Recent reports have highlighted a high number of police shootings of people armed with knives or other bladed objects. These incidents, which often involve individuals in crisis situations, demonstrate two fatal problems: there are limits to what “de-escalation” can accomplish, and police officers are too hesitant to use non-lethal force, allowing standoffs to get out of control.
In recent years, officers across the country have become increasingly hesitant to use legitimate force to end standoffs when verbal attempts don’t get suspects to surrender. This reluctance to use nonlethal force even in situations where it’s clearly necessary often leads to police shootings, because the longer de-escalation efforts drag on, the more likely the suspect will suddenly lash out at some point.
People outside of law enforcement are sometimes under the impression that shootings could always be avoided if police officers would just try to defuse standoffs with mentally ill people, as if defusing were a miracle cure. But there are no miracle cures.
Certainly, de-escalation is an important tool for police officers. One of the first things I learned as a rookie cop in 1976 was to talk instead of fight, whenever the situation warrants. By communicating effectively with a resisting subject, the hope is to de-escalate the incident and convince him or her to submit. When it works, it works (and it usually does), and when it doesn’t, it doesn’t. This is where the fatal error often occurs: recognizing that de-escalation is not working but hesitant to use non-lethal force for fear of administrative, legal, or media repercussions.
When an officer gets into a standoff with a person carrying a knife, a pattern can be seen. Typically, the officer will keep their distance, talk to the person, listen, and continue communicating in an effort to peacefully resolve the situation. However, officers, with good intentions, “talk the other person to death.” When police don’t realize that talks are not working and officers refuse to use non-lethal means such as a taser to subdue an armed person, the result is often the opposite. The longer the standoff continues, the more agitated the person becomes, and they lunge at officers and bystanders with the knife. This is when shots are fired.
If only officers had abandoned de-escalation on their own initiative, instead of waiting for the suspect to attack and end the situation. If only officers had used Tasers or other non-lethal means instead of “talking people to death,” saving lives and avoiding costly shooting investigations and litigation.
As a longtime consultant on police use of force, I believe officers should respond with talk in most situations, but how long to talk without acting must be judged on each case individually. It seems to me likely that officers have become fearful of guns because many of their colleagues faced backlash after shootings, but extending this attitude to nonlethal force serves no one’s interests. We must not place undue emphasis on de-escalation, putting citizens’ and officers’ lives at risk. We should not hesitate to use tasers and other means of force when appropriate. Fewer and less severe injuries from nonlethal weapons are preferable to avoidable shootings.
It’s unrealistic to hope that every police standoff will end with talks. But can talks and nonlethal means end most standoffs? Absolutely! In fact, most standoffs already end. The exceptions that result in shootings make news headlines. Better policies and training, and a culture change that encourages the use of nonlethal force when appropriate, can make those exceptions much rarer.
The public and the media have a role to play: just as public pressure and equipping officers with a range of non-lethal weapons has helped make police shootings less frequent than they were decades ago, public support can bring about changes in police and departments’ use of low levels of force before standoffs escalate into shootings.
Police use-of-force expert Greg Meyer is a retired Los Angeles Police Department inspector who directed the department’s nonlethal weapons research, testing and training from 1979 to 1980.
