Is police de-escalation training necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of force are being used?

In recent years, police departments have been under increased scrutiny due to the heightened media attention surrounding the use of deadly force on unarmed citizens. This scrutiny has led to a movement within local police departments, to focus on de-escalation tactics to prevent the over militarization of the police.

Supporters of de-escalation training believe that fewer fatal shootings will occur when police are encouraged to take the time to talk to the subject, rather than just react to a situation. Additionally, supporters believe that de-escalation tactics will keep police, suspects, and bystanders safer.

Opponents of de-escalation believe that the tactics put officers in danger, especially when dealing with the erratic behavior that some subjects display. Critics argue that in a situation requiring that a weapon be discharged, officers will hesitate and place themselves in harm’s way.

Where do you stand? Is police de-escalation training necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of force are being used?

Current Standings:
Yes: 61%
No: 39%
  • Ricardo from Florida

    The Police in the U.S. have a history of unecessary brutality. It still continues to this day and hurts the trust between the people and police, especially in black and minority communities.

    When I was 13 a police officer, assuming I was a robber, pulled a gun on me as I was running around the outside of my house. I’m relieved he didn’t shoot, but I remember wondering why his gun was out, and why he jumped to the conclusion he might need it.

    How would extra training hurt? Incidents of policemen and women using deadly force or beating up citizens show that police officers earn their badge too easily.

    Some argue if the public was more respectful to the police there wouldn’t be any conflict. Are they arguing if someone yells “fuck the police” its okay for an officer to shoot them? Yes, there is little respect and trust for the police in some parts of the country, but that trust must be earned back. It wasn’t too long ago that the police were used to violently trample black protests with free force, further escalating problems. More recently, there have been numerous events of police harassment on minorities and other individuals. De-escalation training would be a step in the right direction by showing the public many police are committed to positive change and serving the community.

    We should all remember that under the police uniform are citizens like ourselves. Typically in the workplace and our everyday jobs, more education and training leads to better results. Policemen and woman indeed have a tough job, but it is a privilege to wear the badge, not a right. Let’s give our police force more training, and in the process build trust and respect between community and officer.

    [read less]

    The Police in the U.S. have a history of unecessary brutality. It still continues to this day and hurts the trust between the people and police, espec…

    [read more]
    0
  • Seth from Indiana

    Yes, police de-escalation training is necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of force are being used. The preamble of the United States Constitution explains the mission statement of our government: “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,…[and] promote the general Welfare.” Cases in which police officers cannot effectively apply appropriate levels force are cases in which the preamble to the Constitution will be undermined. Considering the fact that law enforcement officers are extensions of the executive branch of each state and the federal government, they are, therefore, obligated to uphold all of the promises made in the preamble.

    I argue that this training is a requirement outlined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments are necessary to determine the necessity of this type of training. The relevant, verbatim texts of these amendments are:

    The Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    The Fifth Amendment: “… nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

    The Eighth Amendment: “…nor [shall] cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.”

    Applying these three amendments, we can see that cases in which excessive force is used, all three of these amendments are violated. Scenarios where officers use excessive force often lead to death. These scenarios often do not have warrants attached, therefore any seizure of life (i.e., any death as a result of officer action or inaction) violates the Fourth Amendment. These scenarios are extrajudicial as they are done outside of the sentencing of a court by a single individual. Therefore, they are followed through without due process of law, and violate the rule of law, and, therefore, violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, once again, any excessive action or inaction by a police officer may result in the death of a citizen without due process. Therefore, in this case, death is a cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, In order to ensure adherence to these inexplicably important amendments, de-escalation training is imperative.

    However, there are very, very certain circumstances in which “excessive” force is acceptable. One of the few scenarios that require deadly force from the police is one in which a weapon is presented in a manner that implies violence. For example, pointing a weapon at an officer or another citizen is one such scenario in which a police officer is permitted to use deadly force without a warrant.

    To understand the following justification for my aforementioned arguments, it is important to understand the difference between “subjective” and “objective” observations. Objective observations are those that can be made independent of personal biases whereas subjective observations are situations that can only be viewed from the point of view of a single person.

    The Supreme Court of the United States began to discuss “objective reasonableness” in the case Graham v. Connor, 1989. Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s majority opinion applies the logic set forth in Tennessee v. Garner, 1985, and holds: “We hold that [a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of his person] are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.” The Supreme Court further dealt with the concept of excessive force in the 2015 case of Kingsley v. Hendrickson. Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion in Kingsley held: “The question before us is whether, to prove an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show that the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable, or that the officer’s use of that force was objectively unreasonable. We conclude that the latter standard is the correct one.” These cases show that the Court holds that the level of force used must always be appropriate regardless of the exterior circumstances about the officer.

    Therefore, in order to establish Justice, ensure that the people are secure in their persons, and to ensure that no cruel and unusual punishment is inflicted, it is imperative that we introduce de-escalation training to save lives of both officers and citizens.

    [read less]

    Yes, police de-escalation training is necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of force are being used. The preamble of the United States Constitut…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from California

    Every year, many unarmed suspects wrongly die in the hands of police officers. While they are here to protect and enforce our laws, one cannot deny that they kill more citizens than in any other democratic nation. In European countries, pulling the trigger on a suspect is the last resort; whereas here, it is protocol, especially with people of color. Although I disagree that Police officers should simply be trained to “speak with suspects,” I definitely agree that our Law Enforcement needs some reshaping.

    [read less]

    Every year, many unarmed suspects wrongly die in the hands of police officers. While they are here to protect and enforce our laws, one cannot deny th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caleb from Virginia

    well things have been going wrong in the name of the police. there have been a lot of false shootings and mishaps. In the news there was a article about a man who was supposedly carrying a ninja sword called a Ninjato police found him and tasered him for 30 seconds. they were to foolish to check because the quote on quote “Ninjato” was the man’s cane since he was blind. he ended up with a trip to the hospital for potential brain damage. He says “I get tasered because I am blind and have a stick.” they should check more closely into these cases that end up
    quite badly. another example is with a young A-A boy got shot and killed because he was carrying a paint-ball gun to play with his friends. they do not even bother to check with other eye
    witnesses who saw the victim because they might have a better description. In other opinion they should know how to use their guns properly. when a officer uses a gun, they shoot to kill the target. they in my opinion should get more equipment based on stunning on offenders rather than killing. they should also get three tasers for age groups. low for children type offenders. high for adult offenders and low for the seniors. they also need improved training for hard situations such as riots. they use mostly force on even peaceful protesters. the police also need to be more careful to see what their up against in levels of crime. because they can never expect the actions of the opponents they search for. they need to know how to DE-escalate things more peacefully and not to read more than one eyewitness on what they saw.Because of the saying “their are ALWAYS more than one side to every story

    [read less]

    well things have been going wrong in the name of the police. there have been a lot of false shootings and mishaps. In the news there was a article ab…

    [read more]
    0
  • maddelyn from Virginia

    I think we should improve police training it could really help our country a lot because if we improve our training it would keep our country safer and better. Also to improve new iqupment and tueqnicks too.

    [read less]

    I think we should improve police training it could really help our country a lot because if we improve our training it would keep our country safer an…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from Ohio

    Yes, I do believe that police should undergo de-escalation training before they are employed in the field. I believe that this would benefit every party involved in a police encounter, but most importantly it would help police do a better job and maintain better control of themselves and their environment. A lot of the issues that have come into public attention in recent years concerning police conflicts result when a police officer, whether or not they are in danger, often become panicked and overwhelmed when dealing with an uncooperative or unpredictable citizen. In the moment, when an officer, especially a young one who has little experience with these altercations, can easily become panicked and filled with adrenaline. In my opinion, it is this, “heat of the moment”. that can cause an officer to act out of fear and become prohibited from using their best judgement and evaluation skills. This is partly due to the fact that many police officers are not trained specifically for situations like this, and if they were it could make a difference. I also believe that the public should also seek to make their jobs easier by cooperating, but this training would be worth implementing even if it only saved one life.

    [read less]

    Yes, I do believe that police should undergo de-escalation training before they are employed in the field. I believe that this would benefit every par…

    [read more]
    0
  • Malakai from Virginia

    I think we should because we have way to many people who can cause harm to others and police need to know how to deal with those situation. that is my reasoning

    0
  • Dallin from Virginia

    I think it was good that we improved our police training because the the people who want to protect our country want to do the best they can to protect us and the better they are the more safer we are and we could have better lives then getting terrorize and the better and stronger we are the more safer we are.

    [read less]

    I think it was good that we improved our police training because the the people who want to protect our country want to do the best they can to protec…

    [read more]
    0
  • Branden from Virginia

    Yes because certain levels of force in some cases can mean life or death for example, if someone starting a fight police don’t need to shoot them. In conclusion certain force levels is needed.

