Stop the Shouting – and Cops Respond

Humans communicate using our voices. Our tone and volume help others interpret our intent and the meaning of words. Combining that with our physical posturing, gestures, and facial expressions, we generally can get our message across.

Cops yell at people, especially in times of perceived danger or non-compliance. Often repetitively. Let’s agree there is a difference between raising one’s voice to be heard at distance or over noise, giving commands with authority, and that of full-throated volume shouted orders. Much of this shouting could be interpreted as screaming. Is there a qualitative method of differentiating between urgently and repetitively shouting at full volume and emotionally screaming at someone as if angry?

Consider this incident: Responding to a “suicidal male” call, four officers found the subject armed with a large kitchen knife in his driveway, threatening “suicide-by-cop.” The contact officer calmly spoke to the subject, calling him by name, and telling him the officers wanted to help. The last of the four officers arrived and began shouting, “Drop the knife! Drop the knife! Drop the knife!” continuously for nine minutes. All four officers had firearms in-hand. The handling officer repeatedly assured the subject they were not going to take him to jail as the subject feared but to the hospital. Eventually, the subject suddenly charged, knife raised, focusing on the shouting officer who was the farthest away from him. The suspect was shot dead.

In the subsequent civil trial, the jurors unanimously found three of the officers had acted reasonably. The jury was split on the fourth, with several wanting to punish the officer who constantly screamed to drop the knife, believing him to be emotionally out of control and “causing” the shooting. This trial was over a decade ago, prior to the great surge of antipathy toward the police in this country. Would that verdict have gone the same way today?

What impressions might an unbiased observer have when critically viewing an officer repeating the same phrase while shouting at the top of his or her lungs at a suspect? Possibly that the officer is angry, even enraged? Or is she frustrated or possibly emotionally out of control? Maybe he’s so frightened he can do nothing but continually scream the same thing over and over when it’s clearly not working? How do any of those negative impressions affect the judgment of others that the officer acted within the “reasonable officer standard” required by Graham (1989).

Consider another common occurrence: multiple officers shouting conflicting orders to a suspect believed to be armed. Again, what might the impressions be? Clearly officers are not working as a team. Will allegations arise that they are so emotionally focused they cannot hear each other’s conflicting orders? I once saw a suspect cry out, “Don’t shoot me. I don’t know what to do!” when several officers simultaneously and repeatedly shouted at him to “Don’t move!” “Get on the ground!” “Show me your hands!”

Others with a more highly tuned insight into human predatory behavior observe that the screaming officer is extremely fearful and compensating by frantically shouting. At least, that’s what one very dangerous parolee, an Aryan Brotherhood associate by the name of “Cory,” told me just two weeks after his release from San Quentin prison. He stated when the frightened cop is screaming orders, it makes him vulnerable and slow to respond, while a calm cop is more dangerous.

Hardened gang members dismiss shouting officers as, “Yeah, he’s just going typical.” They’ve experienced shouted threats by dangerous people with little impulse control and for whom violence was truly the first option, not the last. They’re just not impressed by officers yelling at them. Worse, they likely see it as an advantage to exploit.

Officers are, unfortunately, trained to shout during their academy training. Recruits acting as suspects are shouted at, told to drop their weapons or to show their hands. They are shouted at to move, not move, to get down, to be quiet, drop the weapon. Even though compliant, the officer-recruits keep shouting orders at the top of their lungs. We see recruits during known-risk car stop training shout orders to compliant suspects, punctuated after every instruction with, “Do it now!” commands, turning the activity into a consequential game of “Simon Says.” Subsequently, officers continue this shouting through their careers. Most never question this practice.

What is the purpose of repeatedly and continuously shouting at a suspect or subject? Yelling is intended and often should be employed to gain the individual’s (and witnesses’) attention. After getting a subject’s or suspect’s attention (especially after gaining even a small degree of compliance), the question then changes to, “Is there a universal benefit in continuing to shout at people?”

Shouting is justified for purposes of intimidating the individual into compliance. It does intimidate many people, especially those folks who are easily intimidated. Many will capitulate when reality confronts them in the form of shouting uniformed police pointing firearms. Clearly it would be natural to be fearful of screaming police pointing firearms at them. With fear, body alarm reactions result with all the known decrements in cognitive rational thought. People often do stupid things when frightened and are slow to regain their wits. Does continuing to shout at the now compliant subject assist or hinder the officer’s goals?

