By Detrick Mott
As a 25-year law
enforcement veteran who specializes in use of force, I have watched a troubling
trend grow across this country, citizens inserting themselves into active police
investigations and then claiming victimhood when the situation escalates. The
recent incident involving the Broward Sheriff’s
Office in Pompano Beach is another example. The YouTube footage shows a
22-year-old man taken to the ground during an arrest. What the headlines focus
on is how “aggressive” it looked. What they ignore is the context: deputies
were responding to a shooting investigation. That is not a routine traffic
stop. That is a high-risk, potentially deadly environment.
When officers are
investigating a shooting, every unknown person approaching them is a potential
threat. Period. Officers do not have the luxury of hindsight in those moments.
They operate on split-second assessments of danger. If commands are given and ignored,
the situation immediately escalates. Compliance ends encounters. Non-compliance
prolongs them. Physical resistance, whether passive or active, forces officers
to transition to control tactics. That is not brutality. That is the procedure.
The individual in
this case claims he suffered injuries and that the force used was excessive.
Injuries during lawful arrests are unfortunate but not proof of wrongdoing. Use
of force is judged by objective reasonableness, not how it looks on a cellphone
video stripped of context. The standard is what a reasonable officer would do in the same circumstances, not what a calm observer thinks after responding to it 10 times on social media. If deputies were dealing with a possible armed
suspect environment and someone approached, refused commands, and interfered,
they had every right to gain control quickly and decisively.
We have reached a
point where citizens believe recording police gives them immunity from
compliance. It does not. You have a First Amendment right to record. You do not
have the right to interfere. You do not have the right to ignore lawful commands.
And you certainly do not have a right to create additional risk during a
shooting investigation. Accountability must apply equally. If officers are expected to follow policy and law, then citizens must also follow lawful orders without argument or theatrics.
The aftermath of
these incidents always follows the same pattern: video surfaces, outrage
spreads, internal review begins, and the officer’s character is questioned.
Meanwhile, little is said about the citizens’ decision to insert themselves
into a dangerous investigation. Departments conduct Internal Affairs reviews
and Use of Force Boards to ensure accountability. But accountability
must be mutual. When someone challenges law enforcement authority in
the middle of a high-risk call, they are responsible for the consequences that
follow.
Policing is not theater. It is not a social media
performance. It is a dangerous profession where hesitation can cost officers’ and innocent civilians’ lives. Necessary force is not optional when
safety is on the line. As someone who has spent 25 years in this profession,
specializing in the use of force, I will say it plainly: officers must retain the
authority to control scenes swiftly and decisively. If you choose to interfere
in a police investigation, especially one involving violence, you are assuming
risk. The solution is simple: comply, step back, and let trained professionals
do the job.
Comments