De-Escalation

Short description: De-escalation policies require police to communicate with subjects, maintain distance and use other methods to reduce the need to use force.

Long description: De-Escalation refers to policies and practices which restrict when and how officers can use force, limit the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance (a force continuum), and require police to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of deadly force, etc.  Other policies that can be established include bans on chokeholds, requiring officers to intervene and stop excessive use of force by other officers, giving a verbal warning (with time to comply) before using deadly force, and authorizing deadly force only when there is an imminent threat to an officer’s life or the life of another person.

The Issue: Police responsibility is to protect the public from violence. When people are killed during traffic stops or during a mental health crisis, the public is not being protected.  More than 1000 people are killed each year by police.  Nearly 60% of victims did not have a gun or were involved in activities that should not require police intervention such as mental health crises.  Research done by Mapping Police Violence project (https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/2015) found no correlation between community violence and police homicides.  Police departments in high-crime cities such as Detroit and Newark have consistently killed fewer people per population than police departments in cities with much lower crime rates such as Austin, Bakersfield and Long Beach.  According to a 2015 report from the Treatment Advocacy Center, a national nonprofit based in Arlington, Va., adults with severe mental illness account for one in four people killed in police encounters, and individuals with untreated mental illness face a 16-times-greater risk of being killed in a law-enforcement encounter compared to other civilians.  Establishing and funding Mental Health Response Teams as first responders to calls involving mental health crises, such as the CAHOOTS model implemented in Eugene OR have proven to reduce police use of force in these situations by nearly 40 percent.

Restrictive use of force policies are associated with fewer police killings but have been opposed by police organizations claiming that these policies will put officers and communities at risk.  Using data from the Guardian’s The Counted database, from Jan1, 2015 to July 15, 2016, the Campaign Zero Use of Force project has found that officers in police departments with more restrictive policies in place are actually less likely to be assaulted or killed in the line of duty. 

Example 1:   Citizens have the right to be free from excessive police force.  It is the policy of the Seattle Police Department to accomplish the police mission with the cooperation of the public and as effectively as possible, and with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force.  On August 30, 2010 John T. Williams, 50, was carrying a piece of wood and a closed woodcarving knife. The officer told Williams, who was hard of hearing, to drop the knife just seconds before fatally shooting him, and the department’s firearms review board ruled the shooting unjustified. The officer resigned before the department formally fired him.  The officer’s did not attempt other communication with Mr Williams, and did not allow sufficient response time, in addition to the unreasonable use of force on a person who was not endangering anyone.

Example 2: The well-publicized case of George Floyd, illustrates at least two potential ways in which use of force policies might have saved a life.  George Floyd was being apprehended for using a counterfeit bill. No one’s life was at risk prior to police intervention.  Derek Chauvin used excessive force for the situation and his peer officers did not attempt to intervene when he had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck.