LAW ENFORCEMENT’S “WARRIOR” PROBLEM

Seth Stoughton∗

Within law enforcement, few things are more venerated than the
concept of the Warrior. Officers are trained to cultivate a “warrior
mindset,” the virtues of which are extolled in books,1 articles,2 inter-
views,3 and seminars4 intended for a law enforcement audience. An
article in Police Magazine opens with a sentence that demonstrates
with notable nonchalance just how ubiquitous the concept is: “[Offi-
cers] probably hear about needing to have a warrior mindset almost
daily.” 5 Modern policing has so thoroughly assimilated the warrior
mythos that, at some law enforcement agencies, it has become a point
of professional pride to refer to the “police warrior.” 6 This is more
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
∗ Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law. I am grateful to
Geoff Alpert, Walter Katz, Mel Tucker, Hal Williamson, and Scott Wolfe for their helpful sugges-
tions during the drafting process. In addition, I appreciate the questions and comments from the
audiences at The Thin Blue Line: Policing Post-Ferguson symposium at the St. Louis University
School of Law and the Police Use of Force: Investigation and Best Practices training seminar
hosted by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the many emails I’ve received
from law enforcement officers, instructors, and executives around the country over the past few
months, all of which have helped refine my thinking. I also appreciate the excellent editorial
work of the Harvard Law Review. As always, I am deeply grateful for the support of Alisa
Stoughton.
1 E.g., MICHAEL J. ASKEN & DAVE GROSSMAN, WARRIOR MINDSET (2010).
2 E.g., Amaury Murgado, Developing a Warrior Mindset, POLICE MAG., May 24, 2012,
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2012/05/warrior-mindset.aspx [http://perma.cc
/CK6Q-VNLR]; Charles Remsberg, Warrior Mindset: 8 Elements of Tactical Performance,
POLICEONE.COM (June 5, 2013), h t t p : / / w w w . p o l i c e o n e . c o m / O f f i c e r - S a f e t y / a r t i c l e s / 6 2 6 1 7 3 5
-Warrior-mindset-8-elements-of-tactical-performance [http://perma.cc/R6CK-PRPP].
3 Hank Hayes: Warrior Mindset, POLICEONE.COM (Mar. 14, 2011), http://www.policeone
.com/hank-hayes/videos/5955798-Hank-Hayes-Warrior-Mindset [http://perma.cc/5JKL-JPK8].
4 The 2015 International Law Enforcement Educator and Trainers Association Conference,
for example, will feature two sessions each on “Becoming Knights – Teaching Warrior Mindset to
the Non-Warrior” and “Building Warrior Women Trainers.” See 2015 ILEETA Conference
Schedule, INT’L LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATOR & TRAINERS ASS’N, http://ileeta.org/wp
-content/uploads/2014/09/2015-ILLETA-CONFERENCE-3_2_151.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2015)
[http://perma.cc/WXD8-R55G]. Prior years offered additional training sessions with titles like
“The Path of the Warrior Mentor,” “Filling the Tank – Warriors and Leaders,” “ Always the
Warrior at Every Age,” and “Emotional Warrior Training: Combating Stress.” Valerie Van
Brocklin, Where Have All the Warriors Gone?, LAWOFFICER.COM (Mar. 8, 2012), http://www
.lawofficer.com/article/training/where-have-all-warriors-gone [http://perma.cc/XX79-QLEC].
5 Murgado, supra note 2.
6 E.g., LOREN W. CHRISTENSEN, DEFENSIVE TACTICS: MODERN ARREST & CONTROL
TECHNIQUES FOR TODAY’S POLICE WARRIOR (2008). Similarly, a wide variety of sources
identify police officers as warriors. See, e.g., HELEN BARNETT, URBAN WARRIOR (1999);
LOREN W. CHRISTENSEN, WARRIORS: ON LIVING WITH COURAGE, DISCIPLINE, AND
HONOR (2004); LARRY F. JETMORE, THE PATH OF THE WARRIOR: AN ETHICAL GUIDE TO
PERSONAL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (2005);
LUX JAMESON, ON THE JOB: A BLACK WARRIOR IN BLUE (2000); BERNARD SCHAFFER,

225
226 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 128:225

than a relatively minor change in terminology. Though adopted with

the best of intentions, the warrior concept has created substantial ob-
stacles to improving police/community relations. In short, law en-
forcement has developed a “warrior” problem.
In this Commentary, I first describe how law enforcement training
and tactics reflect the warrior concept, identifying aspects of modern
policing that, if not addressed, will continue to prevent or undermine
efforts to improve public perceptions of police legitimacy. I join a
growing chorus of voices contending that it is the Guardian, not the
Warrior, that offers the appropriate metaphor for modern officers.7
Drawing on that principle, I offer two practical changes to police
training that have the potential to advance the ultimate police mis-
sion — promoting public security — in a way that fosters, rather than
thwarts, public trust: requiring non-enforcement contacts and empha-
sizing tactical restraint.
What is the warrior mindset? In its most restrictive sense, it refers
to the mental tenacity and attitude that officers, like soldiers, are
taught to adopt in the face of a life-threatening struggle. In this con-
text, the warrior mindset refers to a bone-deep commitment to survive
a bad situation no matter the odds or difficulty, to not give up even
when it is mentally and physically easier to do so.8 So narrowly de-
fined, the concept is difficult for anyone to criticize. Unfortunately,
the homage paid to the Warrior has expanded that uncontroversial
definition beyond all recognition.
The warrior mindset has mutated into the warrior mentality.
Like the restrictive version, the broad definition is motivated by
the undeniable importance of officer safety. But where the restrict-
ive version represents an attitude that officers should display in the
most physically dangerous and psychologically precarious situa-
tions, the broad definition instructs officers on how to approach every
aspect of their job. From their earliest days in the academy, would-
be officers are told that their prime objective, the proverbial “first
rule of law enforcement,” 9 is to go home at the end of every

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
WAY OF THE WARRIOR: LAW ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY (2013); BRUCE K. SIDDLE,
SHARPENING THE WARRIOR’S EDGE: THE PSYCHOLOGY & SCIENCE OF TRAINING (1995);
BRIAN VONCANNON, LIVING BEHIND THE SHIELD: A MODERN WARRIOR’S PATH TO
BRAVEHOOD (2000).
7 See, e.g., U.S. COMM’N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, WHO IS GUARDING THE GUARDIANS?: A
REPORT ON POLICE PRACTICES (1981).
8 Charles Dahlinger, Law Enforcement Combat Thinking, LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY
(May 21, 2014), h t t p : / / w w w . l a w e n f o r c e m e n t t o d a y . c o m / 2 0 1 4 / 0 5 / 2 1 / l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t - c o m b a t
-thinking [http://perma.cc/Z54W-9CAU].
9 Seth Stoughton, How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths, THE ATLANTIC
(Dec. 12, 2014), http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training
-ferguson/383681 [http://perma.cc/7T6L-PP24].
2015] LAW ENFORCEMENT’S “WARRIOR” PROBLEM 227

shift.10 But they are taught that they live in an intensely hostile world.
A world that is, quite literally, gunning for them. As early as the first
day of the police academy, the dangers officers face are depicted in
graphic and heart-wrenching recordings that capture a fallen officer’s
last moments.11 Death, they are told, is constantly a single, small mis-
step away. A recent article written by an officer for Police Magazine
opens with this description: “The dangers we expose ourselves to ev-
ery time we go [on duty] are almost immeasurable. We know this the
day we sign up and the academy certainly does a good job of hammer-
ing the point home.” 12 For example, training materials at the New
Mexico Police Academy hammer that point quite explicitly, informing
recruits that the suspects they will be dealing with “are mentally pre-
pared to react violently.” 13 Each recruit is told, in these words,
“[Y]ou could die today, tomorrow, or next Friday.” 14
Under this warrior worldview, officers are locked in intermittent
and unpredictable combat with unknown but highly lethal enemies.
As a result, officers learn to be afraid. That isn’t the word used in law
enforcement circles, of course. Vigilant, attentive, cautious, alert, or
observant are the terms that appear most often in police publications.
But make no mistake, officers don’t learn to be vigilant, attentive, cau-
tious, alert, and observant just because it’s fun. They do so because
they are afraid. Fear is ubiquitous in law enforcement. As I’ve writ-
ten elsewhere, officers are:
constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that
their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal train-
ing, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers. They
talk about it with their peers. They see it on police forums and law en-
forcement publications.15

