By Detrick Mott
While I was sitting in class, I realized that in law enforcement, the use of force is not theoretical; it is immediate, unforgiving, and often decided in fractions of a second. Yet
across the country, police academies and annual in-service training continue to present use-of-force instruction in a manner increasingly
disconnected from the realities officers face on the street. While
well-intentioned, this growing gap between training and reality is creating
confusion, hesitation, and ultimately risk for officers and the public alike.
At the foundation of lawful force are two well-established legal standards:
Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor. These cases are not abstract legal
theories; they are the controlling law that governs every officer’s decision to
use force. Garner established that deadly force may be used when an officer has
probable cause to believe a suspect poses a significant threat of death or
serious physical injury to the officer or others. Graham further clarified that
all use of force must be judged under the “objective reasonableness” standard,
based on the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not through
hindsight or emotion. The problem is not the law. The problem is how the law is being taught.
Modern academy instruction and yearly training cycles have increasingly drifted
into overcomplication. Officers are often presented with layered decision
trees, theoretical de-escalation mandates, and ambiguous expectations that do
not align with real-world encounters. In training environments, scenarios are
paused, dissected, and reimagined with perfect clarity. On the street, there is
no pause button. There is no slow motion. There is only the moment.
Use of force, at its core, is binary; either it is justified or it is not. This
is not a philosophical exercise. It is a legal one. An officer is either facing
an immediate threat that justifies the use of force under Graham, or they are not. An
officer either meets the threshold outlined in Garner for deadly force, or they
do not. Introducing excessive emotional considerations, political pressures, or
administrative second-guessing into that moment only clouds judgment and delays
action, both of which can be deadly.
What is particularly concerning is that many of today’s instructors lack
meaningful real-world experience in high-risk encounters. Training has, in some
cases, shifted away from being led by seasoned officers who have lived through
these decisions and toward individuals who rely heavily on policy
interpretation without practical application. This creates a dangerous
imbalance. Use of force cannot be effectively taught by theory alone; it must be
grounded in reality.
The most effective instructors are those who understand both sides of the
equation: the legal framework and the street-level application. Ideally, these
are officers who have operated in high-risk environments, made force decisions
under pressure, and can articulate why those decisions were reasonable under
the law.
Equally important is removing emotion from leadership review and training narratives. When the use of force is evaluated emotionally based on optics, public pressure, or hindsight bias, it undermines the integrity of the process. The law does not ask
whether a decision felt right. It asks whether it was reasonable at the time,
given the facts known to the officer.
Officers are not asking for lower standards. They are asking for clear
standards rooted in law, applied consistently, and taught by those
who understand the realities of the job. Use of force is not a theory; it is a decision made in real time, under real
threat, with real consequences. The law is clear. The standard is objective.
Force is either justified or it is not. Training must reflect that reality
before confusion costs lives.
Comments