By Detective Detrick Mott
For decades, the use-of-force continuum
has served as the foundation and guide for law enforcement decision-making. It
is taught in every academy, reinforced through yearly training, and relied upon
in the field when officers are forced to make split-second decisions. The
concept is straightforward: officers respond to a subject’s level of resistance
with an appropriate and reasonable level of force, beginning with officer
presence and verbal commands before escalating when necessary. As outlined in
the Detroit Police Department Training Directive, officers are expected to
first attempt control through presence and communication, recognizing that the
most desirable outcome is voluntary compliance.
Today I was talking to my brother in law, a retired lieutenant, and we discussed how the reality on today’s streets has changed significantly. The assumption that officer presence alone
can establish control is no longer consistently valid. In today’s environment, especially
in urban settings during high-activity periods like spring break, officers are
encountering large groups that do not respond to traditional authority cues.
Events such as the Houston roadway takeovers and the massive crowds seen in
Daytona during spring break illustrate a growing trend in which streets are blocked, vehicles are driven recklessly, and communities are overwhelmed. Similar
conditions are emerging in cities across the country, where downtown
areas turn into uncontrolled block parties if law enforcement does not
intervene early and decisively.
The use of force continuum was built on
the premise that most encounters could be resolved through communication and
professionalism. It assumes that citizens recognize authority and respond to
verbal direction. But from a veteran officer’s perspective, that foundation is
eroding. Officers are now often ignored, challenged, or even provoked. The
presence of a uniform no longer guarantees compliance, and in many cases,
officers are outnumbered and operating in environments where crowd behavior
escalates rapidly.
What we are seeing today is a
compression of the continuum itself. Situations no longer follow a gradual
progression from presence to compliance. Instead, encounters move quickly from
passive disregard to active resistance and, in some cases, immediate
aggression. The lower levels of the continuum presence and verbal commands are
frequently bypassed. This forces officers to make rapid decisions in chaotic, unpredictable conditions, reinforcing what the directive itself acknowledges: that officers must make split-second decisions in rapidly evolving
circumstances.
The public safety risks associated with
this shift are significant. When police presence fails to maintain order,
roadways become blocked, emergency services are delayed, and innocent citizens
are placed in harm’s way. Vehicles are used recklessly, crowds become
unmanageable, and law-abiding residents lose access to their own neighborhoods.
These are not isolated incidents; they are indicators of a broader trend that
demands immediate attention.
From my perspective, the conclusion is
clear: policy must reflect reality. The use of force continuum remains a
valuable guide, but it is not a rigid script. It is a framework that must be
applied with experience, judgment, and an understanding of current conditions.
The directive itself makes it clear that no chart or model can replace an
officer’s reasoned decision-making, grounded in training and real-world experience.
In today’s climate, officers must be prepared to recognize when presence is
ineffective and act accordingly within the bounds of the law to maintain
control and protect the public.
If law enforcement agencies do not
implement structured plans to address these emerging challenges, the outlook is
clear. Proactive strategies, including coordinated enforcement efforts, traffic
control measures, and specialized units, are necessary to prevent
these situations from escalating further. Waiting for voluntary compliance in
environments where authority is openly disregarded is no longer a viable
option.
The
breakdown of office presence as an effective control measure is clearly
illustrated by recent events such as the Houston roadway takeovers and the
disorder seen during Daytona Spring Break 2026. In Houston, large groups of
individuals intentionally blocked major intersections, performing reckless
driving stunts while openly disregarding police commands, creating dangerous
conditions for both participants and innocent motorists. Similarly, during
Spring Break in Daytona, massive crowds flooded public streets, overwhelmed law
enforcement resources, and engaged in widespread disorder, including traffic
obstruction, fights, and property damage. In both situations, the traditional
reliance on officer presence and verbal commands proved insufficient, as crowds
operated with a sense of anonymity and defiance. These incidents demonstrate a
growing trend in which law enforcement is no longer viewed as an immediate authority figure but rather as a reactive force, forcing officers to rapidly escalate up the use-of-force continuum to restore order and protect public
safety.
The use of
force continuum still matters, and it remains grounded in legal standards such
as the objective reasonableness doctrine. However, the environment in which it
is applied has changed. Officer presence, once a reliable tool for establishing
control, is no longer sufficient on its own in many modern policing scenarios.
The profession must acknowledge this shift, adapt its approach, and ensure that
officers are equipped to respond effectively. Because ultimately, this is not
about theory, it is about maintaining order, protecting communities, and
ensuring that both citizens and officers remain safe in an increasingly
unpredictable environment.
Comments