We have a broad swath of our population believing the pernicious falsehood that officers shoot people indiscriminately, causing them to panic at even minor contacts. Does screaming or repeatedly shouting at these fearful people create terror and/or confusion? It certainly doesn’t intimidate those who are most likely to attempt to murder an officer. Hard people use that time to calculate the pros and cons of their next actions.

When someone is in crisis, shouting by police may tend to increase that individual’s chaotic thinking and distress. The mentally ill or those in emotional distress are already experiencing a mental state where outside stimuli can increase their already disordered thinking. The overwhelming fear their emotional state generates is not quieted by being loudly yelled at.

When a single officer is speaking to a minimally-compliant subject, another officer often begins shouting repeated commands, likely out of frustration at the individual’s intransigence. Frustration is a manifestation of anger, and anger interferes with reasonable decision-making. While law enforcement purposely recruits those who choose to step up and take responsibility for the outcome of an incident, it is necessary to recognize that others’ approaches, while different than yours, may be just as effective. There are few “the” ways, and many “a” ways to resolve problems in the field.       

Emotions are contagious. We’re social creatures, having evolved within close knit tribes. Our ancient ancestors’ survival depended upon fitting in, emotionally meshing with other members. Humans developed through mimicking the affect and emotions of others. Likewise, the homogenous mentality of a mob has been well-studied, where individuals cede their emotional state and decision-making to the collective actions and emotions of the crowd.

When’s the last time you saw a chaotic situation calmed by an angry person yelling at another angry person? Shouting angrily at an angry person assumes that subject has the capacity to calm him/herself at that moment, that the individual is capable of momentarily understanding and caring about the consequences of continued defiance. Many in an angry state are not emotionally capable of consciously de-escalating their emotions. Indeed, the emotional energy added by the constant screaming of repetitive orders may feed that suspect’s irrational obstinance, further escalating his or her inability to become rational enough to comply.

Repeatedly shouting negatively affects your safety and ability to quickly respond. Humans’ attentional load (the ability to think and pay attention to tasks or situations) has a finite capacity, allowing us to process a limited amount of information in the moment. Once our attentional load is exceeded by too much happening at once or too complicated a task, our thinking changes, becoming more methodical and slower to react due to the overwhelm, and our performance declines.

We see examples of this overwhelm when an officer continues to scream, “On the ground! On the ground!” well after the complying suspect has already proned out. When repeatedly yelling commands, especially in a threat situation, attention is completely forward, leaving fewer attentional resources available for cognitive processes in either the need to change commands or respond to the suspect’s sudden change in behavior. Worse, there is an increase in perception-response time with a corresponding decrease in awareness of personal positioning, the capacity of recontextualizing the change of demeanor, position, and actions of the subject, critical thinking, and general situational awareness such as being in a potential crossfire, having background problems, or in the suspect’s line of fire. Any action purposely limiting the burdens on the attentional load during high threat confrontations permits better, quicker decision-making and safer response.

When confronting an armed and dangerous suspect, there are many tasks to perform, all requiring input from your senses and clear thinking to safely resolve this situation. Shouting should be considered a limited tactical tool, not something that is sustained due to noncompliance. Shouting carries with it high emotion, injecting even more emotion into an emotionally charged situation. When shouting, are you personally more or less capable of detecting movement or a change in threat?

One “bark,” then talk. So, what does this change look like? “Bark once, then talk,” is a practical heuristic. One shout (or just a few) to gain attention, then spoken commands, instructions, or conversation at lower volume. “Police/Sheriff’s Office, don’t move!” serves as the bark, putting the subject/suspect on notice. Then lower volume instructions in how to safely be taken into custody can be understood. The bulk of communication with a subject or suspect should be at lower volumes. Even a loud voice, when necessary, without the emotional content of screaming or shouting helps to decrease the attentional load on the officer.

If the suspect does not comply, communicating by talking with the suspect lessens the officer’s attentional load and, especially in urgent situations, decreases emotional involvement. This results in a greater ability to recognize nuanced language, subtle weight shifts, or micro-expressions indicating impending assault. It helps you think. Assisting the suspect to mimic your emotional state through your own calm emotional baseline behavior may contribute to lowering the intensity of the contact.