    [read less]

    Yes because certain levels of force in some cases can mean life or death for example, if someone starting a fight police don’t need to shoot them. In …

    [read more]
    0
  • Aaron from Washington

    I believe so, if the police are taught how to use these peacekeeping devices, then that means their will be less chance for error, and less chance that error will fatally injure someone. While I don’t believe these devices need to be used constantly, I still believe that a police force that knows how to use every weapon in their arsenal that won’t kill

    [read less]

    I believe so, if the police are taught how to use these peacekeeping devices, then that means their will be less chance for error, and less chance tha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tommy from Georgia

    There have been too many questionable shootings by police officers in the past year. They have a very difficult and dangerous job, so more training especially in de-escalating situations would be beneficial to both the police officers and their communities.

    [read less]

    There have been too many questionable shootings by police officers in the past year. They have a very difficult and dangerous job, so more training e…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nina from Pennsylvania

    Where does someone draw the line at how much force a police officer can use? Many police officers, however not all, abuse their power. Unnecessary force and violence inflicted by police officers should be an issue that as a society we work to prevent. Everyone should feel safe and protected by police, not afraid.

    [read less]

    Where does someone draw the line at how much force a police officer can use? Many police officers, however not all, abuse their power. Unnecessary for…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Illinois

    In a truly perfect society, yes, this would be all the better. However, with the whole psychological effects that occur during a shooting with a police officer, it may be impossible to fully reduce. It would require breaking human nature itself. That alone is fearful having a stone cold police force. Law isn’t black or white.

    [read less]

    In a truly perfect society, yes, this would be all the better. However, with the whole psychological effects that occur during a shooting with a polic…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sara from California

    I will always advocate for the safety of police officers due to the fact that both of my parents were proud to have that job, until my father died in the line of duty. I have seen firsthand what loss does to a person, but more broadly than the safety of just police officers, I believe in the safety of all humans. And this is why deescalization tactics are necessary. Recently, a friend’s brother was shot by a police officer. There are reasons why the brother posed a threat, but he was only fourteen years old. I tried talking to my mom about it, but as a former cop, she reiterated that when a gun is drawn, the officer must shoot to kill. But I couldn’t and still don’t understand why, since the young suspect had no gun, they needed to end his life rather than shoot him in a place resulting in him being less dangerous. There are compelling arguments to both sides, and perhaps I am too close to each, (the side of both the citizen and the officer). But I still don’t think it would do any harm to teach effective deescalation tactics. The goal of any officer should not be to kill, but to make the situation safer. And since the decision of how to do so is left up to the officers, the teaching of deescalation tactics will lead to less casualties as well as less officers having the death of a, for example, fourteen year old boy on their conscience.

    [read less]

    I will always advocate for the safety of police officers due to the fact that both of my parents were proud to have that job, until my father died in …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jordan from Washington

    Integrating de-escalation tactics into the education for new police officers would be helpful in reducing the amount of violence and bad representation for police officers, because when mistakes occur and someone reacts too quickly or too soon, it causes fear and anger towards those who made the mistake. Those repercussions could be prevented if officers were taught the psychology of people and how to reduce the threat of a situation that may require heavy force. While there may be an increased chance of possibly putting the officers in greater danger, they should also be equipped and prepared enough already to know how to deal with that risk. By increasing their knowledge of potential situations, the officers could know how to work around problems that come up and reduce the amount of misunderstanding or harm to anyone. With a greater understanding of the conduct and response of people to threats or situations, the officers could better handle situations without things getting out of hand, and the amount of national disruption could be reduced.

    [read less]

    Integrating de-escalation tactics into the education for new police officers would be helpful in reducing the amount of violence and bad representatio…

    [read more]
    0
  • Christopher from Colorado

    It would seem to be a fundamental misconception that de-escalation training promotes or encompasses a patent deferral to an inherently “pacifist” approach in managing police encounters; rather, the objective of such programs (it is my aim to demonstrate) is properly consistent with the doctrine of habeas corpus, perhaps the most fundamental writ protecting the accused in our criminal justice system. In any democratic society, unity and consistency of principles between procedural and substantive courses of action is a basic tenet of legitimacy. A democracy cannot be procedurally sound and substantively corrupt, nor (as is the case in most authoritarian regimes) ought it be substantively sound and procedurally corrupt. But perhaps this deserves an explanation in context. With reference to the U.S. criminal justice system, “procedure” refers to the handling of criminal justice from arrest to the verdict and sentencing; “substance” refers to the nature of the crime and the propriety of that sentencing, but, in a larger sense, must of necessity include any Constitutional provisions relevant to procedural handling. Habeas Corpus, the requirement of probable cause, engenders the presumption of innocence: “innocent until proven guilty” which inheres. This presumption, if it is to reflect and affirm the ultimate pursuit of legitimacy in American democracy, must be applied consistently, both throughout the procedural (arrest, questioning) and substantive (trial) levels of the justice system. Now, as for police violence. One must recognize that the public outrage witnessed in the preceding years has to great extent stemmed from a series of similar incidents: the shooting and subsequent death of unarmed minority (often African-American) suspects. To reason for the necessity of de-escalation training, one must understand that, in urban regions with large minority populations, where race, crime, and poverty are correlated, it is observable that a majority of cases necessitating police action will involve minority suspects. The life of an officer is, at its core, a rudimentarily stressful one; I have spoken to several officers of the State Patrol in my home state of Colorado, who describe the creeping anxiety that wears of them as the years pass — at each new traffic stop, there is no telling whether the driver might not draw a firearm at your approach. The conspiracy of these factors doubtless leads to a form of conditioning all too familiar to the great B.F. Skinner: it is entirely likely, modern research would suggest, that officers in inner city environments develop what might be described as a low-level or borderline PTSD symptomology, which, when paired with the social correlations mentioned, produce the effect of criminal-racial profiling. This profiling is on a fundamental level rationally justified, insofar as it is statistically accurate to say that, in the South of Chicago, the majority of crimes will involve African-American perpetrators, and, conversely, that African-American suspects are most likely to have committed crimes.”Most likely,” does not mean “certain,” however; this profiling becomes dangerous and rationally erroneous when it involves a presumption of guilt for any and every African-American suspect. This contravenes the basic notion of habeas corpus and presumed innocence, and, while perhaps not outright racism in the traditional sense, can be equally harmful at the social and personal level, and only reinforces and gives vent to potential underlying racist convictions in white officers. Unjust shootings arise when, under the psychological encumbrance of all the factors mentioned above, immediate rational judgment is impaired, and deadly force is resorted to under insufficient provocation. In general, officers are trained to eschew deadly force unless there is an evidently reciprocal threat from the suspect. The problem is that, for police officers under the psychological stresses leading to racial profiling, mildly confrontation behavior from a minority suspect may be interpreted as violent or escalatory. Michael Brown of Ferguson was hardly a savory character, though he was unarmed and made no indication of threatening or displaying deadly force; I therefore maintain that it was wholly unwarranted against him. His death was an avoidable tragedy. This is the objective of de-escalation training: to break or dispel the conditioning that leads to unnecessarily violent encounters; to enable officers to exercise rational judgment and apply force at the appropriate level; to practice a mentality of “innocent until proven guilty,” being central to effective policing, and to maintain an eye of civilian dignity in the face of potential crimes. By no means does this advocate self-sacrifice or leniency in the face of evident public danger; a suspect with a drawn firearm would remain grounds for application of deadly force, but the vast majority of crimes are not an imminent threat to general public safety (drug possession, for example,) and it is imperative that our police forces are trained to apply rational discretion and to fight unjust tendencies of racial profiling. If we are to lay stake to our unrivaled legitimacy as a democratic society, we must ensure that our civil defense and public protection services fall in line, procedurally and substantively, with normative Constitutional paradigms. De-escalation training is an effective means of ensuring that such ends are met, and that we can prosper as a respectful, effective society without fear of our own protectors; that habeas corpus will be upheld not only in court but in all aspects of criminal justice.

    [read less]

    It would seem to be a fundamental misconception that de-escalation training promotes or encompasses a patent deferral to an inherently “pacifist” appr…

    [read more]
    0
  • paige from New York

    I believe it is absolutely necessary to begin police de-escalation territory. I understand with all of the horrific events the past couple of years our fears have been heightened, including the police. Because of these fears it may cause police to make rash designs that have server consequences. We, as a country need to address this situation and start making a change. Recently so many unnecessary deaths have occurred because of poor and quick decisions. We need to remember we are all people still who have a right to life. There have been to many incidents when police have quickly fired because they mistaken a person having a weapon or thinking a person won’t listen to them. We need to set a new precedent and make sure police take every single action in their power without putting anyone’s life in danger before even thinking about shooting their guns. Firing or abuse should be the absolute last resort when protecting and serving.