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
10 Seth W. Stoughton, Policing Facts, 88 TUL. L. REV. 847, 865–66 (2014); see also SCOTT
FIELDEN, THE MIND OF A COP: WHAT THEY DO, AND WHY THEY DO IT 21 (2009); DAVID
J. THOMAS, UNDERSTANDING VIOLENT CRIMINALS: INSIGHTS FROM THE FRONT LINES
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 191 (2014). For a critique of this “first rule of law enforcement,” see
Jack Colwell et al., No “Officer Safety” Exception to the Constitution, LAW & ORDER, Jan. 2015,
at 10, http://www.hendonpub.com/law_and_order/articles/2015/01/no_officer_safety_exception_to
_the_constitution [http://perma.cc/DN22-STU8].
11 FIELDEN, supra note 10, at 20.
12 A.J. George, Winning a Knife Fight, POLICE MAG. (Feb. 11, 2015), http://www
.policemag.com /channel/weapons /ar ticles/2015/ 02/winning-a-knife-fight.aspx [http://perma.cc
/PNV5-MSFM].
13 Uriel J. Garcia, Experts Say Strongly Worded Police Curriculum Is Risky with Cadets,
SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN (Mar. 25, 2014), h t t p : / / w w w . s a n t a f e n e w m e x i c a n . c o m / n e w s / l o c a l
_n e w s / e xp e r t s - s a y- s t r on gl y - w or d e d - p ol i c e - c u r r i c u l u m - i s - r i s k y- wi t h - c a d e t s / a r t i c l e _ 6f c b 7d 4 5 - 43 6 c
-5e48-aa06-2fc6fdcc35a1.html [http://perma.cc/FBQ2-LYTP].
14 Id.
15 Stoughton, supra note 9.
228 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 128:225

For Warriors, hypervigilance offers the best chance for survival.16

Officers learn to treat every individual they interact with as an armed
threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.17
Every individual, every situation — no exceptions. Because the ene-
mies’ identities are unknown, everyone is a threat until conclusively
proven otherwise. A popular police training text offers this advice:
“As you approach any situation, you want to be in the habit of looking
for cover[] so you can react automatically to reach it should trouble
erupt.” 18 A more recent article puts it even more bluntly: “Remain
humble and compassionate; be professional and courteous — and have
a plan to kill everyone you meet.” 19 That plan is necessary, officers
are told, because everyone they meet may have a plan to kill them.
This approach inevitably affects the way that officers interact with
civilians. First, it creates a substantial, if invisible, barrier to true
community policing. Although now a painfully nebulous phrase —
the victim of expansive overuse20 — community policing is, at its core,
a strategy that relies on building “[c]ollaborative partnerships” be-
tween police agencies and communities so as to better identify prob-
lems and “develop and evaluate effective responses.” 21 To fulfill the
promises of community policing, officers must establish meaningful
short- and long-term relationships with individual community mem-
bers. To see the friction between relationship building and the warrior
mentality, with its hypervigilant focus on preserving officer safety at
all costs, consider this thought experiment: Imagine that you are a

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
16 Thomas C. Knowles, Cops Aren’t Your Enemy, POLITICO MAG. (Dec. 23, 2014), http://
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/cops-arent-your-enemy-113794.html [http: / / perma. cc
/B5UL-JB3A] (“From the start of any police academy, we are taught as cops to be ever vigi-
lant — to apply laser-like attention to our surroundings at all times.” ).
17 Richard Fairburn, Cooper’s Colors: A Simple System for Situational Awareness,
POLICEONE.COM (Aug. 9, 2010), h t t p : / / w w w . p o l i c e o n e . c o m / p o l i c e - t r a i n e r s / a r t i c l e s / 2 1 8 8 2 5 3
-Coopers-colors-A-simple-system-for-situational-awareness [http://perma.cc/5PU5-5957].
18 RONALD J. ADAMS ET AL., STREET SURVIVAL 155 (1980).
19 John Bennett, How Command Presence Affects Your Survival, POLICEONE.COM (Oct. 7,
2010), http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/2748139-How-command-presence-affects
-your-survival [http://perma.cc/CKF3-Y8C6].
20 “One reason for its popularity is that community policing is a plastic concept, meaning dif-
ferent things to different people.” John E. Eck & Dennis P. Rosenbaum, The New Police Order:
Effectiveness, Equity, and Efficiency in Community Policing, in THE CHALLENGE OF
COMMUNITY POLICING: TESTING THE PROMISES 3, 3 (Dennis P. Rosenbaum ed., 1994). Be-
cause it is so variable, “[c]ommunity policing has become the new orthodoxy for cops.” Id. In
this way, community policing offers a sad parallel to the original, limited meaning of the warrior
mindset.
21 CMTY. ORIENTED POLICING SERVS., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, COMMUNITY
POLICING DEFINED 1 (2014), h t t p : / / w w w . c o p s . u s d o j . g o v / p d f / v e t s - t o - c o p s / e 0 3 0 9 1 7 1 9 3 - C P
-Defined.pdf [http://perma.cc/7JG2-AMMC].
2015] LAW ENFORCEMENT’S “WARRIOR” PROBLEM 229

rookie police officer driving down the street, windows down,22 and
looking for people in the community with whom you can begin build-
ing positive relationships. But you have been told (repeatedly) that
your survival depends on believing that everyone you see — literally
everyone — is capable of, and may very well be interested in, killing
you. Put in that position, would you actually get out of your car and
approach someone? And if you did, would you stroll up to start a ca-
sual conversation or would you advance cautiously, ask for identifica-
tion, run a criminal background check, and request consent to
search . . . and then, maybe, try to start that casual conversation? The
latter, of course, is what many officers are taught to do. It is what I
was taught to do as a rookie officer. My first ever “consensual en-
counter,” only hours into my first day of field training, followed exact-
ly that pattern. It takes no great imagination to recognize how badly
that approach, repeated over hundreds or thousands of police/civilian
interactions in any given jurisdiction, hinders the creation of meaning-
ful, collaborative relationships.
Counterintuitively, the warrior mentality also makes policing less
safe for both officers and civilians. Either through formal training or
informal example, officers learn to both verbally and physically control
the space they operate in.23 It is essential to set the proper tone for an
encounter,24 and the tone that best preserves officer safety is widely
thought to be one of “unquestioned command.” 25 Even acting friend-
ly, officers may be told, can make them a target.26 But like the use of
physical force,27 the assertive manner in which officers set the tone of
encounter can also set the stage for a negative response or a violent in-
teraction that was, from the start, avoidable. From the warrior per-
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
22 One of the classic criticisms that community police advocates level against contemporary
policing is the tendency for officers to drive around their assigned patrol zone with their windows
up, effectively shutting themselves away from the public.
23 Bennett, supra note 19.
24 Lawrence N. Blum & Joseph M. Polisar, Why Things Go Wrong in Police Work, 71 POLICE
CHIEF, July 2004, at 49, h t tp :/ / w w w .p o l i c e c h i e f m a g a z i n e . or g / m a g az i n e / i n d e x .c f m ? fu s e a c ti o n
=display_arch&article_id=336&issue_id=72004 [http://perma.cc/4DDR-Y4XZ]. Officers may es-
tablish this authority more firmly in some interactions than others. See Christopher Cooper, Me-
diation in Black and White: Unequal Distribution of Empowerment by Police, in NOT GUILTY
125, 125–26 (Jabari Asim ed., 2001).
25 Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702–03 (1981) (stating that, in the context of a traffic
stop, “[t]he risk of harm to both the police and the [vehicle] occupants is minimized if the officers
routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation”).
26 ANTHONY J. PINIZZOTTO ET AL., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, VIOLENT ENCOUNTERS: A
STUDY OF FELONIOUS ASSAULTS ON OUR NATION’S LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 19
(2006), http://www.secondcalldefense.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Violent-Encounters.pdf [http://
perma.cc/4UJB-69XK].
27 Cf. GEOFFREY P. ALPERT & ROGER G. DUNHAM, UNDERSTANDING POLICE USE OF
FORCE 88–91 (2004) (presenting data on officer/suspect interactions and the impacts of the use of
force).
230 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 128:225

