By Chief Mario Knapp
As a chief of police, I remain deeply engaged with the evolving landscape of law enforcement and the inevitable necessity of applying force in certain situations. Prior to assuming my current role, I conducted a personal analysis of the Tyreek Hill incident, a 2024 traffic stop in Miami-Dade County involving the NFL player that drew immediate national attention. My interest was more than academic curiosity. As the former commander of the Miami-Dade Police Department section responsible for special events, this incident would have fallen directly under my purview had I still been in that role, and I immediately recognized that the ensuing public records requests and public scrutiny were entirely predictable.
My familiarity with these scenarios and their likely aftermath prompted me to revisit the same concepts I explored throughout my career and outlined in my 2022 article, “Why it is just as important to document force avoidance as it is to document the use of force.”
As I researched this incident, I found that the world has changed significantly since I first identified the need for a Force Avoidance Framework — and not entirely for the better. Politics and emotion have seeped deeply into public safety, and incidents are now magnified under the relentless scrutiny of social media, political agendas and the 24-hour news cycle. In our current environment, law enforcement agencies urgently need broader and more comprehensive data points to provide a more complete picture of an officer’s work history when evaluating individual decision-making during citizen encounters.
A Force Avoidance Framework — or, more simply, a formal “record of restraint” — documents incidents in which officers, though legally justified in using force, successfully achieve voluntary compliance instead. While it serves the additional purpose of encouraging the avoidance of force, it also applies the same investigative rigor to what an officer chose not to do as we currently apply to what they did do. In other words, just as an officer’s application of force is investigated and properly documented, so too should situations in which an officer would have been fully justified in using force but instead successfully avoided it. This approach is more critical today than ever before.
Adapting to increased scrutiny
In today’s climate, every action taken by law enforcement is subject to immediate public and media examination. More concerning, that examination is often conducted through an emotionally or politically charged lens.
We all know that an officer’s disciplinary history is routinely used to construct a public image of that officer. We should also recognize that, in the absence of documentation reflecting previous incidents of sound judgment and restraint, officers are left vulnerable to a one-dimensional narrative.
In the aftermath of the Tyreek Hill incident alone, at least 18 articles appeared focusing primarily on the involved officer’s previous force incidents and disciplinary history. There was no mention of successful citizen contacts, lives saved or the number of times he managed to arrest a combative subject without using force.
The reason those things did not appear in those articles is straightforward: Those records do not exist. This is not a failure of the media but rather the absence of formal documentation in the officer’s personnel file. This underscores the importance of maintaining documentation that provides a complete and accurate account of an officer’s work history — one that reflects past performance objectively and in full context.
Failure to document force avoidance incidents ignores the countless encounters in which officers had the authority and legal justification to use force but instead exercised restraint. Comprehensive documentation should capture not only what occurred but also what could have occurred and was deliberately avoided, reducing the risk of one-sided misrepresentation. Simply put, if we document only the negative, we should not be surprised when the public sees only the negative.
As political considerations increasingly influence the delivery of public safety services, transparent and thorough records become essential for maintaining credibility and community trust. A Force Avoidance Framework provides documented evidence of an officer’s historical commitment to de-escalation, helping counterbalance future politically driven criticism before incomplete narratives take hold.
Providing a complete officer profile
This approach does more than document a comprehensive picture of an officer’s performance; it also helps influence behavior. When officers are recognized and commended for situations in which they were justified in using force but achieved voluntary compliance instead, it reinforces the value of de-escalation techniques and fosters an organizational culture that values restraint and communication over force.
Recognition is a powerful driver of behavior, and a Force Avoidance Report placed in an officer’s personnel file serves as a meaningful commendation that reflects positively on both the individual and the agency.
Enhancing data-driven decision-making
A wider array of data points allows departments to analyze trends, identify areas for improvement and tailor training programs more effectively. By systematically documenting force avoidance incidents, agencies can gain insight into which de-escalation strategies are most successful and work to replicate those approaches across the department.
Given the speed at which incomplete narratives spread, the argument for adopting this framework should be self-evident. Requests for records following a significant force incident are not only predictable — they are appropriate. The public and the media are entitled to know an officer’s history. The problem is not the request. The problem is that the records we produce in response are incomplete by our own design.
The continued risks of inadequate documentation
Documenting only the force incidents in which an officer is involved while omitting the situations in which they successfully avoided force is similar to reporting only Tyreek Hill’s fumbles while ignoring his touchdowns. Just as focusing solely on Hill’s negative plays overlooks his achievements, incomplete documentation of an officer’s actions fails to present a balanced and fair portrayal of that officer’s professionalism, judgment and dedication to public safety.
Most agencies operate an Early Identification or Early Warning System that flags officers who accumulate a certain number of force incidents within a specified time frame. Without force avoidance documentation, that system captures only one side of the story. An officer who uses force three times but successfully avoids it 12 times looks identical on paper to an officer who simply used force three times. Early identification systems were designed to identify problems, but there is no reason they should not also identify successes.
The risks of not adopting a Force Avoidance Framework are real, ongoing and compounding. Officers remain vulnerable to unfair characterization based solely on isolated incidents, many of which were unavoidable. Civil litigation proceeds without an affirmative record of an officer’s judgment and restraint, leaving agencies to defend performance they never documented. And we continue to miss critical opportunities to learn from our successful outcomes. Historically, we have built training programs almost entirely around what went wrong, while evidence of what went right disappears without a trace.
A call to action
My time as a trainer, policy writer and now a police chief has afforded me a unique perspective on the pressing issues facing law enforcement today. That experience has only reaffirmed what I identified years ago: In today’s climate, a Force Avoidance Framework is not merely beneficial in painting a more complete picture — it is essential.
It is also not a heavy lift. When implemented correctly, a Force Avoidance Report can be a concise, targeted document that captures the subject’s behavior and the officer’s response without creating a significant administrative burden. What it provides in return is a more complete and defensible account of an officer’s performance, judgment and restraint.
I urge all law enforcement leaders to ask themselves: How can we better document and celebrate the countless instances in which their officers successfully de-escalate situations? By embracing this philosophy, we not only protect our officers from incomplete and unfair narratives, but we also strengthen the bond with the communities we are sworn to serve.
This is not merely about policy. It is about adopting a philosophy that prioritizes peaceful resolutions, values the power of communication and finally ensures the data reflects it.
| NEXT: The Leadership Beat: ‘Credibility is built when leadership applies standards fairly’
Homestead Police Chief Mario Knapp shares how fairness, consistency and accountability are helping him strengthen culture.
About the author
Chief Mario Knapp serves as Chief of Police for the City of Homestead Police Department in Florida. He is a 27-year veteran of the Miami-Dade Police Department, where he retired at the rank of Major. His last official assignment was to MDPD’s Special Patrol Bureau, overseeing the Tactical Operations Section, Special Events and Planning Section, and Police Operations Section. He previously served as Captain of the Warrants Bureau, the Kendall District, the Northside District, and the Miami-Dade Police Training Bureau, where he acted as the department’s use of force expert. Chief Knapp is a member of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management from the Union Institute and University.
