The difficulties black citizens encounter with law enforcement are numerous and many have been severe. More than a few end up dead from a police encounter. Everybody has seen this in the news. I am not a legal scholar and have no official experience in law enforcement. I know only what I have observed.

What I have observed on video are episodes of escalating tension followed by a step change to violence over the course of an individual’s encounter with the police. A traffic stop results in a request for the driver’s documents. Sometimes the driver is reluctant to hand them over for some particular reason. The driver could have trouble with authority figures generally or is angered by the tone with which he is being spoken to. The driver could be frightened and given to poor judgement. Or, the driver could be wanted for some warrant or crime and is unwilling to be apprehended.

The driver could be perfectly innocent of crimes and just speeding a bit or could be carrying contraband in the vehicle. The officer is likely to be unsure of who they have stopped or may have found a vehicle they have been looking for. Officers need to be extremely careful in all interactions with the public.

What seems to happen in many of these violent encounters with police is that the officer repeatedly tries to get information from the citizen and something snaps. Either the officer loses patience or the citizen gets combative or both. Whatever the case, the officer at some point feels threatened and wants to restrain the citizen according to procedure. The citizen, not comprehending why this is happening and fearing the worst, resists following the directions of the officer. The officer notices the resistance and ratchets up the intensity. This is where things can go south.

At some point the officer may call in for other officers to help with the situation. Whether alone or with several officers present, an officer will repeatedly demand instant obedience. If there is not prompt obedience, the officer may escalate and draw and point a stun gun or service pistol at the citizen. If the citizen is agitated and out of control or threatens the officer, they might be subject to a stun or worse.

If the officer attempts to forcibly remove the citizen from the car, a struggle may ensue. In videos broadcast to the public, the officer remains with the citizen struggling for control, shouting instructions at the citizen. By this time the citizen is likely in a state of panic or anger and is irrational. The citizen could lash out violently or attempt to escape. Prompt and absolute yielding to force and shouting isn’t necessarily natural to the citizen.

It seems to be in the nature of police training that once a non-compliant citizen has been encountered, the police will not stop until they apprehend them. This approach can escalate to physical harm or the death of the suspect or the officer. Also evident, the method police use is what I can only refer to as a “shock and awe” approach. It is meant to confuse and overwhelm the suspect with police power and authority. The problem is that it doesn’t always work. As the suspect continues to struggle the officer(s) may begin to fear for injury or death. Or, the officer(s) may become unable to contain their rage. Whatever the case, a service pistol may be drawn and discharged. Pardon my ignorance, but it has never appeared to me that the police shoot to wound or disable- only to kill.

It appears that the requirement perceived by the officer is that once they have a suspect in hand they may apply whatever it takes, even as much as shooting, if they are unable to control the suspect in a reasonable time.

We have to ask, is an apprehension technique that relies on arresting officers to overwhelm and outwrestle the citizen the only technique available? Officers do not start with this shock and awe. They ask for license, registration and proof of insurance first. During that time the citizen has time to think about how he or she will react to the situation.

What happens in other countries?

Plainly, a law enforcement agency will not interact in a way that would let the citizen escape if things became difficult. In principle, the law must always prevail lest it be known that all you have to do is struggle and you can get away. This seems reasonable, except that the officer may end up the judge, jury and executioner. Should a suspect die from a kill shot delivered by the arresting officer if the officer is just out of patience? Or if the suspect is physically too powerful? Is it ever OK for the officer to relent and let the citizen escape into the wind?

How can we educate people to avoid escalating an encounter with a police officer before the point where the officer pulls their gun? Either the citizen or the officer or both can suffer from hot headedness. But in the exchange between you and the police officer, the law will always get the upper hand eventually.

The police have a responsibility to use good judgement and the training to execute their duties. But I’d say that when citizens are stopped by the police, they must realize that they are in a situation where things could go irreversibly for them if they make some poor choices. That means knowing when to stop arguing and yield to the officer(s). If the officer has engaged you in a traffic situation, they have already called in your plates for warrants and other information. If a polite exchange of information has not convinced the officer to let you be on your way, then further haggling is likely to go badly for you. At this point, you’ve already lost the game and should relent.

The reason behind this essay is to explore the idea of shock and awe as an apprehension method. How often does it work? What do criminologists say about it?

Obviously, asking citizens to behave better is not an easy strategy. But physical actions by the police that confuse and frighten the citizen puts them on alert and may trigger a violent reply. Does any agency or other organization try to have a discussion with the public about this?

It’s not all about heavy handed officers out there. Citizens must learn that there are poor choices that will ruin or end their lives and that there may well be a time for submission. Due process still exists.