spective, the solution is simple: the people with whom officers interact
must accede, respecting officers’ authority by doing what they are told.
The failure to comply is confirmation that the individual is an enemy
for the Warrior to vanquish, physically if necessary. And this creates
avoidable violence. Sue Rahr, a former sheriff and currently both the
Director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commis-
sion and a member of President Obama’s Task Force on Twenty-First
Century Policing, put it this way: “We do our recruits no favor if we
train them to approach every situation as a war. To do so sets them
up to create unnecessary resistance and risk of injury.” 28
Admittedly, violence is relatively uncommon in police/civilian en-
counters and most uses of physical force involve relatively low-level
violence, with injuries to both officers and civilians being correspond-
ingly uncommon,29 but an officer who needlessly aggravates a situa-
tion doesn’t just increase the risk he faces in that encounter. He also
increases the risk that other officers face in other encounters. Consider
that of the ten most destructive and violent riots in United States his-
tory, fully half were responses to perceived police abuses.30 An aggres-
sive approach in individual interactions can exacerbate underlying so-
cial tensions in a way that fuels a dangerous fire. This is not a new
observation. The Wickersham Commission, which investigated the
failures of Prohibition enforcement, made exactly this point in its 1931
report: “High-handed methods, shootings and killings, even where jus-
tified, alienate[] thoughtful citizens, believers in law and order. Unfor-
tunate public expressions . . . approving killings and promiscuous
shootings and lawless raids and seizures and deprecating the constitu-
tional guarantees involved[] aggravate[] this effect.” 31 The expansive
version of the warrior mentality promotes the use of tactics that need-
lessly create use of force situations, and the fierce rhetoric that follows
further fans the flames.
The Warrior has created problems for law enforcement, but the
Guardian may offer some solutions that enhance both officer and civil-
ian safety in ways that increase public trust in the police. This has not
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
28 JOHN S. DEMPSEY & LINDA S. FORST, AN INTRODUCTION TO POLICING 127 (8th ed.
2014) (quoting Sue Rahr) (internal quotation marks omitted).
29 Stoughton, supra note 9, at 867–68.
30 The five riots in response to perceived police abuses were a 2001 Cincinnati riot, the 1992
Rodney King riots, 1967 riots in Detroit and Newark, and the 1965 Watts riot in Los Angeles.
Daniel Bukszpan, America’s Most Destructive Riots of All Time, CNBC.COM (Feb. 1, 2011),
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41372364 [http://perma.cc/ET8E-LGZZ]. That does not include the 1973
riot in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, which was at least partially attributable to abuses within
the corrections system, and the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization riot, which was, by many
accounts, exacerbated by police tactics. Id.
31 NAT’L COMM’N ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, REPORT ON THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROHIBITION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES 82 (1931) (emphasis
added).
2015] LAW ENFORCEMENT’S “WARRIOR” PROBLEM 231

gone entirely unrecognized in law enforcement circles, and I add my

voice to others that have called for precisely this change.32 Of course,
the guardian concept is no more inherently self defining than “warrior
mindset” or “community policing,” raising questions about what ex-
actly it entails. Both Warriors and Guardians seek to protect the
communities they serve, of course, but the guardian mindset takes
both a broader view and a longer view of how to achieve that goal.
Put simply, the guardian mindset prioritizes service over crimefighting,
and it values the dynamics of short-term encounters as a way to create
long-term relationships. As a result, it instructs officers that their in-
teractions with community members must be more than legally justi-
fied, they must also be empowering, fair, respectful, and considerate.33
The guardian mindset emphasizes communication over commands,
cooperation over compliance, and legitimacy over authority. And in
the use-of-force context, the Guardian emphasizes patience and re-
straint over control, stability over action.
To flesh out the changes that could promote guardian policing, I
offer two practical suggestions for police training.34 The first can be
addressed very quickly. To encourage officers to connect with com-
munity members, law enforcement agencies should require would-be
officers to initiate non-enforcement contacts with members of their
community. Both early in field training and near its conclusion, rookie
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
32 See PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON 21ST CENTURY POLICING, INTERIM REPORT OF
THE PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON 21ST CENTURY POLICING 9–10 (2015), http://www.cops
.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf [http://perma.cc/L9JX-KS96]. The Task Force’s
Interim Report is the most prominent call for such a transition to date, but it was hardly the first
such call. As the deputy director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
explained late last year, recruit training must be “guided by the underlying goal of producing of-
ficers who are guardians as opposed to warriors.” Christopher Moraff, Can Different Training
Make Police Officers Guardians, Not Warriors?, NEXT CITY (Dec. 4, 2014), http://nextcity.org
/daily/entry/change-police-training-task-force-empathy-policing [http://perma.cc/YC5M-QWKM].
33 One approach, referred to as “Justice Based Policing,” instructs officers to “Listen and Ex-
plain with Equity and Dignity.” SUE RAHR ET AL., THE FOUR PILLARS OF JUSTICE BASED
POLICING 1 (2011), http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=368336&c=56523 [http://
perma.cc/ZN62-GGB6].
It explains that officers should:
Listen — Allow people to give their side of the story; give them voice, and let them
vent.
Explain — Explain what you’re doing, what they can do, and what’s going to happen.
Equity — Tell them why you are taking action. The reason must be fair and free of bi-
as, and show their input was taken into consideration.
Dignity — Act with dignity and leave them with their dignity.
Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted).
34 Changing two aspects of police training is just the tip of the iceberg, of course, and I have
spoken publicly and privately about other suggestions. See, e.g., Seth Stoughton, Reflections on
Policing Police at the 2015 Saint Louis University Public Law Review Symposium (Feb. 20,
2015), http://law.slu.edu/event/thin-blue-line-policing-post-ferguson [http://perma.cc/2QLJ-RP7U].
I limit myself here to two particularly important suggestions so as not to exceed the boundaries of
a single essay.
232 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 128:225

