-o/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_Force.pdf (recommending that officers “speak in low, or nonthreatening tones,” make “positive statements,” and maintain “[a]wareness of body language” during incidents).

[xxv]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 54 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf;see also New Orleans Police Dep’t, Operations Manual: Use of Procedure 1160 (2015), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56996151cbced68b170389f4/t/569ad92b57eb8d0f11460ead/1452988719385/Las+Vegas+Use+of+Force+Policy.pdf(“Officers should recognize that they may withdraw to a position that is tactically more secure or allows them greater distance in order to consider or deploy a greater number of Force Options.”).

[xxvi]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 25, 54 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xxvii]Ron Martinelli, Revisiting the “21-Foot Rule”, PoliceMagazine (Sept. 18, 2014), http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx; seealsoPolice Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 20 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xxviii]      Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 20 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.

[xxix]Police Exec. Res. Forum, Guiding Principles on Use of Force 20 (2016), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf.