In January of 1790, Edmund Burke penned the above line in his famous work “Reflections on the Revolution in France” as he criticized the revolutionist’s violent tactics being used at the time. Burke wanted the nation to reflect on what force was appropriate to obtain a goal. This quote now speaks volumes to our law enforcement officers as we continue our national conversation about appropriate uses of force, especially when it comes to using force on a mentally ill person in crisis. As I was preparing a use of force class last week, I reflected on how this quote dovetails into the current climate of our country and can be used to instill in patrol deputies a simple rule flowing through recent use of force case law. That message to LEOs is this: slow down and make objectively reasonable decisions using the 3 factors set out in Graham v Connor (assessing severity of the crime, the level of immediate threat to officer’s or public’s safety, and whether there is active resistance).
To be clear, my intent with this piece is not to tell officers that they are doing something wrong. My goal is to move our mindset when it comes to a use of force analysis such that deputies understand their chances for summary judgment grow exponentially when they slow down in the moment in order to make sound decisions when it comes to dealing with a known mentally ill person. Additionally, taking the time to work as a team, increasingly leads to an appropriate resolution, as two minds are better than one and three are better than two. It is consistently shown in pro-police rulings on use of force that the collaboration of the collective officers on scene nearly guarantees that an objectively reasonable action will later be explained (not defended) as a lawful act.
Two recent examples that send that message home to officers are Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst (4th Circuit, 2016) and City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan (USSC, 2014). Both of these cases generally highlight the need for police to slow down their action with a known mentally ill person in order to reach an objectively reasonable use of force decision based on the severity of the crime, the present and immediate dangers to others and officers and whether the suspect is actively resisting being taken into custody. New patrol deputies need to be cautioned that rushing headlong into a situation to dynamically resolve something may be appropriate in some calls for service, but rarely will it be the case when dealing with a known mentally ill subject.
The public at large should recognize and applaud the lengths to which law enforcement has progressed in the last 25 years, learning how to appropriately deal with the mentally ill in this country. A job, I will add, that most cadets at the academy did not think was going to be part of their routine duty. Cadets envision catching drug dealers and bank robbers, not dealing with a person off their meds screaming at their neighbors while covered in their own feces. But if you ask the general patrol officer which happens more these days…my guess is he or she will say it is dealing with the latter.
I have told many classes of officers over the years that they need to be comfortable with the reality that police officers and sheriff deputies have become the “world’s free on-call counselors.” I look forward to the day when our dispatcher says “911, do you need police, fire, EMS, or psychologist?” but for now, we live in a reality where government resources and priorities are structured that police officers come to assist when a person in crisis needs them. Knowing that we train our deputies hard to work with people to talk it out and resolve a situation peacefully. I do not know a single cop looking to get into a use of force situation where they are required to take a life. That is not the mentality of police in 2016. Most deputies are not looking to provoke a confrontation, not because of the fear of being scapegoat to the media, but because it is not the right thing to do. And doing the right thing at the right time for the right reason is what most officers do every day. I know that there are those officers who fail to do this, but the public and their command staff need to recognize in those instances that is a person who has lost the meaning of being an officer, just as some have lost the meaning of being a lawyer, priest or doctor, and lead them back into the fold. The profession of law enforcement (like lawyer, doctor or clergy I believe) is to live a life of service to others which means putting the needs of your citizens above your own. Officers in general do not get nearly enough credit for the fact that they have become exponentially better about understanding that the non-violent, but mentally ill person does not belong in jail and that they should work to resolve that person’s issue to get them on a road to recovery. Great leaders in command staffs across the country now recognize that an officer’s ability to routinely peacefully resolve such calls for service is as valuable to the department as the officer who is solving cases and actually catching bad guys. Keeping the peace and catching criminals is the dual purpose of law enforcement, but agencies that promote officers based on cases, without recognizing officers who routinely keep the peace, are missing half the point of their need in their community. In my agency, I see over and over every day, deputies who are taking the time to solve the problem and peacefully resolve a situation when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill and perform in these situations better than most trained psychologists would in connecting, de-escalating and resolving the situation (all the while maintaining security for themselves and others) to a peaceful outcome. The level of respect our folks have for those they serve is an example to all.
Let me suggest two things. First, let’s recognize the police in general do an amazing job dealing with the mentally ill in our country and give them support when they are put in a situation which requires force to be used against a mentally ill person, as we know it is obviously not the outcome a police officer would have desired. Second, let’s refocus on what we as a society could bring to reality in response to mentally ill persons in crisis besides forcing our LEOs to absorb this as a routine duty for patrol. For example, in some places mental health professionals actually come to assist police in the street dealing with a person who is in crisis. Such a model would be extremely appropriate for many communities. Some states, counties, and cities have a mobile mental health unit, sometimes known as a Mobile Crisis Unit, and they should be applauded for thinking forward. More of these need to be funded. Other jurisdictions have developed a unit of officers trained in de-escalation and communication, known as the Crisis Intervention Team or CIT. While the idea of these teams is not new (CIT has been around for at least 25 years, the origins in Tennessee) there has been an increase in the numbers of the calls for service officers are seeing and as such the correct response is to put more of these types of teams in place. Either of these types of units could provide patrol officers with assistance in working towards peaceful resolutions and cross training these two disciplines would lead to a better understanding in our society about what police face these days. Until the country moves to make that happen on a grander scale, our deputies and officers will still be the primary response to these situations and should rely on Burke’s words to simply remember that their patience will achieve more than their force.