Cops Give Weaker Commands In Violent Encounters Studies Reveal

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The quality of commands officers issue tends to deteriorate drastically in potentially life-threatening confrontations, possibly leaving suspects confused about what they’re expected to do to comply, according to 2 new studies conducted under the auspices of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato.

What these studies reveal is “more shocking than anything we expected,” says Dr. Dan Houlihan, who directed the research. “This is path-breaking material that officers and administrators should pay close attention to because of its serious implications.”

FSRC’s executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski told Force Science News that additional research will now be launched into “how officers can improve their verbal communication under high stress and perhaps prevent offenders from escalating to lethal violence. This is the first step in a string of investigations that may ultimately have a profound effect on training and street practices.”

The recent research, believed to be unique in law enforcement, grew out of discussions between Lewinski and Houlihan, a professor in the psychology department at Minnesota State who specializes in studying and modifying the resistance of recalcitrant children to the commands of classroom teachers. Houlihan over the years has identified various command styles and has measured their relative effectiveness. Lewinski suggested surveying the nature of commands given in policing situations, particularly violent encounters like officer-involved shootings.

The resulting field work and analysis was designed and primarily performed by 2 master’s degree candidates at the university, Emily Schwarzkopf and Julie Vandermay.

In one of the 2 studies, Schwarzkopf and co-workers rode along with officers from LE agencies in Minnesota and carefully reviewed tapes from other departments’ patrol car dash cams and the “COPS” TV show. They noted the specific types of commands issued during both nonviolent and violent confrontations.

In a companion study, Vandermay analyzed only violent encounters, focusing particularly on the sequencing of commands and on the emotional content of the language used.

“When the data began to emerge, it astounded me,” Houlihan told FSN. “I hadn’t expected the results to be so distinct and so lopsided.”

In nonviolent situations, the researchers documented, officers overwhelmingly issued so-called “alpha” commands. “Alpha commands,” Lewinski explains, “are simple, direct and explicit, so that even someone in a chemically or emotionally induced fog is likely to understand them.” Examples: “Take your hands out of your pocket,” “Stop talking,” “Quit resisting,” “Don’t leave your vehicle.”

In violent confrontations, the research revealed, officers’ command style tended to be dramatically different. As threats appeared and escalated, officers overwhelmingly employed primarily “beta” commands. “These are indirect or imprecise orders that require interpretation by the suspect, based on his or her inference of what the officer intends,” Lewinski says. Examples: “Move,” “Give it up,” “Don’t be stupid,” “Stop screwing around,” “Knock it off,” “Don’t make me kill you.”

In other words, officers in day-to-day interactions generally gave very clear commands about what they wanted, and for the most part they gained compliance. But when they felt themselves threatened, this direct precision tended to be abandoned quickly. While they may have started out issuing alpha commands, in the face of resistance and personal danger they overwhelmingly transitioned to vaguer, less direct beta commands and, in general, gained markedly less compliance.

“In nonviolent encounters, 84 per cent of the commands given were alpha commands,” Houlihan says. “But in violent situations, only 16 per cent were alpha. The vast majority were beta. I was not expecting the results to be this extreme.”

Moreover, the “emotional context” of the language officers used was decidedly different in violent encounters, Houlihan says. “Instead of noninflammatory, specific commands there was a more intense emotional tone, much more swearing. The ‘f’ word was flying all over the place.”

The closer a given situation came to the flashpoint of violence, the more frequent both beta commands and profanity became, Houlihan says. Lewinski suggests that the transition to beta commands may be related more to an officer feeling he is losing control of a situation than just to the confrontation’s increasing dangerousness. “Officers who believe they are still able to control the event may be able to maintain alpha commands even though the threat is intensifying,” he says.

Although Houlihan is not willing on the basis of these limited studies to conclude that a beta communication style coupled with high emotionalism will actually cause violence, he does believe that a tense confrontation can be made worse by an officer forsaking alpha commands and resorting to foul language. “That type of language appears to enhance the probability of a negative outcome,” he says.

Based on his work with autistic children and others who show resistance in classrooms, he knows that “beta commands are very ineffective and inefficient. They leave people guessing.” When teachers switch from beta to alpha commands, they experience greater compliance even from mentally and emotionally disabled students, Houlihan says. “With the change, you almost immediately see better teachers and better kids.”

He cites an incident from the law enforcement studies in which an officer was in a stand-off with a suspect who was gripping a knife. “The officer told him 5 times, ‘Don’t make me kill you’ before he finally did shoot the suspect. A terrible command! He might have thought he was conveying an order to put down the knife, but that’s not what he said. It was left up to the suspect to interpret what the officer meant and what action was expected. In effect, the suspect was put in the position of having to control the officer’s behavior.

“When you’re dealing with subjects who may be mentally impaired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol or even just emotionally keyed up, ambiguous commands throw all kinds of possible confusion into the situation.”

Dr. Jonathan Page, a Minnesota State psychology professor and a member of FSRC’s Technical Advisory Board, offers an interesting speculation regarding beta commands like “Don’t make me shoot you.” An officer uttering that kind of order, Page suggests, “may really be stating what he doesn’t want to do or what he doesn’t want to happen,” having gotten sidetracked from expressing exactly what is needed for the subject to comply.

In future research Lewinski hopes to confirm the suspected link between the type of commands used and the probability of compliance. He also hopes to uncover ways in which officers can be trained to stay in the most effective communications mode regardless of the stress intensity they may be experiencing. Houlihan says he is putting together as many as 9 different studies to expand on what’s known about street communications in law enforcement.

“Obviously language alone cannot prevent or defuse all violence,” Lewinski says. “Often there is nothing an officer can say or do to prevent a shooting. But these studies suggest that language style can be an important element in where many encounters end up.

“These studies open the door to learning much more about what officers can say to gain control and compliance and to do their best to protect their safety and the safety of others.”

For their generous cooperation on these studies, FSRC would like to thank its research partner, Mankato DPS, as well as Chaska and Lakeville PDs, all in Minnesota.

Note: A thesis prepared by Julie Vandermay on her research is expected to be submitted early in May for publication in FSRC’s on-line E-Journal, accessible free of charge on the Center’s website. Go to www.forcescience.org and find “e-journal” on the pull-down menu under “Publications.” [At this writing, no E-Journal papers are posted but a number are currently under review.] Emily Schwarzkopf’s research will be submitted for publication to Police Quarterly after it has been successfully defended before a university review committee. Later it will also be posted to the FSRC E-Journal.]

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.