Research on De-escalation Agencies

[John Hearne]

I think we all want to see the original research but the results - 2x as many deaths and 10x as many injuries - is not unexpected but the degree is pretty surprising (at least to me)

http://lawofficer.com/news/research-...-at-more-risk/

"He found that an officer working in a de-escalation agency, was twice as likely to be killed in the line of duty and 10 times more likely to be injured in the line of duty."

[peterb]

There's not enough information in that statement to be useful. Need to see data, including the civilian death and injury rates.

[voodoo_man]

Wrote three articles on this topic. Not exactly surprising and I'd wager the real numbers show that it doesn't just suck but it's even more dangerous.

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/02/tactica...how-it-is.html

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/03/tactica...n-at-work.html

http://www.vdmsr.com/2017/02/de-esca...-scenario.html

[peterb]

I think one problem is that the term is so broadly applied. It's hard to argue against de-escalation as an ideal, but as you point out, it makes no sense with a subject who's known to be armed and dangerous.

On the other hand, we had a couple of high-profile cases where a subject was reported by the family as mentally ill, was in an isolated area, was unarmed, and was shot by the responding officers shortly after contact. There was clearly an opportunity for a less aggressive intervention that would not endanger the officers or the public.

You've got to use the appropriate tool instead of always reaching for the same one, or being required to always use the same one.

[LSP552]

Agree we need to see the original research. However, I doubt anyone on this forum is unaware that failing to use enough force, early enough, is one of THE major factors in LE deaths and injuries. Failing to gain control early leaves so much opportunity for things to escalate and get out of hand, requiring more force than would have been needed earlier.

[Treecop]

As long as LE death benefits are cheaper than lawsuits and bad press, we will see these policies expand.

"The State that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." -Thucydides


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voodoo_man]

As long as LE death benefits are cheaper than lawsuits and bad press, we will see these policies expand.

"The State that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." -Thucydides


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, and that's why these bullshit policies should be disregarded.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Not that I don't trust LawOfficer but does anyone have a link, pointer, source, etc for the actual study?

[TSH]

I don't work for an agency where people love to talk about de-escalation, but I know the public does. My state has a pretty robust private person's arrest statute, and my agency uses a form the r/p can sign to take responsibility for the arrest. If I'm dealing with trespasser removal, private property, etc. I won't do a thing until someone has signed that form just in case "de-escalation" doesn't work and I have to go hands on. When people don't sign, I clear the call with no action taken.

The form has saved me trouble in the past, particularly a couple weeks ago when a citizen wanted to file a formal complaint against me after I had to escort him out of a bank when he didn't want to participate in the "de-escalation" process. Having that signed form from the bank manager that wanted that citizen removed saved me a lot of trouble.

As an aside, some companies will not allow their management to sign those forms. I've told them to stop calling us until they are willing to sign, company policy or not. It seems to work for the most part.

[octagon]

Not that I don't trust LawOfficer but does anyone have a link, pointer, source, etc for the actual study?

http://www.channel3000.com/news/rese...risk/605278919