    [read less]

    I believe it is absolutely necessary to begin police de-escalation territory. I understand with all of the horrific events the past couple of years ou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Heather from North Dakota

    The training will help to prepare the officers to be able to analyze a situation and determine if the person and situation are able to be de-escalated or if other measures need to be taken. If the police officers have paid attention and learned from their training and classes on this, their risk of being able to calm a situation down as well as protect themselves from injury or death will decrease significantly. This is because they will be able to determine whether they are safe or not and whether or not they would be able to diffuse the situation in any way, shape, or form. On top of that, the person they’re talking to may need help or want their point to be understood. A common person without a badge can sense when they’re in danger and while it is heightened and escalated as an officer of the law, part of you is more able to recognize and compartmentalize that fear to take stock of the situation and form an accurate and precise action plan. Nobody was ever hurt by knowing more about how to help other people and it never hurts to have a bit more knowledge and understanding in life.

    [read less]

    The training will help to prepare the officers to be able to analyze a situation and determine if the person and situation are able to be de-escalated…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mathieu from New Jersey

    I think this because police need more training every day!

    0
  • Claire from New York

    Police forces nationally range immensely. In New York State, for example, cities such as Syracuse cite the minimum age to become a police officer is 19 and successful completion of High School or the GED equivalent. Whilst in Manhattan, New York, the minimum age to become an officer is 21 along with either 60 college credits completed at a university, or 2 years of military service with honorable discharge to suffice. The rational, decision making part of the human brain is not fully developed until 25 years of age. This is widely accepted by the government and society as a 21 year old drinking age has been implemented in our country, but in some parts of the United States 19 year olds can enforce the law. This leads to many detrimental, impulsive accidents to occur due to ones brain not being at the highest level. Societies are not safe when these immature teenagers are not fully aware of the damage they can ensue. This furthermore leads to an incompetent police department in which those in danger whom wish to seek for help feel as if they can not trust their local police department. These people may feel as if their young, inexperienced officers may use an extreme force for a minor issue. Police de-escalation is necessary for police departments across the United States.

    [read less]

    Police forces nationally range immensely. In New York State, for example, cities such as Syracuse cite the minimum age to become a police officer is …

    [read more]
    0
  • Alex from Ohio

    Personally, I think the issue of police brutality can be exaggerated greatly in our society. The few issues of police violence that happen are blown up so much that it seems to be something that is extremely common. Most people believe everything there hear or see on social media and lose respect for police officers, even though the majority of them go to work every day looking to protect their community. But although they are few, there is still inevitably issues of police violence in our society today. Certain police officers who act unjustly ruin the image of the whole. Perhaps if these officers were trained differently, then the situations could have been avoided. After all, it could not hurt to provide some extra de-escalation training in order to prepare officers for certain situations and to help them to make the right decision in these situations. It will give them different options and alternatives to settle something rather than reaching straight for the gun. Now of course, even with training, an officer can not always be perfectly prepared for any situation. People must understand that this training will not magically make every officer able to settle any situation with ease. These things happen so fast and they must always look after their own safety as well. They will not always have time to take a step back and “de-escalate” a situation. What also must be understood, is that training like this is has always been around. How rigorous it is, I don’t know. But police do have this kind of training already to an extent and are taught how to “de-escalate” situations. Maybe there needs to be corrections or a completely new type of training. I think it should be done so that the people can see that the police force really cares and are doing all that they can to avoid any tragedies. People want some kind of change and this would be a good step to improving relations between civilians and officers.

    [read less]

    Personally, I think the issue of police brutality can be exaggerated greatly in our society. The few issues of police violence that happen are blown u…

    [read more]
    0
    • Michael from Wisconsin

      I agree with this because there although there have been cases that show unwarranted police brutality, others were triggered (hate using the word since its overused but this is the truth) when their lives were threaten and the assailant was seen to threaten the lives of others. There was actually a memorial for a terrorist who had taken 11 lives on a college campus. Of course, they’re people too but when they go off and slaughter others, their lives are in the hands of the police who are protecting the innocent citizens. People fail to understand this and as harsh of a reality as it is, it’s very much real.

      [read less]

      I agree with this because there although there have been cases that show unwarranted police brutality, others were triggered (hate using the word sinc…

      [read more]
      0
  • Yeslin from Texas

    I believe that police de-escalation training will not just prevent the loss of an innocent person, but also prevent the occurrence of an unnecessary death. De-escalation training will equip police officers with another method of handling situations where using a weapon is unnecessary. If police officers are not taught an alternative way to handle situations where the offender is unarmed and has just “lost his/her marbles”. What is the point of taking away that person’s life when the situation could have been handled differently? Possibly preventing the unnecessary guilt the officer will feel (possibly for the rest of his or her life) and the suffering of the offender’s family.

    [read less]

    I believe that police de-escalation training will not just prevent the loss of an innocent person, but also prevent the occurrence of an unnecessary d…

    [read more]
    0
  • Drake from Colorado

    I think that if the life of an officer or an innocent bystander is not in danger, than the police should not use deadly force. Deadly force should not be the first option, but it should always be kept open in order to protect our officers. Officers should know all the ways to peacefully end a situation where neither party gets hurt, and I support de-escalation training. However, more deadly options should be kept open.

    [read less]

    I think that if the life of an officer or an innocent bystander is not in danger, than the police should not use deadly force. Deadly force should not…

    [read more]
    0
    • Alex from Ohio

      I think most would agree with your first statement but it is easier said than done. That is the whole problem. It is not always easy for officers to assess a situation and be able to identify whether someone is a threat or not in such a small window of time. But yes, I agree that is may be necessary to train officers to find a way to deal with most situations peacefully without going straight to deadly force. Either way, there can always be wrong judgement. The wrong assessment of peaceful or deadly could put an officers safety in jeopardy.

      [read less]

      I think most would agree with your first statement but it is easier said than done. That is the whole problem. It is not always easy for officers to a…

      [read more]
      0
  • Erica from Kansas

    Police men and women need to be trained to avoid violence, and physical conflict until it is absolutely necessary. It’s important that no more lives are lost due to the proactive responsiveness that many police use today. No matter what, I think we can all agree that innocent lives should never be lost.

    [read less]

    Police men and women need to be trained to avoid violence, and physical conflict until it is absolutely necessary. It’s important that no more lives a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Karen from Florida

    The 4th Amendment protects us against unreasonable seizures (and searches), which applies to the use of force in apprehending suspects or protecting the safety of the public. The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner applied this constitutional principle in their ruling; they ruled that excessive or deadly force could only be used in two situations:

    It’s necessary to apprehend “dangerous” suspects
    It doesn’t put innocent people in danger

    The Supreme Court has recognized that “the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat.” However, the degree of coercion or force used must be proportional to the threat and escalate only in response to the threat.

    Now, the issue is not whether excessive or deadly force can be used in a dangerous situation, but rather whether the officer has the right training and mindset to evaluate the force that needs to be reasonably used in a given situation. Like everyone, police officers are human, and thus they make rash decisions. When there’s a gun in our hands, and the situation is spiraling out of control, it is easy to panic and shoot. Given the legal and moral necessity for police to use reasonable force, and the fact that police officers daily face dangerous and frenetic situations, establishing de-escalation training is not only a good idea, but a necessary idea, to protect us and to protect the officers themselves. And with all the hype and buzz surrounding police brutality and racial issues in current day, de-escalation training is a sound public policy.

    [read less]

    The 4th Amendment protects us against unreasonable seizures (and searches), which applies to the use of force in apprehending suspects or protecting t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Virginia

    I think yes because if we don’t the police will not be properly trained and not at all very good at their work profession. and if we do have it the “students” at the police training will be more educated on the subject of police stuff. most police men or women are not properly trained by the academy. that is why we need to have properly trained policemen for us as U.S citizens.

    [read less]

    I think yes because if we don’t the police will not be properly trained and not at all very good at their work profession. and if we do have it the “s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sophia from Nebraska

    The job of the police is to keep people safe. They clearly need more training to get better at that.

    0
  • Alexjs from Georgia

    I think the training should be required. Some would argue that these officers already volunteer to risk their lives everyday but while they are doing that, they are also doing it for the American people. It is wrong that a group meant to protect us is frightening to us. We shouldn’t have to be scared of a group who volunteered to protect us. The training should be required because there’s no reason to use excessive force and to continue the lack of training will only let the excessive force continue. No matter the race, religion, gender, or sexuality, no American should walk the streets of our country in fear of those who protect us.

