Realistic De-Escalation: Setting Conditions

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(Part 2b)

The police officer should have recognized the situation, and instead of confronting the armed suspect, he should have taken the time to back away, be patient, and wait for additional officers.” The shooting review continued, “Instead of escalating the situation, the officer should have de-escalated.

Since officers routinely talk people into handcuffs, there are clearly “situations” where officers can slow down and help others de-escalate. But de-escalation is not always a reasonable option and the situations are not always easy to recognize.

In this article, we’ll look at four conditions that should be evaluated when considering whether de-escalation is possible or appropriate: Containment, Control, Contact, and Communication. Knowing how these conditions affect de-escalation options will ensure that officers and those responsible for police accountability are “recognizing the same situation.”

Conditions for De-Escalation: Containment, Control, Contact, and Communication

Officers faced with potential violence are immediately confronted with priority of life considerations. Although “officer safety” is important, it can’t be the top priority or officers would simply not respond to dangerous calls. Instead, officers are expected to assume reasonable risk as they carry out their duties, first to protect the public and then to save suspects from the consequences of their own behavior.

With public safety as the top priority, officers first look to create and maintain reasonable security conditions. When not confronted with imminent threats, they are able to use “discretionary time” to gather additional information, bring resources to the scene, and set the conditions for effective de-escalation. During these dynamic events, officers are authorized to exercise unquestioned command of the scene—and with this authority, establishing containment is a top priority.


No matter which side of the police reform movement they’re on, every organization hoping to increase de-escalation and reduce “police violence,” advocates for containment.

Sometimes referred to as a “zone of safety,” containment is the creation and enforcement of boundaries that limit a suspect’s movements to a specific area. Containment areas are defined by where a suspect is allowed to remain without placing officers or the public at unreasonable risk. As circumstances change, these areas can expand or contract at the discretion of the officers.

A person is contained only when the officer has the ability and willingness to enforce the boundaries. The boundaries may be physical obstructions that can sufficiently block movement or may be created by an officer’s actual or threatened use of force. “Perimeters” may result in containment, but only if officers are able to enforce the perimeter’s boundaries. Of course, simply following a suspect and allowing them to decide where and when to move is not containment, it is mobile surveillance.   

The value of containment is that it allows officers to protect public safety, while still offering the suspect a reasonable area of movement. What makes an area of movement “reasonable” is more than just the ability to respond to sudden attacks. It is the ability to prevent sudden attacks, avoid split-second decision-making, and maintain response options—including appropriate backstops if force is used.1

So long as the suspect remains within the containment area, officers can slow things down and focus on non-coercive de-escalation—but only where the suspect is reasonably controlled.


Even when a suspect is contained, on-going criminal conduct and access to weapons, evidence, and means of escape must still be considered before choosing to delay a forcible response in favor of de-escalation.

It doesn’t matter that a suspect’s freedom of movement has been limited if they are engaged in active assaults, property damage, or evidence destruction. In these cases, officers are expected to establish sufficient scene control to ensure that serious crimes are prevented or stopped before engaging in verbal de-escalation. Of course, the challenge is knowing which crimes your agency, court, and community consider serious enough to justify using force, and as we discussed in Realistic De-Escalation: Balancing Risk, that is not always clear.2

What is clear, is that an officer’s decision to talk or force compliance is directly tied to their agency and community’s willingness to support that decision. As a result, when a person is only threatening their self, or where criminal conduct is minor, the decision to delay force in favor of de-escalation may remain the most reasonable response.

The first two conditions for de-escalation—Containment and Control—are concerned with whether an officer should attempt de-escalation. The final two address whether an officer can effectively influence de-escalation. We now turn to Contact and Communication.


“Contact” as a condition for de-escalation means that both the officer and the suspect are willing and able to engage in verbal de-escalation.

Communication tools are most effective when the receiver not only understands the words but is able to hear the subtle changes in voice, interpret facial expressions, and perceive body language. Certain causes of agitation can prevent accurate perception and interpretation of messages. Psychological, emotional, or neurological impairment can make communication and persuasion difficult and sometimes impossible.

Even without these disabilities, some people will experience sensory impairment and not be able to see, hear, or understand the officer because of drug use, physical limitations, environmental distractions, or just distance. Here again, officers who are encouraged to create distance and find cover, should do so only after considering how these actions may impede verbal de-escalation and persuasion.

Although officers are not expected to diagnose agitation, they should notice when the agitated person is either unable, unwilling, or actively resisting verbal de-escalation. When those under the influence of anger or contempt ignore the officer or intentionally escalate the situation, officers should consider whether they can establish the contact necessary for effective communication.


“Communication” refers to an officer’s education and skill in de-escalation and persuasion.

Effective crisis communication requires a high level of emotional intelligence, patience, and skill—persuasive communication even more so. It is only reasonable to expect officers to accept risk, delay force, and attempt verbal de-escalation after they’ve been sufficiently trained to that task.

What counts as “sufficiently trained” depends on what agencies and communities expect from their officers. It may be sufficient that officers simply learn non-escalation strategies, or basically how not to unnecessarily agitate people.

But for those who expect more from their officers, start by comparing your officer’s training with that received at crisis call-centers. One prominent Long Island Crisis Center requires their hotline workers to receive a minimum of 160 hours of training, and that is simply to answer the phone with no concerns about personal or public safety.

Bonus: Cooperation

From the beginning of this Realistic De-Escalation Series, I’ve continued to emphasize that de-escalation is not something you do “to” a person. Non-coercive de-escalation is recognizing, creating, and maintaining conditions that allow someone to de-escalate their own emotions. An honest assessment of de-escalation will admit that not everybody that the police meet is able or willing to de-escalate and that de-escalation requires cooperation.

When officers are faced with critics who naively conclude, “the officer should have de-escalated,” they should pull those critics into the deep water of use of force analysis. Invite them to confront the uncertainty, the complexity, and the competing responsibilities that officers face. Be prepared to discuss how an officer’s responsibility to the public first requires them to establish reasonable containment and control and that without contact and communication verbal de-escalation can be an unreasonable expectation.

In the end, the police remain accountable for their decisions and it’s reasonable to expect them to avoid force when they can safely accomplish their mission without it. But some police use of force, even deadly force, is inevitable and when officers are facing violence, they deserve more than “de-escalate whenever possible and appropriate.”

  1. When officers delay the use of force so that they can attempt de-escalation, it is because they believe officers and the public are not at unreasonable risk. The moment a suspect is allowed to break containment, that balance of risk can shift. When force is used to maintain containment, officers are often evaluated on whether the suspect posed an imminent threat in that moment. But when officers use force to stop someone from breaking containment, they should consider all of the legitimate law enforcement goals that containment supported in the first place. Officers use containment to allow for visual assessment of the suspect; allow for threat assessments; improve opportunities to identify weapons; find, use, and maintain available cover; improve their position; freeze the scene while additional resources are brought to the scene, including force options; avoid potential crossfire; identify, establish, and maintain safe backdrops; accurately communicate with responding units; coordinate with other officers; minimize escape routes; deny access to potential victims; and deny access to barricaded positions or other tactical advantages for the suspect. []
  2. In some jurisdictions, property damage, even jumping up and down on police cars, is an insufficient reason to use force without first attempting de-escalation. As social justice and police reform efforts continue, some critics evaluate police, not by what is legal, but by what is preventable, with one controversial critic going so far as to suggest, that to prevent police shootings, officers need to stop chasing suspects with guns. If your only goal was to shoot less people, it is hard to argue with that logic. []
5 Responses

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.