The Current State of UOF Research

A variety of Use of Force (UOF) research exists, such as whether there exists a direct relation to the length of an encounter or whether an officer's years of service affects the likelihood of UOF. However, even these join the vast majority of research that remains detached from the reality of what UOF is or how it occurs. Virtually no studies offer specific recommendations for improvement. Few studies, if any, identify a likely source of the theoretical problem. While there is merit in seeking to reduce UOF occurrences, the current state of research in this domain lacks substance. Nearly all UOF studies portray the topic as if it is a disease in need of a cure - as if it could only exist as a result of officer error or an abuse of power. This further exacerbates the public's confusion and stifles progress in improving police-public relations. A thorough examination of critical incidents shows a strong relationship between police encounters and their length, the type of encounter, and response methods. UOF primarily occurs as a result of suspect behavior, where law enforcement mirror perceived escalations with their own. Excluding a category of ambushes or sudden and unexpected assaults, there often exists identifiable and very remarkable indications that a contact may likely result in a future assault. Even where no immediate indication occurs, there are recognizable patterns that suggest an increase in both the risk and severity of violence. Even further, there are distinguishable sociological elements that might alert officers that, when combined with objective and observable cues, can suggest a critical incident has a higher likelihood of occurring even where there is no direct indication. Our totality decision point model utilizes a cumulative risk approach to show officers where risk might occur where traditional law enforcement analysis might not otherwise detect it.

Contemporary police science attempts to examine the cause of violence, whether prompted by law enforcement or those they encounter. Studies into the causal factors are vitally important in the pursuit of justice as well as the preservation of human rights. Unfortunately, many modern pursuits seek to answer highly complex philosophical questions while passing over more tangible and observable research gaps. In other words, they ignore the low-hanging fruit and attempt to find the solution before they've established a causal link. Researchers should emphasize their studies of tangible methods that reduce the potential for violence and the continued study. More neutral studies should conducted to determine approaches that find middle ground between control techniques and natural de-escalation as well as the passive techniques that ensure compliance.

PROBLEMATIC RACE-BASED UOF STUDIES

The most resource-intensive topic of all studies has been on racial bias. The potential bias of officers is certainly no small issue. However, it seems that most research seeks to find and justify a result based on assumption at the risk of logical rationale. Are (insert race) officers more likely to use force? If so, is it their fault or is it a sociological tendency for certain groups to oppose other racial groups (whether one or all)? We don't know the answer, or whether such a problem even exists. However, that does not stop research from improperly being passed as truth. One study declares its finding that white officers were 5x more likely to use force than non-white officers.(1) However, this study did not examine suspect behavior, whether the force was justified, or any other remotely related criteria. To be clear, the data from this and similar studies are critical toward promoting usable research in promoting better police-community interactions. However, the study in its current state is only valuable in terms of its potential for future research - any other use is both disingenuous and incomplete. Such is the nature of nearly all current research into UOF interactions. As a result, UOF research is often skewed and unusable. The presence of force alone is no indication of police misconduct and reasonably bears no ethical implications. It is not a phenomenon in need of a cure.

Criminal justice academia should strongly consider suspending its pursuit of race-related UOF research until it can establish more relevant data with more universal application that serves a broader set. We cannot expect to begin to understand race-related UOF theory if the current state of research cannot provide solutions to UOF incidents that are far less complex. How can usable research be developed in white-on-black UOF studies if we cannot obtain usable research on white-on-white UOF?

ONE RESEARCHER'S STRENGTH, ANOTHER RESEARCHER'S FLAW

A review of nearly any UOF research will yield various results on the same topic: findings of a direct relation, findings of no relation, and findings of an inverse relationship. In standard law enforcement fashion, "it depends." Nearly all research will tell you their results are inconclusive and need further study to confirm their findings. Although criminal justice is not the only field or area where this occurs, it is especially true in crime studies. They also universally lack a substantial amount of variables. These tasks are not easily achieved, but the decentralized nature of UOF research and the contemporary blame-based approach to solving the UOF dilemma has done little to achieve the goals of 21st-century policing.

Fortunately, there are reputable research organizations currently tackling some of the more critical UOF elements. The Force Science Institute, for example, appears to be the leading research organization in examining the physiological aspects involved in officer response. Some of their findings have laid the foundation for future studies in decision-making and acute stress response. However, they, too, have released studies that miss the mark. For example, Force Science conducted a study where police officers simulated responding to a dispatched call for service. The scenarios intentionally "primed" the participants by suggesting they were responding to a subject who actively possessed a weapon. The subject was then non-compliant, displayed a variety of risk factors, and made a motion toward the officers that resembled moving from a holstered position with their back turned, followed by turning toward the officer, and then assuming a shooting posture typical of firing a handgun. Force Science considers this to be a "decision error" or a "mistake-of-fact."(2)

Those well-versed in UOF tactics and case law know that these officers neither committed an error nor a mistake. Many experienced law enforcement officers would make precisely the same decision - a calculated and objectively reasonable response driven by the totality of the circumstances. It does not appear that Force Science is condemning the participants for their response. In fact, they seem highly supportive of the seemingly impossible challenges law enforcement officers endure. Regardless, their reference to an alleged "error" or "mistake" is problematic, to say the least. A news report using the words "error" or "mistake" would be highly contradictory in a shooting that is entirely justified as it would likely portray the shooting as unlawful or negligent. What might have been a simple and clean shoot could become highly controversial due to terminology alone. While this research may be vital for future studies, it is once more largely unusable and impractical in its current state. The UOF Decision Point Model once more illustrates precisely why officers responded as they did and how their decisions were objectively reasonable.

TRAINING AND EDUCATION - THE UNIVERSAL SOLUTION

Multiple reputable studies have concluded that both levels of training and levels of education likely result in less UOF.(3) Although there may be various attributing factors, It can be reasonably deduced that better systems and processes would have a similar beneficial result.

References

(1) Hoekstra, M., & Sloan, C. W. (2020). Does race matter for police use of force? Evidence from 911 calls (Working Paper No. 26774). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26774

(2) Remsberg, C. (2019, January 8). How dispatch priming can drive some disastrous shooting decisions. Force Science Institute. https://www.forcescience.com/2019/01/how-dispatch-priming-can-drive-some-disastrous-shooting-decisions/

(3) McElvain, J. P., & Kposowa, A. J. (2008). Police Officer Characteristics and the Likelihood of Using Deadly Force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 505-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807313995