It is common in today’s legacy media to see “de-escalation” and “less-lethal” used conjunctively or in sentences that imply some type of synonymous inter-changeability. This implication is not only incorrect but it can cause some confusion that may in fact be dangerous for the public our law enforcement agencies serve. The purpose of this article is to make clear the reality that de-escalation is one thing and it is separate from the use of less-lethal force options.
This discussion will require approaching a variety of use of force scenarios from both minimum and maximum use of force dynamics. Before we get too far into that, let’s first discuss the term “de-escalation” and what it means versus how it is so often used.
Taken straight from dictionary.com (the new generation’s Miriam Webster dictionary): De-escalate defined is to decrease in intensity, magnitude, etc.
Therefore, de-escalation is the act of decreasing in intensity, magnitude, etc. We most often consider “de-escalation” to be some action, directive, command, or discussion wherein the officer(s) on scene commits to lower the ultimate need for use of force. When the term is used by legacy media or many members of the communities we serve, it’s used incorrectly. As they use it, the term implies reducing the need for any use of force to zero. In other words, they use de-escalation to mean that the officers arrived on a scene and rather than act in a way that presents any use of force, they use conversation to 100% resolve the situation, resulting in no need for use of force or even arrest. Such use of the term implies or assumes that if a crime has been committed, the officer has the ability to resolve the situation such that they don’t even need to make an arrest, put their hands on a suspect or use any force. Reality isn’t represented in such use of the term.
Most of us learned early on in our academy training that even our uniformed presence can impact a situation or exert a use of force. Since a use of force is any action we take to modify or change someone’s behavior, simply being there can indeed be a use of force. Giving verbal commands to someone is an attempted use of force and it can be successful if they comply. Arriving on the scene of an incident in uniform and confronting a subject with verbal commands is an escalation—not a de-escalation, but to hear the legacy media tell it, those verbal commands de-escalated the situation. It may have—but the use of force escalated to create that resolution.
At the other end of potential extremes, if an officer is dispatched to call for service where a man armed with a knife is in a shopping area threatening shoppers, that is a potential lethal force situation. When the officers arrive and confront the man, their uniformed presence and verbal commands are an escalation nowhere near the equivalent of the potential threat presented. If the subject presents an immediate threat to anyone, including the officers, use of lethal force in return or in an attempt to neutralize the threat is justified. That’s a maximum use of force and, if used correctly, does de-escalate the situation. The dangerous subject who is threatening innocents or the officers is neutralized so the threat is removed. That certainly de-escalated the situation. However, legacy media and most of the public wouldn’t view it as a de-escalation. All they would see is that the officer(s) used lethal force.
But given that same circumstance, if the officers communicate and one presents lethal force (firearm) without immediately engaging the subject with the same, but covers the other officer while the second officer presents a less-lethal option such as a specialty munition or electro-muscular-disruption (EMD) device then a de-escalation situation is set up. When the second officer neutralizes the threat with either the less-lethal munition or EMD tool, then de-escalation has occurred twice: the first de-escalation is the reduction of force used from lethal to less-lethal by the officers, and the second de-escalation is the neutralization of the potentially lethal threat from the subject.
Allow another example: a small group of people is in public after a sporting event and they are being disruptive; they are shouting, banging on cars or trash cans, blocking traffic and more. Having prepared for the event in advance, the local police department has a riot control team standing by in full gear. If the commanding officer deploys twenty officers to line up and walk down a street, clearing the street and persuading the disorderly group to disperse by force of numbers presented, that’s a de-escalation. Before a riot can truly begin, the “show” of force (coordinated uniformed presence issuing verbal commands) clears the streets and moves the disorderly parties on. No violence occurs. No physical force is used. No crime is committed. No one is hurt or injured. That is a clear de-escalation but if viewed without the benefit of strategic thought it could be perceived, and could be reported on, as an overuse of force.
Our challenge in the law enforcement profession, and most especially among the command ranks, is to communicate clearly with the media present and to educate them as much as they’re willing to receive on why actions were planned or executed. It’s up to the public information officers to formulate messages detailing what could have been and contrast it with what was and how that de-escalation occurred specifically because of the plans in place and actions taken.
Let’s look at one last example that is a real situation from a couple years ago just a few years ago outside our nation’s capitol:
A mentally disturbed man is walking back and forth along the front of a small strip shopping center. He is armed with a large butcher knife, verbally threatening people, brandishing the knife. When the police arrive, five officers are on scene and all of them are wearing body cameras. The sergeant on scene can clearly be heard saying, “Let’s keep this less-lethal if we can.” One officer presents a firearm; two others present EMDs. One goes to his trunk and retrieves his agency issued dedicated less-lethal 12g shotgun loaded with beanbag munitions. Under the cover of the officer with his gun and the officer with the less-lethal shotgun, one of the officers with the EMD deploys it and neutralizes the subject. Force is definitely used, but not to the maximum it may have been justified. That is certainly a de-escalation and could easily be defended as such most especially if the sergeant’s body camera footage is released wherein he can be heard verbalizing the desire to minimize the force used.
Armed with that audio/video recording, the chief of police can proudly stand in front of reporters and praise his officers for having de-escalated the event, avoiding the use of lethal force but still performing their duty of protecting the citizens in the area. He should be ready to address a media accusation that the officers on scene appeared eager to use force since two firearms were presented—a handgun and a shotgun. The chief should be ready to point out how those officers were necessary for the safety of all on the scene, including the citizens who had been threatened, and that the shotgun wasn’t a lethal force option but was instead a dedicated less-lethal tool. He should repeat, several times in his statement, that his officers successfully de-escalated the situation from one that was lethal to one that was resolved via less-lethal means.
Where the use of the term “de-escalation” is concerned, it behooves all officers tasked to communicate with the media to control the message; to control the conversation; to point out where media members use incorrect language and to minimize their ability to use inflammatory verbiage that is inaccurate. It’s a shame that has to be the outlook but that is our reality in today’s world. With amateur “news” people walking around with cell phone cameras and everyone looking for their 15 seconds of fame (they want more but will settle for what they can get), we have to plan for such inaccuracies and be prepared to neutralize them as much as we do physical threats. In that way we can de-escalate the negative impact legacy media has on public perception of our profession.