    [read less]

    I think the training should be required. Some would argue that these officers already volunteer to risk their lives everyday but while they are doing …

    [read more]
    0
  • Josh from Michigan

    Police should be trained to handle all situations. Some situations may require deadly force, however most will not. The police should not have to do any more than is required of them in these situations. I believe that a deadly weapon should be a last resort, not a first.

    [read less]

    Police should be trained to handle all situations. Some situations may require deadly force, however most will not. The police should not have to do a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacquelyn from Pennsylvania

    There needs to be police de-escalation training, because lately there has been a rising trend in deaths at the hands of police. Whether a person believes those deaths to be right or wrong, there does not need to be as many. We are also seeing more cases of people being beaten when there is no threat visible. A lot of cops claim to feel threatened, but yet the suspect is expected to remain calm while their life is potentially being threatened.

    [read less]

    There needs to be police de-escalation training, because lately there has been a rising trend in deaths at the hands of police. Whether a person belie…

    [read more]
    0
    • J from Pennsylvania

      “, there does not need to be as many.” You may not understand, that is completely related to the situation. If police are under fire, they may not have much of a choice, because it is them protecting society versus the criminals. I wish they did not have to apply violence, I wish there even wasn’t violence at all. But since the fall of man, that is the way that the world has and will be in.

      [read less]

      “, there does not need to be as many.” You may not understand, that is completely related to the situation. If police are under fire, they may not h…

      [read more]
      0
  • Rachel from Texas

    Yes, I think that police training is very essential to provide adequate care for the citizens and to maintain a healthy level of regulation. It helps to adhere our society as a whole and keep us safe.

    [read less]

    Yes, I think that police training is very essential to provide adequate care for the citizens and to maintain a healthy level of regulation. It helps …

    [read more]
    0
  • Manith from Texas

    It is extremely important, especially in our current political climate, that police officers be trained in de-escalation; this is shown through recent cases of police brutality such as Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Both of these men were unnecessarily killed by police officers who could easily have used different tactics to arrest these men instead of murdering them. As long as the second amendment guarantees every citizen the right to bear arms, policemen need to continue to learn how to properly defuse situations in which a criminal has a gun. Every criminal has the right to face a judge and a jury consisting of their peers, and by being killed a criminal is deprived of that basic human right. Of course, at times it is necessary for policemen to kill violent criminal offenders, and this is completely morally justifiable; however, recent controversies over police brutality bring to the surface harsh truths about minorities and police brutality. This further highlights the necessity of de-escalation training for police. We will all be able to sleep better at night knowing that the men and women who protect our communities are capable of arresting criminals without the use of a lethal weapon.

    [read less]

    It is extremely important, especially in our current political climate, that police officers be trained in de-escalation; this is shown through recent…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aubron from North Carolina

    Police do in fact need de-escalation training. It seems these days there are so many instances of unwarranted force used against civilians. We have our men in the service able to go by a law of only firing when fired upon why shouldn’t we have our police officers trained in the same manner. If we can have men and women in warzones abide by these procedures why shouldn’t our officers follow the same back home?

    [read less]

    Police do in fact need de-escalation training. It seems these days there are so many instances of unwarranted force used against civilians. We have ou…

    [read more]
    0
  • E from Massachusetts

    De-escaltion doesn’t mean self-sacrifice. Lethal force is unfortunately sometimes necessary, but it is clear that in far too many cases, police officers are reacting with inappropriate levels of force.

    [read less]

    De-escaltion doesn’t mean self-sacrifice. Lethal force is unfortunately sometimes necessary, but it is clear that in far too many cases, police office…

    [read more]
    0
  • Shreyas from Georgia

    The problem with an unchecked police force is that abuse of power can incur unnecessary deaths without any consequences to the one doing them. The governing bodies of a constitutional republic, whether it be the federal government or local, are well maintained by a degree of checks and balances that prevent any one institution from exceeding their extent of the law. The police are no exception. As members of the executive branch, the police are required to enforce the laws of the land; however, they must understand the limitation of power, meaning that they need to hold clear judgment in how they arrest any person violating the law. With de-escalation training, the officers will have the knowledge of properly engaging in suspicious and criminal activities. Will that hinder their ability to enforce the statutes they seek to protect? No, since they will be able to maintain their confidence in their ethical decision making when doing their job.

    [read less]

    The problem with an unchecked police force is that abuse of power can incur unnecessary deaths without any consequences to the one doing them. The gov…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ariana from California

    I believe that this, as most things, depends on the situation. Obviously, it is important for police officers to be safe, but they also have a duty to protect citizens rather than harm them.

    [read less]

    I believe that this, as most things, depends on the situation. Obviously, it is important for police officers to be safe, but they also have a duty to…

    [read more]
    0
  • David from Illinois

    Answering violence with more violence should always be the last resort especially for our police men and women. While these men and women are often in high risk situations that require immediate action, there are many cases where the police can resolve conflicts and even detain criminals without using excessive force all too common in American policing. Violently subduing criminals has not lead to much improvement in the areas where violent crimes are the most common, and police should focus on de-escalation tactics and intervention first and foremost.

    [read less]

    Answering violence with more violence should always be the last resort especially for our police men and women. While these men and women are often in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Elizabeth from New Hampshire

    De-escalation would prevent many incidents from getting worse. Police training in general needs to be comprehensive and more extensive. Six months of training is not enough to be appropriately trained for dangerous situations.

    [read less]

    De-escalation would prevent many incidents from getting worse. Police training in general needs to be comprehensive and more extensive. Six months of …

    [read more]
    0
  • Tiyahna from North Carolina

    The job of the police is to keep EVERYONE safe. While that does include themselves, it includes the person committing the crime whether they strongly oppose the crime or not. It is not up to a policeman to decide someones fate because of whatever reason whether it is a sense of authority, hatred or pure evilness. A person should not lose their life because a policeman failed to follow correct protocol to make sure a situation is handled correctly. For example, you should not be murdered for a potential weed charge because the officer assumed you had a weapon on you AFTER they asked you to show them what you had in the first place (yes, there are thousands of cases that have occurred in this order in our nations capital). I’m not saying that policeman should put their lives on the line more just to defend someone that is threatening their life, but there is no reason why 1,000 of young men have been killed in these 5 months due to the lack of professionalism of policemen.

    [read less]

    The job of the police is to keep EVERYONE safe. While that does include themselves, it includes the person committing the crime whether they strongly …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kyra from South Carolina

    I believe whole heartedly that there should be de-escalation training for police officers because there have been too many Americans murdered at the hands of the police when the victims were unarmed. Too many officers use the excuse that they are “scared” or that they did not know how to calm the situation down, but as a police officer, it is his or her’s job to use his or her’s weapon as the last resort. Lately officers use unnecessary force and immediately take out their guns to control situations, but there are numerous other ways to handle situations. These officers can learn these different techniques during the de-escalation training, and the tension and fear that exist between the police and citizens could diminish.

    [read less]

    I believe whole heartedly that there should be de-escalation training for police officers because there have been too many Americans murdered at the h…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jazz from Washington

    Although there are obvious risks with de-escalation tactics in the event that they don’t work, I think it’s good for every police officer to have the training. Just because someone is trained in de-escalation tactics does not mean that they should be used in every scenario, but if an officer not only knows when to use them but also how to, more people will be safe.

    [read less]

    Although there are obvious risks with de-escalation tactics in the event that they don’t work, I think it’s good for every police officer to have the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Rachel from Florida

    When it comes to employment, training is everything. It’s because of this that most employers require new hirees to shadow a senior employee, read through online manuals,and take training courses. Whatever is learned in these courses sets the basis for how the employee will behave during work in the future. This concept, simple and universal, of course applies to police.
    The problem of police brutality begins at the roots of the police officer’s employment: in training. As both the Atlantic and the Washington Post report, police are taught from the get go that they are always in danger, and that their survival depends on this constant, and in most situations, unwarranted, fear. The Atlantic goes on to describe training scenarios, many of which included suspects approaching the officers, or driving up to them, then shooting them before the trainees had a chance to react. Each of these scenarios has one clear message: hesitation can lead to death. As a result, tricks of the eye and instilled trigger fingers have led to most, if not all, of the fatal police shootings bleeding into newspapers and perforating political culture every day.
    De-escalation training can fix the problem plaguing our nation, and that’s because it will teach police officers an alternative way to handle crises. An alternative way that, instead of costing states more money, will just divert current funds. An alternative way that works. No one could put it better than New Jersey Police Chief, J. Scott Thomson, whose department has already started training police officers to treat potentially dangerous situations with caution. When talking about a situation where the officers came in contact with a man brandishing, and wildly swinging, a knife, Thomson makes sure to point out that “six months before our training, we would’ve shot and killed that guy. It would have been a justifiable use of deadly force, but there was another way [we knew] to handle it.”
    In a country where the police force is constitutionally defined as standing for “the betterment of the health, safety, morals and general welfare” of American people, the police seem to serve only as a group which citizens, especially African American and underprivileged youth, should be afraid of. Fortunately, by exercising their constitutional duty of “police power,” as established in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts case Commonwealth vs. Alger, as the regulation the police force’s behavior, and instating de-escalation as part of police training, states can start encouraging police officers to think with their heads, instead of with their fight or flight reflexes.
    But it’s not just Massachusetts state judiciary precedent that demands de-escalation training, it’s federal law itself. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 set demands that kept employees safe on their jobs, through proper and relevant training. At the time, it was mainly meant for factory workers dealing with lethal chemicals, but can apply to anyone from construction workers operating heavy machinery, to cashiers using the industrial grade bagel slicer at Panera Bread, even to police officers brandishing guns against the populace. This legislation ensures that Police Departments all over the country have the proper training for policemen to keep themselves, as well as civilians, safe.

    [read less]

    When it comes to employment, training is everything. It’s because of this that most employers require new hirees to shadow a senior employee, read thr…

    [read more]
    0
  • brianna from Utah

    the police help us by risking their lives for us everyday.

    0
  • william from Utah

    i think that if the police are not calm when they are under pressure and freak out over nothing then they need to go train on there anger and they should meditate more to calm the nerves.

    [read less]

    i think that if the police are not calm when they are under pressure and freak out over nothing then they need to go train on there anger and they sho…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brian from California

    As conflicts between police officers and citizens increase, these high stress situations can lead people to make decisions that they would not normally make under other circumstances. Whether we agree or disagree on the treatment of certain certain minority groups by police and the discrimination that is taking place, we can agree that something needs to be changed. People also need to tear down the stereotypes and prejudices that society has built up against certain ethnicities. While de-escalation training will help to ensure that police use the proper amount of force, this is a small step in a long journey.

    [read less]

    As conflicts between police officers and citizens increase, these high stress situations can lead people to make decisions that they would not normall…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kona from Utah

    Yeah they should have more traning,lets not play bad cop good cop. Just be a good cop, great cop, best cop, better cop. You know… someone who wouldn’t just pount a gun at you if you do something wrong.

    [read less]

    Yeah they should have more traning,lets not play bad cop good cop. Just be a good cop, great cop, best cop, better cop. You know… someone who wouldn…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Oklahoma

    Police should try and help make the situation safer for everyone around. If it is safe to try and talk to the person they are after, then they should definietly do it. The training to do it properly wouldn’t hurt, and it could save lives. I know there was a concern about the officers hesitating, but that’s human instinct anyway. Besides that, in the de-escalation training they could cover how to know whdn situations are just beyond their help.

    [read less]

    Police should try and help make the situation safer for everyone around. If it is safe to try and talk to the person they are after, then they should …

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Kansas

    Too many people are being shot for running from police or other minor things. I have a heart attack when I see a cop car in my rear view mirror. Police need to take into account that not everyone is guilty of something and that people should be heard before being shot, pulled over, and anything else they do that we don’t know.

    [read less]

    Too many people are being shot for running from police or other minor things. I have a heart attack when I see a cop car in my rear view mirror. Polic…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sebastian from Arizona

    In the age of technology, it would feel like the world is getting more violent and turbulent. Truth be told, this is only because, since more people have access to video and picture taking devices, these issues are more publicly displayed. Police Brutality is a serious issue that is not a recent development; for decades there has been evidence of disproportionate attacks from police against minorities and lower privileged citizens. The time has come to properly address these issues, rather than simply tossing insults from one side of the internet to another, rather than simply calling all police officers “pigs” or “killers”, or calling all victims “thugs” or saying they “had it coming”. It is true that you can only truly experience this from the perspective of a police officer if you are one. However, while that is true, we must accept that, to really be men and women that enforce the law and peace, they should be capable of talking first, and shooting only if absolutely necessary.

    [read less]

    In the age of technology, it would feel like the world is getting more violent and turbulent. Truth be told, this is only because, since more people h…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrea from California

    To live in a country in which police brutality is a real and dangerous threat to society, especially minorities, is to face an obligation where doing anything that could potentially decrease state violence is absolutely necessary. For the good of both the citizenry and the police force, we must take all actions available to limit the amount of lives lost to police brutality. After all, the sole purpose of law enforcement is to keep peace, and how can we possibly say that this is being accomplished when dangerous shootings are cutting short the lives of our American brothers and sisters?

    [read less]

    To live in a country in which police brutality is a real and dangerous threat to society, especially minorities, is to face an obligation where doing …

    [read more]
    0
  • John from New York

    Absolutely, the police training is a must! Officer Slater brutally shot and killed an innocent Scott who was simply trying to escape with his life. The police training would hopefully act to lessen the rampant police brutality by making sure officers reserve the use of force for only when it is necessary to keep the situation under control.

    [read less]

    Absolutely, the police training is a must! Officer Slater brutally shot and killed an innocent Scott who was simply trying to escape with his life. Th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Natalee from Florida

    It is absolutely necessary to establish and use police de-escalation training. Police are in place to protect society, enforce the law, but definitely not to harm people. Even if there is someone that is being arrested, there is no reason for that person to be hurt, and there is especially no reason for an innocent person to be hurt by law enforcement, minority or no minority, statistic or no statistic.

    [read less]

    It is absolutely necessary to establish and use police de-escalation training. Police are in place to protect society, enforce the law, but definitely…

    [read more]
    0
  • Paula from New York

    Yes, it is necessary!

    0
    • Hudson from Virginia

      But why?

      0
  • Hayden from Oklahoma

    Police ought to do everything in their power not only to protect and serve the people and victims, but also to protect the perpetrator, or person they are trying to arrest. It is safer for all parties when police are actively trying to make the situation more calm and less dangerous

    [read less]

    Police ought to do everything in their power not only to protect and serve the people and victims, but also to protect the perpetrator, or person they…

    [read more]
    0
    • hanna from Utah

      i believe that police should train to protect everyone,

      0
  • Hudson from Virginia

    NO. It’s NOT THE POLICE, it’s THE PEOPLE who believe that they are MORE IMPORTANT than others or want to be on TV that act out and provoke the police. would you go annoy your parents just so you could get that new i-phone? no, you wouldn’t. So why pester the police just on be on TV?
    I wouldn’t, so don’t do it.

    [read less]

    NO. It’s NOT THE POLICE, it’s THE PEOPLE who believe that they are MORE IMPORTANT than others or want to be on TV that act out and provoke the police…

    [read more]
    6
    • Caleb from Virginia

      Dude you are right but, there have been places where police have shot people and tasers people who are actually are carrying things that are not what they think. some times police get crazy and use to much force. i do agree with you mate some do go and annoy police officers and they shoot you but that is usually the wrong action. they should learn DE-escalation processes in tight situations.
      such as riots

      [read less]

      Dude you are right but, there have been places where police have shot people and tasers people who are actually are carrying things that are not what …

      [read more]
      0
    • Lev from Virginia

      oh yeah

      0
    • Jack from Ohio

      While I understand that there have been some cases of citizens acting irresponsibly resulting in violence from police, there have also been many cases that have been reported in which the victim of police violence seems to cooperate with the police officer to the best of their ability. There are cases of unarmed citizens being shot and killed by police, and it would be naive to think that all of these people set out with the goal of provoking an officer and being shot in mind. Most citizens don’t have the mindset of creating conflict for attention and would much rather comply with officers, cases just occur too often where there is a miscommunication or a citizen of officer acts irrationally and results in media attention. This issue is bigger than a few cases of attention seeking citizens, rather citizens deal with police every day and these interactions could go over smoother if officers were trained for de-escalating them.

      [read less]

      While I understand that there have been some cases of citizens acting irresponsibly resulting in violence from police, there have also been many cases…

      [read more]
      0
  • J from Pennsylvania

    Retribution is an important part of the Criminal Justice System. While it would be best if police could just talk criminals and reason with them, people that break the law are not always going to be reasonable. While police brutality isn’t good, neither is police passivism. If you are an officer and you were faced with a guy pointing a gun or a guy attacking you, are you going to let yourself die, or are you going to act in self defense. Beyond that, you are not only protecting yourself, but the public as a whole. That is why you are a policeman. To protect the public. I vote no because de-escalation and pacifism of our protectors is a good recipe for unsafe societies. But as I stated we shouldn’t have our police brutally treating prisoners, we are to get them, disarm them, and either put them in prison if guilty, or release them if innocent.