officers should have to spend a certain set amount of time — perhaps

one day a week, perhaps a block of two weeks or longer — approach-
ing civilians just to have meaningful conversations. Building on the
“Good Strangers” and “Tact, Tactics and Trust” training that grew
out of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Strategic So-
cial Interaction Modules training,35 a “non-enforcement contact” re-
quirement means officers would have to interact with their constitu-
ents while being prohibited from taking enforcement actions: no asking
for identification, no running criminal history checks, no issuing tick-
ets, and no making arrests.36 Further, the law enforcement agency
should emphasize that officers are expected to continue making regular
non-enforcement contacts even after completing field training. The
purpose is threefold: giving officers and community members the
chance to get to know each other as individuals, emphasizing the
agencies’ commitment to community policing for both internal and ex-
ternal audiences, and teaching officers the valuable communication
skills that they will use countless times over the course of their careers.
The second suggestion is to emphasize tactical restraint through
both training and after-action review of use-of-force incidents. Tacti-
cal restraint has received significant attention and criticism recently,
and so requires slightly more explanation. Simply put, tactical re-
straint instructs officers to avoid avoidable risks when doing so is con-
sistent with the police mission. Tactical restraint doesn’t teach officers
to run away from violent confrontations; it teaches them to approach
every situation in a way that minimizes the threat of having it turn vi-
olent in the first place. To be clear, not all violence is avoidable. The
use of force, including deadly force, will sometimes be necessary. But
when violence is avoidable and when avoiding it doesn’t sacrifice the
police mission, officers should be required to use tactical restraint even
when that means holding their position or temporarily withdrawing.37
From the guardian perspective, the value of this approach is that it
minimizes the risk to civilians by reducing the chances that the officer

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
35 Jon Schuppe, Science of Strangers: Military Research Could Boost Cops’ People Skills,
NBC NEWS (Oct. 22, 2014, 4:58 AM), http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/science-strangers
- m i l i t a r y - r e s e a r ch - c o u l d - b o o s t - c o p s - p e o p l e - s k i l l s -n 2 3 0 9 5 1 [h t t p : / / p e r m a . c c / 5 3 U 6 - J 5 H 9 ? t y p e
=image].
36 In some cases, of course, emergency situations will require an enforcement-oriented
response.
37 Influential police scholar Carl Klockars went as far as suggesting that excessive force be
defined as “the use of more force than a highly skilled police officer would find necessary to use
in that particular situation,” taking into consideration the tactical choices that an officer made
when approaching the situation. Carl B. Klockars, A Theory of Excessive Force and Its Control,
in POLICE VIOLENCE: UNDERSTANDING AND CONTROLLING POLICE ABUSE OF FORCE 1,
8–10 (William A. Geller & Hans Toch eds., 1996).
2015] LAW ENFORCEMENT’S “WARRIOR” PROBLEM 233

will find himself in a situation that requires a high level of force. In

short, because officers are safer, civilians are safer.
Nothing that I’ve suggested is entirely new to policing, and tactical
restraint is no exception. Officers are already taught to use tactical re-
straint in certain situations. For example, many agencies instruct of-
ficers not to make an arrest without a second officer present. Why
not? Why not allow an officer, working alone, to loudly issue verbal
commands (perhaps even emphasizing the seriousness of commands
with profanity) or charge in and go hands on? Because having backup
on scene reduces the chance the suspect will resist and, in the event
the suspect does resist, it gives officers an advantage. When officers
are in a tactically superior position — here, having the advantage of
numbers — it is easier for them to overcome resistance with less force.
And using less force is ultimately more protective of the suspect that
the officers are called upon to arrest.
Foot pursuits offer another example of how officers and agencies
already employ tactical restraint. Most departments instruct officers,
through policies or training, to keep a fleeing suspect in sight but to
not physically engage until backup is on scene.38 Why? Because a
suspect who runs is more likely to be a suspect who fights. A fight is
more dangerous for a single officer than it is for multiple officers,
which means that a single officer might need to use more force than
two officers would need to use to deal with the situation. That means
that by waiting for other officers to arrive, the chasing officer reduces
the amount of force that may be necessary to take the suspect into cus-
tody. By delaying, the officer can reduce the risk to both himself and
the suspect. Some officers take a slightly different approach to tactical
restraint. An officer I worked with used to encourage fleeing suspects
to keep running. He’d stay behind them and shout, “Keep going!
I’ve almost got you!” He did so because he didn’t want to have to
fight the suspect — which would have endangered both of them — so
he made sure that the suspect was physically exhausted. From a
crime-fighting standpoint, this approach had costs: the suspect could
not be charged with resisting because he had never ordered the suspect
to stop (in fact, the suspect was doing exactly what he had been told to
do!). But avoiding violence was well worth it. In some cases, it can be
safer and just as effective to not pursue. As Chuck Wexler, Executive
Director of the Police Executive Research Forum, wrote, “If the sus-
pect’s identity is known, it may be safer if police arrest the person
later, rather than engaging in a foot pursuit.” 39 The Denver Police
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
38 Stoughton, supra note 9, at 868.
39 Chuck Wexler, Op-Ed., Police Curb Use of Lethal Force: Another View, USA TODAY,
Nov. 25, 2014, ht tp://www .us atod ay.c om /s tor y/opinion/201 4/ 11/ 25/ ferguson-grand-j ury-police
-lethal-force-editorials-debates/19516001 [http://perma.cc/P5JX-44QT].
234 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 128:225

Chief adopted a similar approach in the context of a recent protest, or-

dering his officers to not immediately arrest two protestors who de-
faced a police memorial by pouring red paint on it.40 Rather than
move in right then and there, which might have sparked a confronta-
tion between officers and the crowd of protestors, Denver officers
waited to arrest the two vandals, safely apprehending them after the
protest and away from the crowds.41 What all of those approaches
have in common is a commitment to not rushing in recklessly when of-
ficers can use a safer option to accomplish the mission. That’s tactical
restraint.
Tactical restraint is a valuable concept precisely because it offers a
principled way to broadly apply the lessons that officers have already
learned in some contexts. Using restraint doesn’t give suspects any
more of an opportunity to resist than they already have. It gives offi-
cers a way to reduce both the probability of resistance and the amount
of force that may be necessary to overcome that resistance. It encour-
ages officers to work smarter, not harder, by relying more on good tac-
tics and communication than on violence. It protects officers and ci-
vilians alike, which is exactly what so many of our officers already do
and exactly why all of our officers should be expected to exercise tacti-
cal restraint.
It will take more than a couple of isolated changes to heal the
longstanding divide between law enforcement agencies and the com-
munities they police, particularly communities of color. Earning pub-
lic trust will take decades and require rethinking how officers are
trained as well as the legal and administrative standards used to re-
view police violence. It will require changing the very culture of polic-
ing by reaffirming that policing must be done with a community, not
to a community. There is deep tension between community policing
and the warrior identity that has become so prevalent in modern law
enforcement. We can resolve that tension and improve policing, in
part, by replacing the concept of the police warrior with that of the
guardian officer.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
40 Denver Police Upset After Memorial Vandalized During Protest, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 15,
2015), http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/15/us/ap-us-police-protest-vandalism.html.
41 Id. It should be noted that this approach was not universally popular. Some officers found
the vandalism, as I do, deeply reprehensible, and undoubtedly some intensely disliked not being
able to intervene at the time. Id. This is an excellent example of the Warrior and the Guardian
in microcosm — a Warrior may very well have moved to immediately apprehend the two van-
dals. Such a move might have led protestors to attempt to resist, of course, but such interference
would have been unlawful. So if the other protestors had interfered, they, too, would have been
subject to both immediate arrest and, had they resisted, however much force was necessary to
overcome their resistance. Although certainly lawfully justified, that approach creates obvious
and substantial risks to both officers and civilians. The guardian approach, in contrast, certainly
resulted in psychological distress to some number of officers, but that distress is one of the sacri-
fices required of officers as they protect and serve their communities.