Use of Force

There are many types of law enforcement officers (LEOs) at the local, state, and federal levels, but for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to use “cops” in this post.

The media often paints cops in a bad light. They frequently rely on the same three points to add drama to their reporting, making police actions appear excessive and aggressive. I’m going to briefly address those points.

First, the term “armed police” is used instead of just “police.” In America—and in most of Europe—patrol officers (i.e., the ones who show up first when you call) carry a gun. A duty pistol with extra magazines is standard, along with other control devices like batons, Tasers, pepper spray, a flashlight, and handcuffs. More specialized units commonly carry rifles—often called “assault rifles” for dramatic effect, despite the term lacking a uniformly agreed-upon definition. Most patrol officers also have a rifle or shotgun in their patrol vehicle.

Showing up to any call “unarmed” is not an option. There is no policy or procedure that allows officers to leave their gun behind, with the exception of entering most jails and prisons, where specific areas and lock boxes are used to secure weapons prior to entry.

What this means is that if a cop shows up, a gun will be present. What people also don’t understand is that cops are often the first responders to your medical emergency. They are first on scene for many 911 calls. Firefighters typically respond from a station—they aren’t roaming around town in their trucks. EMS brings their ambulance from a hospital or base station—they aren’t driving around looking for calls. Due to this deployment structure, cops are usually the first to arrive at your house when grandma has a cardiac arrest, and they will start CPR and attach an AED… with their guns on them.

Guns are tools for cops, just as ladders and water are tools for firefighters, or IVs, CPR machines, and medications are tools for EMS. This is simply how it works.

Second, cops generally show up in large numbers to outnumber the suspect(s). The media often bristles at the number of officers on scene, assuming a one-on-one encounter would be better and less aggressive. They are wrong.

One reason for this is built into our DNA: we have an inherent understanding that if we’re outnumbered, we’re not going to win.

I once rode along with a friend on a patrol shift with my agency. Three other officers were already on scene for a domestic assault situation, and the decision was made to place the suspect under arrest. One officer was dealing with the victim and a small child, while two were with the suspect. People might ask why it would take five officers just to arrest one suspect.

Let me explain. When we arrived, the suspect was sitting on the couch in the living room of an apartment. The door opened into the kitchen, with an open floor plan to the living room. Two officers were with the suspect, while the third was in a bedroom out of sight with the victim and child. At that point, the suspect’s intentions were unknown. He might have thought he could get past two officers and out the door to escape, or he might have been willing to fight them. But when two more of us showed up, his odds changed.

None of this was verbalized, and no, we don’t actually know what he was thinking—but the law of survival ingrained in all of us would encourage him not to fight four officers or try to escape. I was standing by the door, my partner was between me and the suspect, and the other two officers were on either side of him. His chances of winning that encounter diminished significantly. They told him he was under arrest; he complied, was placed in handcuffs, and was peacefully escorted outside to a squad car. No force was used.

In medical settings, the same principle applies. I routinely encounter patients when a mental health “code” is called. That summons providers, nurses, techs, and security to the bedside of someone who is agitated and threatening—or actually causing harm or damage. The show of force is an acceptable deterrent to further bad behavior, just as it is for cops. So the show of force often results in less force being used overall. We capitalize on hard-wired human instincts that tell someone, “You’re outnumbered—you should back down and comply.”

Third, when cops are involved in a shooting, the number of rounds fired and their placement are often criticized. This stems from the media and public relying on Hollywood for their understanding of what an actual officer-involved shooting looks like. Nothing could be further from reality. Cops are not sharpshooters. Trying to shoot a gun out of a suspect’s hand is absolutely ridiculous—it’s not reality and is never trained.

This could be a much longer discussion, but here are the highlights: No police department trains officers to shoot to slow suspects down, target their hands, arms, or legs, or fire only one round. Officers are taught to shoot center mass (i.e., the middle of the chest) or the head until the threat is stopped. Those are the only reliable ways to stop a subject who has displayed or engaged in behavior warranting lethal force. Head shots will stop someone immediately. Shots to the chest are not guaranteed to stop someone right away, as they need to bleed enough from large vessels or the heart to lose the ability to function. Center-mass shots are most often lethal, but it doesn’t happen in seconds, and a suspect can still inflict a lot of damage while dying.

In summary, cops will always be armed when they show up. When possible, they will arrive in what appears to be excessive numbers. And if forced to use lethal force, they will shoot with high-yield shots until the threat is stopped.

To expect otherwise is to expect Hollywood, not reality.