    [read less]

    Retribution is an important part of the Criminal Justice System. While it would be best if police could just talk criminals and reason with them, peo…

    [read more]
    2
    • J from Pennsylvania

      P.S., the Preamble says that “We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility and PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE…” We are supposed to have protection as the public. Just as I say in my main article. Policemen protect the public. If they de-escalate and become pacifist, there are going to be un-safe societies. No gun zones like Chicago are some very dangerous places. in 2016, they news week said that 2016 was Chicago’s bloodiest year in decades, and they are a no-gun zone. Now if that sounds like I am going off topic, it still shows how arms, which help police, if taken away, with police de-escalation is going to be dangerous.

      Now to offer an example of SLIGHT police escalation: New York. Their crime was up in the early 1990’s. Rudy Giuliani became mayor, and with his Police Commissioner (William Bratton), used the broken window theory created in the late 1980’s (by James Wilson and George Kelling) to reduce crime by prosecuting and questioning young vandals.

      In sum of my continuation, the constitution says that the government (Local and Federal) are to help protect the citizens, and as shown, de-escalation in Chicago lead to a bloody 2016 and New York became safer (And is still going down in crime) because of SLIGHT escalation. Therefore, police de-escalation is a terrible idea.

      [read less]

      P.S., the Preamble says that “We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility and PR…

      [read more]
      0
  • Sebastian from Ohio

    The police try to protect themselves and the citizens.

    1
  • Michelle from New York

    No, police have no time to think and speak to suspects, they are trained to react to situations due to the unpredictability of human nature. Who knows if the person they pulled over is going to pull out a gun? Or the man wrestling them is going to pull out a knife? Police must act with caution for their safety and the safety of others. It is not fair to blame police for the loss of lives because the person who becomes injured or dead wouldn’t be in that position if they simply complied with the law. Police officers more often than not don’t just kill suspects for no reason… suspects are normally noncompliant and disrespectful. So like any other human being police officers need to be cautious and defend themselves when their own life is being threatened. If society had respect for not only police officers but the laws created to regulate and maintain order police wouldn’t be needed or trained to be on high alert from such offenders.

    [read less]

    No, police have no time to think and speak to suspects, they are trained to react to situations due to the unpredictability of human nature. Who knows…

    [read more]
    0
  • maddie from Virginia

    i don’t think that we should have to improve our police training because there really is no point if we have more respectful people in our country then we would have a safer environment and we would not need the extra painful work of the people who try there hardest every day to save lives. we should learn how to control our actions and be able to live a life knowing we can sleep at night safely.

    [read less]

    i don’t think that we should have to improve our police training because there really is no point if we have more respectful people in our country t…

    [read more]
    0
    • Ricardo from Florida

      Unfortunately a lot of cops will target minorities and aren’t properly trained on when to use a weapon.

      0
  • Natasha from Wisconsin

    The protection of police should be the utmost concern. They should be allowed to protect themselves in potentially dangerous situations. People being arrested aren’t typically going to be reasonable, as no one wants to be arrested. So police should be able to react in a manner that keeps them safe without doing unjustified harm to the person in question. I agree that police have too much power in some areas, but their whole job is about keeping you and your family safe. Why wouldn’t you want them to do that? Therefore, it is in my opinion that police should not be trained in passive forms of training, a son this could cause many deaths or escaped suspects.

    [read less]

    The protection of police should be the utmost concern. They should be allowed to protect themselves in potentially dangerous situations. People being…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Wisconsin

    Although these classes do seem to be well-intended, I don’t think it will do much in the long-run. Yes, the innocent should be protected and police shouldn’t be as brutal as they can and have at times, but what about criminals? Not that they aren’t people too, but when a crime is being committed like murder, assault, arson, etc. those people automatically revoke their innocence and police have no other choice to cut in and protect the citizens not committing crimes.

    I believe the end goal for everyone is that the criminals don’t get away. That would happen if we didn’t have a police system at all. On the flip side, there are plenty of accused who also get less than humane treatment. The phrase “Better to be safe, than sorry.” Actually applies to both sides, though I feel it fits more with the way police are going now.

    All in all, police, citizens, and criminals should all be more mindful. The less crime and injustice, the better our tomorrows will be.

    [read less]

    Although these classes do seem to be well-intended, I don’t think it will do much in the long-run. Yes, the innocent should be protected and police sh…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madelyn from New York

    While there are cases of excessive force in the police, that does not represent the majority of police office and this training is not proven to do anything in making the matters better

    [read less]

    While there are cases of excessive force in the police, that does not represent the majority of police office and this training is not proven to do an…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexandra from Illinois

    Simulated training situations and real-life situations are immensely of two different worlds. Police officers can never receive the same valuable learning experience from 100 hours of training than they can from an hour of actually being on the job. De-escalation training would only be a waste of resources; instead, it must be ensured that officers know WHY they have they job they have—to protect the people. If they are not aware of this mission, perhaps they should not be police officers.

    [read less]

    Simulated training situations and real-life situations are immensely of two different worlds. Police officers can never receive the same valuable lear…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mark from Wisconsin

    No amount of training is capable of replicating real life situations where lives are on the line. Also, this issue is of individual officers, not police departments as a whole, and a cop that is incapable of deescalating a situation will not better in their response. An easier, more effective solution to this is having no officer in dangerous areas act alone, and having all officers wearing body cams so they are aware any unjust actions will be punished so that the safety of all is ensured.

    [read less]

    No amount of training is capable of replicating real life situations where lives are on the line. Also, this issue is of individual officers, not poli…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maddy from Virginia

    The police officers have gone through training already, and they know when to use force, and when to use reason. They shouldn’t even have to use force, because if we listened and followed their directions, there would be no reason to. Think about it: if a sibling takes something that is yours, you’re going to ask for it back, whether you’re polite or demanding. If they give it back, that prevents an argument. But if they don’t, it’ll start a shouting match. It’s the same way with the officers; if the person listens to them, they won’t have to use force and hopefully, no one would get hurt. When people don’t listen to our officers, they’re putting themselves and everyone around them in danger. The police should hold our respect-they put themselves into dangerous situations to keep us out of them. Ignoring what they say could potentially get you in more trouble.
    Starting off, the officer needs to talk to them until they get violent. Sometimes, the officers are at fault, but most of the time they aren’t. It also depends on how you’ve been taught to look at officers. If you have one in the family, you’ll probably have a good view of the police, but if you don’t, you might not.

    [read less]

    The police officers have gone through training already, and they know when to use force, and when to use reason. They shouldn’t even have to use force…

    [read more]
    0
    • Caleb from Virginia

      well they have to go under regulation and riot training. police usually will go by force when not necessary. there are overwhelming cases of false shootings involving the police

      0
    • Lev from Virginia

      Lev very much agrees with you. Good Job!

      0
  • Nicolas from Kentucky

    Imagine you wake up in the middle of the night to loud sounds coming from somewhere else in your house. The sounds you believe are linked to someone or something destroying your property. You in that moment would believe you have a job to defend your home against this intruder. Police have the exact same job everyday, when they are asleep they could be woken by a phone call telling them they are needed involving police action. Police take an oath to serve and protect citizens of the town they are serving in. Now people are believing that police should show less “brutality” by talking to suspects in police investigation instead of immediately responding to what their years of experience and training, and their instinct tell them to do and to talk to sometimes heavily armed suspects. Put yourself in that situation would you be more likely to attempt to fire upon the suspect to injure them or would you talk to them, exposing your position and allowing them to fire upon you. Criminals are called criminals or law breakers for a reason because the don’t obey the laws and break them. Yes i believe we should require police officers to answer for their actions but I believe by requiring them to de-escalate their job, this would put them in more danger and cause more harm then the harm it is attempting to remove.

    [read less]

    Imagine you wake up in the middle of the night to loud sounds coming from somewhere else in your house. The sounds you believe are linked to someone o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lev from Virginia

    To live in a country that has such brutal people. I say we try and listen them out to what they have to say. If we just keep raising the police force more people will just get hurt. What if the people that are fighting just want to talk and sort things out. For example, my grandpa got arrested for telling the person that he ordered a seat at a hockey game 5min before another person did and the other person just said he didn’t and started to call the police, and my grandpa just wanted to talk and started yelling at the police.

    If we just at least try and listen then maybe we nobody could get hurt.

    [read less]

    To live in a country that has such brutal people. I say we try and listen them out to what they have to say. If we just keep raising the police force …

    [read more]
    0
  • Logan from Indiana

    Oh, please. Don’t give me any crap. Police Brutality is NOT real. I don’t know if you are talking about North Korea or China, but the US does not have a brutal police force. Police are supposed to protect and serve the people. They put their lives at risk every day. If there is a real threat and is no way to stop a criminal but to kill him, then they must use force. If someone threatened to shoot a school and actually killed someone, the police shouldn’t come in and say, “Hmm…how could we resolve this peacefully?” That person already killed someone, committed a crime, therefore that person also lost his rights to protection. The Declaration of Independence asserts citizens’ rights to what now? Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kind of hard to achieve if you have criminals running amok. Police need to be there to, yes, de-escalate the situation if possible, but mainly to protect the citizens, which therefore translates to putting the lives of the innocent over the life of a criminal. As the popular saying goes, “The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few and of the one.”

