While lawyers, politicians, critics, and policy-makers argue over fine points of the latest viral police video, let’s remember that there are some rules of engagement related to law enforcement that haven’t changed, even as it seems times have changed in recent years.
1. Nobody gets a free shot at you.
Identifying yourself as a police officer and giving warning and opportunity to comply is desirable. However, this is not required when circumstances demand immediate action. There are many objectively reasonable causes for going “hands-on” with a subject besides taking their first punch. Because these behaviors are not always clear – even in video recordings of the event – they must be carefully described in your reporting.
2. You have the right to disengage.
We all take risks – some calculated, some spontaneous – but surviving and winning requires tactical superiority in the face of resistance. If success is not likely, the option of tactical disengagement and redeployment is a viable one. Accomplishing the mission is always more important than keeping your ego intact.
3. You have the right not to engage.
Police officers are so used to solving tough problems that we sometimes take on problems that we should not. The convenience of a 911 call for any problem lures us into dealing with a whole host of ills. Our unique position in society is that we are trained, authorized, and equipped to use coercion to enforce compliance with the law.
There are lots of skilled and dedicated people willing to do difficult things that don’t need a bullet or stick. Aren’t there behavior specialists who can deal with obstinate middle school students? Isn’t there a mental health worker who can respond to a person contemplating suicide? Always ask yourself if a given situation really requires an armed government agent to be present. If so, by all means, respond and win. But not every monkey belongs to your circus.
4. You don’t have to be right; you do have to be reasonable.
Acting reasonably under a given set of circumstances, especially in the confusion of a dynamic and dangerous event, is as close to perfection as we can get. We can only make our decisions based on our perceptions and deductions from the facts and circumstances our brains have to process. Training, experience, and sound tactics will reduce the likelihood of contacting an innocent person, but if we do arrest a non-involved subject, it should not be labelled a mistake or an error.
5. Officer presence is not the first level of control over a subject.
Certainly we are happy when our shiny badge and stern expression makes a disorderly person behave, but the first principle governing whether a person must comply with a police officer’s arrest is that the law of the land requires it. It is not because the officer will be annoyed, or inconvenienced, or suffer a blow to the ego if someone doesn’t comply. Always cite your jurisdiction’s law on resisting and failure to comply, whether your arrestee is charged with that violation or not.
6. Your mission is not minimum force.
Your mission is to overcome non-compliance in the most reasonable way. That never means using ineffective tactics that allow a situation to escalate. When coercion becomes necessary to gain compliance, the officer must exercise speed and skill in executing the tactic that will most likely be effective. We often prolong the struggle and give a resisting arrestee opportunity to injure and escape for fear of being too aggressive. What likelihood of failure are we willing to accept in placing a resisting person into custody? What are the potential consequences of that failure?
Conclusion
Keep the critics out of your head. No one but an officer who has walked the walk can truly understand the dynamics of a violent encounter and how to prevent or mitigate injuries to all involved. We can always improve, but we can never exceed the limits of physics and biology. We may have allowed our critics to get into our heads and cloud our minds at times of critical decision-making. Our challenge is to remember the basics and educate every potential prosecutor and juror with every report we write.
