The Leader Playbook To Harm Officers

Leaders Are Changing Policy Based On Emotion, Not Law

Generally, writing is an outlet to get something off my mind, but not this time. I received several messages from on-duty cops after my recent article, “Are Leaders Killing Officers,” and the problem is not isolated to a few stories.

It’s pervasive and I’m pissed.

I’ve been diving into the literature, and I still don’t have a good feeling.

I know PERF is a joke to every real cop, but they have a stranglehold on many of our leaders looking for their next consulting gig or larger agency to ruin. This study looked at the difference in how citizens assessed use-of-force incidents compared to how those incidents stacked up against the law.

It should be no surprise that, in general, citizens have no clue what legal use-of-force is and why would they? They aren’t trained in police procedure, tactics, and they’ve never heard of Graham v. Connor (1989).

The Study

A survey was sent to over 1200 U.S. adults, each containing a set of facts for them to pass judgment. Half of the cases involved legally justified and reasonable uses of force, while the other half were unreasonable.

Pete Blair at Tactical Science said it best:

Slightly more than half of the participants who received the legally reasonable stories actually thought they were reasonable, and slightly more than half who got the unreasonable use-of-force stories thought they were unreasonable. Yes, you read that right! The participants were a little better than chance at identifying the legality (reasonableness) of a use-of-force situation, but not much better.

If you watch any news broadcast after a police incident, the reason is simple. Citizens based their judgment on ”extra legal standards” with information that was not known to the officer at the time of the event. What really matters in evaluating police use of force is never discussed afterward.

Now What

While none of this is surprising, the study's recommendations could be potentially deadly to any law enforcement officer working under a leader who adheres to the main research proposal.

Adjust use of force policies to match community standards.

Examples were given in South Bend (Indiana) where they implemented a deadly force policy only as a “last resort.” This 2021 policy change came after a “ton of experts” weighed in, including a letter with 200 signatures from the St. Joseph County Chapter of Faith.

Reverand Terri Bays, a priest at the Holy Trinity in South Bend, was confident in the policy change, saying it will serve officers better because “they will know from practice, what is reasonable, right? They will know what the community expects of them, and that will go into their reasonable judgment.”

Sure, no one has ever defined what a “last resort” actually means.

The Results

These so-called police “reformers” never evaluate their efforts because the narcissism of a church or a priest to dictate the actions of law enforcement when it’s not their lives on the line is incalculable.

The FBI had already warned law enforcement leaders about policy with a “last resort” component.

Their victimology study on the characteristics of officers killed in the line of duty stated that officers killed in the line of duty “used force only as a last resort.”

So what can law enforcement officers expect when their police leaders permit clergy to write their use-of-force policy? In the case of South Bend, where PERF praises their policy change, they can expect exactly what the FBI said.

Since the inception of the “last resort” policy, South Bend police officers have had a 64% increase in officer injury and a 60% increase in use of force incidents.

What Now?

Granted, South Bend was equally ridiculous with their mandatory “de-escalation” demands in policy, so it’s hard to know which part of their clergy led policy change created more danger for the officers, but I wouldn’t be holding your breath for that revised “peer-reviewed” study, and the playbook to harm officers has been evident for years.

A national police organization or media outlet makes the suggestion, usually based on some doctored research, and the “community” demands change.

Rather than telling the truth or upholding long-standing case law, the leaders in the police organization simply cave and make the change.

South Bend is not unique, and I’m not going to stand for it.

Could you imagine doctors, lawyers, or your exterminator listening to a few citizens and changing their policy and procedure?

The answer is no, and that’s evidence #2006 why law enforcement leadership is failing our officers in every aspect of the profession.

---

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.