    [read less]

    Oh, please. Don’t give me any crap. Police Brutality is NOT real. I don’t know if you are talking about North Korea or China, but the US does not have…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sara from California

      You have a completely valid opinion, one that I have considered and partly agree with. However, what I am commenting on is your blatant refusal that police brutality even exists. You understand how this sounds a bit ignorant considering the statistics. It is more than fine to be against deescalation tactics but denying that police brutality is real will not get you anywhere.

      [read less]

      You have a completely valid opinion, one that I have considered and partly agree with. However, what I am commenting on is your blatant refusal that p…

      [read more]
      0
    • Alex from Ohio

      I agree that people are too quick to call something “brutality.” Officers serve to protect the citizens and must protect themselves at the same time. But what you must understand is that with this issue on “de-escalation,” it is not about trying to peacefully talk to an active shooter or anything like that. It is about learning to settle situations where there may not be any threat to safety. It is about becoming more aware of what to do in certain situations and becoming better at decision making in certain situations. This may be needed in order to cut down on these controversial shootings and to renew civilian’s image of the police department.

      [read less]

      I agree that people are too quick to call something “brutality.” Officers serve to protect the citizens and must protect themselves at the same time. …

      [read more]
      0
    • Hudson from Virginia

      great point, I totally agree

      0
    • Forrest from Mississippi

      While an innocent person should never be hurt, that distinction is not always easy to make. You act as if it is always known if a person is a criminal. This is simply not true. Especially if a crime has not yet been committed. Preemptive action can help save lives in a potentially deadly situation. If someone threatened to “shoot a school” and actually killed someone then yes, this person has committed a crime and should be apprehended as well as regarded as armed and dangerous. But if a person is seen in a suspicious situation, an officer would not know if this person has committed a crime or if they could potentially be dangerous. In these situations an officer must be able to trust their judgement on the correct move to make. Training would allow this hypothetical officer to make sure this situation did not escalate to violence, potentially avoiding the wrongful death of an innocent person. If a police officer killed an innocent person, they are a criminal, and like you said, we must, “put the lives of the innocent over the life of a criminal.”

      [read less]

      While an innocent person should never be hurt, that distinction is not always easy to make. You act as if it is always known if a person is a criminal…

      [read more]
      0
  • Lauren from North Carolina

    Sometimes, deadly force is needed to protect the populace of a city in which a criminal has been apprehended. De-escalation training would actually be worse for a city because deadly force could actually be needed for the safety of the officer and the people he or she protects.

    [read less]

    Sometimes, deadly force is needed to protect the populace of a city in which a criminal has been apprehended. De-escalation training would actually be…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ade from Illinois

    As an African American male in the United States, the fear of the police in general is very real. I see police and unlike some of my other fellow African Americans I am slightly put on edge. The stories of the African American men being beaten, the some who are beaten on video and no one does anything because they are seen as degenerates. The horrible atrocities that have occurred in the last 20 years have lead to a distrust of the police :however, de-escalation of police tactics will not stomp out problems. A lot of the worst acts of violence are nearly premeditated in the way that they occur. The victim is often beaten until they are unrecognizable or shot multiple times. De escalation cannot teach how to preserve life but only cause policemen to hesitate when they do not need to hesitate. This de-escalation only reduces ¨trigger-happiness¨ it does not eradicate the overall potential problem of police violence. Evil happens despite laws and people are killed every day despite the fact that we have multiple laws against murder. We are educated every day on the moral and criminal implications of doing the wrong thing however we never take into account the fact that people will do what they want to do. Rather than de-escalation, we should try to incorporate our policemen into our society and have people really relating to people they protect. The problem today is that police are seen as murders not protectors. A badge is not a license to kill but a de-escalating class will not help a policeman diffuse a dangerous situation and the other lives potentially endangered will still be endangered.

    [read less]

    As an African American male in the United States, the fear of the police in general is very real. I see police and unlike some of my other fellow Afri…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alex from Ohio

    Police De- Escalation is not necessary, because when we restrict the police officers it allows for more crime to come up at a higher rate. If people knew that the police force was being trained to be less aggressive, then it would lead to criminals coming out to take advantage of the opportunity. This would also put the police in greater danger because they would not do what is necessary to protect their lives, or keep the community safe.

    [read less]

    Police De- Escalation is not necessary, because when we restrict the police officers it allows for more crime to come up at a higher rate. If people k…

    [read more]
    0
  • Robert from California

    Police put their lives on the line daily, just as all of our other armed forces; Navy, Army, Military, and the Air Force. Giving them less training with their weapons is like saying we have to train our other armed forces less as well. The outside world is not safe nor is the very neighborhoods we walk through daily. The police let us roam the streets freely and they do anything in their power to make sure that Americans our safe as well as our other armed forces who fight outside in other countries to protect ours. The violence some of our “officers” caused is depressing to hear and even see, but we cannot label all police officers as those who wear the blue uniform for power and authority compared to those who wear their uniform with honor, respect, and service.

    [read less]

    Police put their lives on the line daily, just as all of our other armed forces; Navy, Army, Military, and the Air Force. Giving them less training wi…

    [read more]
    0
  • David from Wisconsin

    The job of the police is to protect citizens and administer the law. They receive training to carry out these tasks. While it is true that there are specific instances of police taking situations too far, these are in large part isolated incidents perpetrated by specific individuals. In the vast majority of cases, officers act appropriately. To try and transform the job of the police to be community ambassadors transforms their job to take on too big of a scope. Their job should be to enforce the law and that is all.

    [read less]

    The job of the police is to protect citizens and administer the law. They receive training to carry out these tasks. While it is true that there are s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kate from North Carolina

    On a daily basis, police officers are forced to make decisions in the moment, and often do not have the time to think on a situation. They are in our country to protect us, the citizens, and if killing one person for good reason means that the country is safe, the action should be taken. A police officer should not have to be killed in the line of duty, and therefore needs the heavy training to survive. The safety of our entire country is more important that one persons life.

    [read less]

    On a daily basis, police officers are forced to make decisions in the moment, and often do not have the time to think on a situation. They are in our …

    [read more]
    0
  • Owen from Arizona

    The definition of a police force is to, by any means necessary, protect citizens, enforce laws, and to defend against immoral/illegal actions by any person. Most of the time, non-lethals are sufficient to take down the bad guy. But lethal force can be (unfortunately) necessary. People that want to risk their lives as an officer are few. It take courage and selflessness to put your life on the line. But to only use non-lethals (which can be unreliable or insufficient) puts an even greater risk on our police force. They already save lethals for worst case scenario. There have been more police getting killed because they hesitate more than ever due to the media frenzy directed to Police brutality. If we want to stop police using lethal weapon, we need to create a reliable non-lethal. If we want to shrink police forces, we may risk more crime. If we want police to do their job, then we need to support them instead of fight them.(I am NOT saying police brutality is good, or supporting it in any way)

    [read less]

    The definition of a police force is to, by any means necessary, protect citizens, enforce laws, and to defend against immoral/illegal actions by any p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Michigan

    Police officers do not need more de-escalation training, while they are in the police academy it is taught to them then. You always hear about police brutality and other bad things police did, but how many times on the news do you hear about the good things the police officers do everyday? Most police that have to use physical or deadly force always try to deescalate the situation before using the force they find necessary.

    [read less]

    Police officers do not need more de-escalation training, while they are in the police academy it is taught to them then. You always hear about police …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brandon from Wisconsin

    Further police de-escalation training is not necessary. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line day in and day out. They do not need to be trained in further de-escalation tactics. An officers first priority should be to protect citizens by any means necessary. Whether this is done by deadly force or a de-escalation tactic, it doesn’t matter, as long as the populace in kept safe. Furthermore, an officers priority should be to protect himself and his or hers fellow coworkers. While you can site specific instances of an officer using violent force against a citizen which was unwarranted, but this was the act of an individual. A popular argument used by the left which can apply to this issue is the Muslim religion. Most terrorist attacks are committed by those of Muslim faith, yet the left preaches to not blame the religion but blame the individual. The same can be said for the police force, it does more harm than good to blame the entire sector of law enforce the rather than th actions of the individuals. A police officer must be able to have an arsenal of tools to stop crime, and further de-escalation training will not help this.

    [read less]

    Further police de-escalation training is not necessary. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line day in and day out. They do not need to …

    [read more]
    0
    • David from Wisconsin

      I Fully Agree. The job of the police is to protect citizens and administer the law. They receive training to carry out these tasks. While it is true that there are specific instances of police taking situations too far, these are in large part isolated incidents perpetrated by specific individuals. In the vast majority of cases, officers act appropriately. To try and transform the job of the police to be community ambassadors transforms their job to take on too big of a scope. Their job should be to enforce the law and that is all.

      [read less]

      I Fully Agree. The job of the police is to protect citizens and administer the law. They receive training to carry out these tasks. While it is true t…

      [read more]
      0
  • Alfredo from California

    The police now a days are reallystarting to act a lot less like police

    0
  • Caleb from Texas

    The problem with police is that law enforcement is currently monopolized by the government. Until we move from a coercive monopoly to a free market of police, we will continue to have these problems. No amount of “de-escalation” training will fix this basic issue, which has resulted from the socialization of our police force.

    In a free market, police forces who behaved badly would develop a bad reputation, just as a bad restaurant would today. However, in a monopolistic police system, there is no real recourse for victims of police misconduct, as the government prohibits competition in the industry. Can you imagine what it would be like if the government prevented the establishment of restaurants, and instead declared itself the only legal food provider in the country? The quality of food would go down horribly. The principle is no different for police.

    [read less]

    The problem with police is that law enforcement is currently monopolized by the government. Until we move from a coercive monopoly to a free market of…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jasmine from Nebraska

    Recently there have been occurrences of unnecessary police brutality and I believe that a few of them have gotten way out of proportion, but it is the police’s job to ensure our safety. I would rather have a police officer be extra precautious and thorough with their work than have them get injured or killed when they were just trying to keep the citizens of this nation safe. The problem is with the world now-a-days is that we put all of the blame on the police officers and think that they are the bad guys when in all reality it is just a few officers that have shown a high level of force. Other officers who do their job the right way should not have to waste their extra time retraining just because of few other officers made mistakes. In the end it all comes down to whether you want to save innocent peoples lives with a little extra force from the police or if you would rather have innocent lives lost.

    [read less]

    Recently there have been occurrences of unnecessary police brutality and I believe that a few of them have gotten way out of proportion, but it is the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erika from Ohio

    Not only are our policemen at a very high risk already due to how many are killed on the job every day due to riots, “peaceful protests”, and even everyday arrests. They are a target for people who just want to cause trouble, and sometimes won’t be taken down peacefully. There are times where peacefulness will get someone killed. Granted, police officers should know how to handle a situation peacefully, but should also be taught that they shouldn’t put their lives on the line if peacefulness doesn’t look like it would work. Sometimes, violence has to be stopped with violence.

    [read less]

    Not only are our policemen at a very high risk already due to how many are killed on the job every day due to riots, “peaceful protests”, and even eve…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rebecca from Texas

    The idea sounds noble, but I see a potential for criminals to take advantage of hesitations due to de-escalation training. Such advantages can cause harm to the cops and/or others and could therefor let the criminal get away. No doubt, there would be criminals who can be best handled through de-escalation training, but one should not expect it from all for the above mentioned reason. If the training is implemented, then there should at least be some training that will help the cops better judge when to use such tactics and when to react. Otherwise, the people who do not care about breaking the law would not mind being able to get away by any means necessary to do it another day and take advantage of de-escalation for said aims.

    [read less]

    The idea sounds noble, but I see a potential for criminals to take advantage of hesitations due to de-escalation training. Such advantages can cause …

    [read more]
    0
  • zackery from Vermont

    I believe that deadly force is a tool in an officers arsenal, one he or she should be trained to use effectively. No, police should not shoot on sight, but I believe that if they are allowed to respond to a threat, fewer bystanders and officers will be hurt or killed. A criminal is putting their life on the line as soon as they show they are a threat, and police should be able to act on that threat before they or bystanders get hurt.

    [read less]

    I believe that deadly force is a tool in an officers arsenal, one he or she should be trained to use effectively. No, police should not shoot on sight…

    [read more]
    0
    • Robert from California

      I am responding to Jacquelyn from Pennsylvania, a lot of police are scared too. For instance, imagine yourself at let us say twenty-two years old and fresh out of the academy; the drill instructors, training, and code that is all done in the academy is just a glimpse of what the real world is like. At the academy, they can only show you so much but once you step foot into the real world everything flashes before your eyes. I strongly believe that police do have to think twice since they are stating that they are protecting the people and serving for their community but people do make mistakes at points even mistakes that cannot be fixed. The citizens of the United States also has to do their part and help the police rather than just assume you will be ticketed, shot, or killed by an officer that is trying to get home to his or her family.

      [read less]

      I am responding to Jacquelyn from Pennsylvania, a lot of police are scared too. For instance, imagine yourself at let us say twenty-two years old and …

      [read more]
      0
    • Jacquelyn from Pennsylvania

      But it’s not always a criminal, sometimes the people are innocent. The people are scared. The police are the ones with the power, and they need to learn how to use it appropriately. It’s always about the police putting their lives on the line. So many people are being put at risk due to the abuse of power.

      [read less]

      But it’s not always a criminal, sometimes the people are innocent. The people are scared. The police are the ones with the power, and they need to lea…

      [read more]
      0
  • Condell from Florida

    I believe that one of the most important tools at a police officer’s disposal is their discretion. The police forces in the United States do deal with situations appropriately most of the time. There are some officers who do abuse their power. There are officers who do use an unnecessary amount of force. These officers do so despite their training. The problem that should be addressed is officer accountability. The topic was whether de-escalation training was necessary. I don’t think it would be necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of force are used in confrontations. If the vast majority of police officers don’t have trouble with using appropriate levels of force, then de-escalation isn’t the main problem. We should look at making sure the officers who do abuse their power are given appropriate consequences. This will make the more trigger happy cops think twice, while the majority of police officers can continue to protect and serve as they always have.

    [read less]

    I believe that one of the most important tools at a police officer’s disposal is their discretion. The police forces in the United States do deal with…

    [read more]
    0
  • hannah from Michigan

    I dont think they are train well enough to control how much force they use. I think this because over the past years many cops have been accuse of using to much force , even tho the amendment states we have the write to bear arms some cops can mistake that as threatening their power which causes them to use to much power that why I say NO.

    [read less]

    I dont think they are train well enough to control how much force they use. I think this because over the past years many cops have been accuse of usi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Matthew from Missouri

    Overall, this program sounds great, but it is truly flawed. We need to look at this from a more logical standpoint. Law Enforcement agents have to quickly respond to the situation that they are placed into. If an armed assailant pulls a weapon on an officer, there is an inability to try to “talk to the suspect.” Another key problem is resistance. We see all to clearly in the past years that resisting police questioning and attempting to evade custody causes big problems within our communities. I live in St. Louis, which has it’s fair share of violence, a majority of it black on black. However, besides that, the other day, whilst driving down the street to fill up my gas tank for this week of traveling to and from school, I passed by a man who was running from police officers. I didn’t know what to expect, because with my opinions I support Law Enforcement, I stopped my car in front of the man in question, him of course running into it. Turns out, the guy had a gun on him that he already shot at officers, as well as possessing a bag of cocaine. Overall though, we need to put trust our Law Enforcement. They must act with what is presented to them. If we look at it, they simply need body cameras to fix the problems that most of you present. However, by telling officers they need to “talk” to the suspect first, it puts not only the officer’s life in danger, but even the suspect.

    [read less]

    Overall, this program sounds great, but it is truly flawed. We need to look at this from a more logical standpoint. Law Enforcement agents have to q…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alex from Alaska

    Our constitution sets up a system of government which has three branches. The executive branch enforces and executes the laws. This includes police officers, especially on the state level.
    If you went and talked to a police officers about his job, you would find that the vast majority of his job is talking to people. Calming things down. De-escalating situations.
    Very little of their time is spent in high-speed chases, or swinging their batons.
    In short, police officers spend most of their job de-escalating situations by talking to people.
    Not only is the training unnecessary and redundant, but there is no constitutional grounds to back up this training.
    Now there is nowhere in the constitution that states that police officers can’t use a little force, if necessary.
    And sometimes a bit of force is needed: that should be the officer’s call.

    [read less]

    Our constitution sets up a system of government which has three branches. The executive branch enforces and executes the laws. This includes police of…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rosalia from Ohio

    I think talking things out is often important, but in some cases it makes more sense to react to a situation that puts your life in danger. It seems to me that many times the threat is not willing to talk – he will just go about his business and in the end take his life anyway. Don’t we value the lives of our officers slightly more than the threats of a gun-waving person?
    Not that some lives are more important, but in the end which will make more sense to save: The police, or the threat?

    [read less]

    I think talking things out is often important, but in some cases it makes more sense to react to a situation that puts your life in danger. It seems …

    [read more]
    0