This change requires disciplining mental habits and communication. In US Army helicopter flight school, another layer beyond military discipline is required. Administrative pressure is combined with peer pressure to present zero emotion in any radio transmission. My brother was a Blackhawk pilot. In flight school, any degree of emotion on the radio was savagely critiqued by flight instructors. Worse, the offending student-pilot had to endure pointed critiques by peers and buy drinks for the entire flight that night. Enforcing strict radio discipline of absolute emotional control during radio communications builds into the pilots a clarity of mind during inevitable crises in flight operations. It trained them to be calm when engulfed within chaos. This radio discipline became so total, two of my brother’s peers died in separate crashes while reporting in a monotone, “We’re going down. May Day, we’re going down.”

The first step in creating this discipline is requiring officers to speak calmly and unemotionally in all radio transmissions – especially during stressful or dangerous calls. Like pilots, this discipline trains the mind to be calm, even when fearful. Individual officers can adopt this as a personal policy. A disciplined mind is functionally better at problem-solving, absorbing information, and responding to change in the environment. It becomes a mark of professionalism and point of pride to be calm in the face of pressure and threat.

On-scene, help officers to stop incessantly shouting repetitious orders, calling for a single officer to begin talking with the suspect to attempt to work out a solution. Becoming aware early that multiple officers are shouting at a suspect, assign one officer to take the lead and provide orders to the suspect or, as the situation presents, begin a dialogue aimed at calmly persuading the individual to surrender. At some point, it will become habituated that once one officer “barks,” then begins speaking to a suspect, while additional officers refrain from shouting orders.

The best cops I’ve ever seen were those who used their barks sparingly but pointedly in a tactical situation. One bark, then talk helps avoid amping up the emotions of everyone on-scene: officers, witnesses, and the suspect (especially when mentally ill, in emotional crisis, and/or under the influence). When dealing with a non-compliant suspect, one bark, then talk gives you a better chance to observe and more quickly respond to key behavioral changes. You are safer as a result. The trained tactic of repeatedly shouting continually proves itself unproductive. It’s time to change that habit for everyone’s benefit, especially yours.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? E-mail us at: [email protected]

To Shout or Not to Shout? Cops Sound Off.

We heard from a number of officers from around the country in response to George T. Williams’ recent article, Stop the Shouting. Here are some of the comments they shared…

Anthony DiSandro, Chief Investigator with Bucks County (PA) Department of Corrections responds:

Excellent remarks and “bark & talk” is a great characterization of what is the appropriate communication technique during certain encounters. Seasoned officers and supervisors have learned this lesson and need to give guidance to the inexperienced officers. Proper communication, along with safe tactical positioning, helps us do our job well and possibly save the lives of those who are going through the crisis. Please stay safe out there.

Chief Tom McClain with the Willard, MO Police Department says:

Love this article! It reminds me of the action in the corner of the boxing ring between rounds. Sometimes, in uneducated corners, the trainer is yelling instructions, the cutman is yelling something else, one of the 2nds is yelling another thing altogether… and the poor fighter who was hoping for a reprieve, goes out to face a foe without having received any of the instruction his well-meaning corner had intended. Stop the Shouting!

* SIDENOTE: Click the link below to watch a news clip focused on an outstanding youth program Chief McClain and the Willard Police Department have established: https://www.ozarksfirst.com/serving-the-ozarks/serving-the-ozarks-willard-pal-program-2/

Patrol Officer Andrew Tanzillo, T/O Stockport and Greenport PDs, Hudson, NY

I have often said if you’re yelling from the start, where is there to go if you really have to or must shout. Don’t let the subject or situation dictate your emotions. A calm demeanor often calms the incident and or keeps it there.

From Captain Kennedy Meaders with the Columbus (MS) Police Department:

I definitely agree with this article. I have been in law enforcement 31 years, and I have seen many officers come on the scene yelling and barking out orders, only to get the person upset and combative. We are now putting our officers through Crisis Intervention Training where de-escalation and helping the person is our goal, but our primary focus is safety. In this state, the Crisis Intervention Officer has the authority to get a person who is in a mental crisis admitted to a single point of entry or ER. Crisis Intervention can be utilized on any call where officers have to respond.

Officers have to be more cognizant and vigilant regarding where we are and who we are dealing with (Situational Awareness). As a CIT instructor, our officers have been trained in what to say, how to say it and to be active listeners. It is our job to make the customer feel safe and that we are there to help them, not hurt them. When a customer is in a mental crisis, we make sure that we communicate in a calm manner and de-escalate the situation. De-escalation is the key and we, as administrators, should train our officers in de-escalation techniques. It is not about yelling and screaming. We also teach our CIT officers about body language, because believe or not, it speaks louder than verbal.

Officers need to make sure that their verbal and body is speaking the same language. When you have several officers on the scene barking out orders, confusion sets in and someone might be injured or killed. Remember Listen and Silent is spelled with the same letters.

Steven Shotz, Psy.D., EMT and a former police officer with Twin Cities PD (Corte Madera/Larkspur, CA) writes:

Excellent review. We’ve all seen too many videos of officers yelling out of control and mechanically repeating themselves with no response from the suspect, as well as multiple officers yelling at the same time. I’ve not seen one video where this was effective. As a former police officer and police psychologist, I commend the author for doing a superb job of identifying the problematic behaviors and emotions and providing concrete and actionable suggestions.

Capt. Tom Conlin (ret.) formerly with Las Vegas Metro PD comments:

As a former Verbal Judo Instructor, I learned directly from Dr. George Thompson that shouting is one of the least effective tactics you can use. I like the one Bark idea, however.

Also, maybe this will resonate with folks who have watched all the Dirty Harry movies. Do you ever recall Harry Callahan ever shouting? In fact, the quieter he got, the more powerful he appeared to be.

And on the flip side, in one of the greatest western movies ever made, “Jeremiah Johnson, “there is a scene where a Flathead warrior is shouting at Johnson. Turns out he was doing it because he was scared of Johnson. Something else to think about.

Lt. Glenn A. Marin (ret.) formerly with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. writes:

I was behind an armed robber, carrying a rifle, when confronted by a deputy in front. Suspect refused to put the gun down, saying shoot him, he would not give up his gun. The front deputy engaged in a crazy, calm dialog (“where did you get the gun, why won’t you put it down, where are going from here” type questions). Meanwhile, I walked up behind the otherwise occupied robber and grabbed the rifle around the trigger guard and a tug of war ensued. A 3d deputy hit the crook from behind in a full sprint run and, other than a bruised crook, it all worked out without damage. Calm, collected and thinking actions by the front deputy was the key to what otherwise could have been very ugly.

Retired Lieutenant Don Black from Aurora, CO writes:

Well said. I watched some SWAT officers all yelling at a suspect at the same time (rookie mistake) and yelling “get on the ground” when really what one should have said was “Don’t move”. The last thing I want (from long experience) is movement where I don’t know the intent. Is he diving for cover? Is he diving to pull his weapon? Is he complying? If there are multiple suspects diving for cover, which one is not actually complying? Who can I justify shooting? In the above case the suspect kept moving and then pulled out a phone. The suspect was shot and killed by a SWAT officer who had not taken any covered position.

Officer John Converse with the Montgomery College Office of Public Safety in Rockville, MD responds:

Agree completely. If a suspect hasn’t complied with the first nine screams to get on the ground, a tenth scream is unlikely to convince him to do so. Screaming, especially repeated screaming, raises everyone’s stress levels almost as much as a blaring siren from a parked patrol car.

Jessica Kay, Assistant 9-1-1 Coordinator for the Chesapeake (VA) Police Department writes:

As a telecommunicator (dispatcher) we do not have the ability to use nonverbal cues to de-escalate situations. Our tools are our voices. Many times we hear call takers yelling into the phone “ma’am, ma’am, sir sir,” etc.) which does nothing to de-escalate the caller and will actually make the situation worse because callers perceive the call taker is not listening to them and that they are being yelled at.

To be fair, we cannot hear the caller if we are talking, too. More effective communication skills are needed to bring a caller down from their emotional high. These skills range from repetitive persistence, speaking lower and slower to force the caller to be quiet to listen, establishing rapport by using first names and ultimately using silence as a last resort. The better the telecommunicator can establish rapport and calm the situation down, the better the scene for the responders when they arrive because the telecommunicator can manage their expectations and hopefully set the situation up for success and a positive outcome. When one way of communication does not work (yelling hasn’t gained compliance) then we, as the professional, must develop other ways to communicate.