Why Untrained Cops Use More Force | The Gray Area

We dig into a truth that frustrates both cops and civilians: some excessive force grows out of undertraining, not just bad intent. We argue that better grappling and control skills can reduce panic, create more options, and make constitutional policing real when things get physical.
• the gray area between “anti-police” and “excusing force”
• why undertraining can lead to escalation even with good intent
• the difference between violence and control in defensive tactics
• how skill confidence reduces hesitation and panic decisions
• why tools should support training rather than replace it
• the role of ego, fear, and emotion in ugly outcomes
• why the oath to the Constitution demands real preparation
• what the public should expect and what controlled force can look like
• funding, staffing, and building progressive training from day one
• why “blue belt level” competence is a practical standard to debate
So I’m curious, what do you think?
Should officers be expected to have real grappling experience before they are entrusted to use force on behalf of the government?
And if we expect officers to use less force, should departments train them in skills that make less force possible?


Because if we want officers to use less force, we have to train them in the skills that make less force possible.

#TheGrayArea #TwoCopsOneDonut #LawEnforcement #PoliceTraining #PoliceAccountability

Transcript

The Gray Area Behind Force

SPEAKER_00 0:00

People hear the title, Why Untrained Cops Use More Force, and They're Probably Already Mad. Some of my fellow cops are gonna hear this and think that I'm attacking police. And some civilians are gonna hear that and think I'm making excuses for excessive force. I'm not doing either. This is the gray area. And the uncomfortable truth is this: a lot of bad force is not just a policy problem. It's also not just an attitude problem or an accountability problem. Sometimes officers use more force because they don't have the training, the confidence, or the physical control skills to use less force. And that should bother everyone. Cops should care because it puts us at risk. Citizens should care because it puts them at risk. Departments should care because it creates lawsuits, injuries, it creates bad outcomes, it can destroy public trust. A badge and a gun does not make you prepared for violence. Training does. And if you choose a profession where physical conflict is almost guaranteed sometime in your career, you have a responsibility to prepare for that. This is not just a job, it's a profession. Doctors don't start preparing when they walk into their first surgery. Lawyers don't start preparing when they walk into their first trial. So why do some officers act like their physical preparation starts and ends with a short academy and some defensive tactics blocking?

Train Better To Panic Less

SPEAKER_00 1:10

We cannot claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard only when it sounds noble. The higher standard also applies to preparation. I get it, it sounds crazy to say if you want cops to use less force, train them to fight better. That sounds insane on the surface. But what I'm really saying is not train cops how to hurt people better. What I'm saying is teach cops how to physically control people without panicking. There's a major difference between violence and control. Good grappling is not about beating someone up, it's about base, balance, position, pressure, staying calm while somebody is actively fighting against you. And all that matters. Because an officer that knows how to control a resisting person has options. And when options run out, force goes up, and that's the entire point. A properly trained officer may be legally justified to use a higher use of force. But because they are confident, calm, and technically proficient, they may be able to use a lower level of force instead. And that is what people miss. Training does not just teach officers how to fight. Training gives officers more choice before the fight gets worse. And to be clear, grappling should not make officers more eager to go hands-on. That's not the point. The point is when going hands-on becomes necessary that the officer has more confidence, more control, more options before it turns into a panic use of force. This is why grappling can become a force reducer. It's not because it makes cops tougher, it's because it makes them panic less.

How Hesitation Triggers Escalation

SPEAKER_00 2:32

Here's the chain I think both cops and civilians need to understand. Under training creates a lack of confidence. A lack of confidence creates hesitation. Hesitation causes situations to drag out. The longer a physical struggle drags out, the more dangerous it becomes. The more dangerous it becomes, the more likely officers are to escalate force. That is how situations that might have been controlled earlier in the encounter turn into tasers, pepper spray, batons, or even deadly force situations. Sometimes people only look at that final moment and only judge that final use of force. But the problem started way earlier. It started earlier when the officer didn't have the skill to confidently control the situation when it was smaller. People think that excessive force always comes from an officer being too aggressive. Sometimes it does. But sometimes excessive force comes from officers being undertrained, unconfident, hesitant up until the situation gets worse. Hesitation can sometimes feel safer in the moment, but hesitation can make situations more dangerous. Now, that doesn't mean that the officer should rush in recklessly. It doesn't mean that they should go hands-on over everything, and it for sure does not mean speed matters more than judgment. What it means is this: when it is time to act, skill creates decisiveness, and decisiveness can prevent chaos. A trained officer does not have to jump immediately to panic force. They can breathe, they can recognize bad position, they can survive a bad moment, they can control the hands, wrists, feet, hips, they can wait for backup, they can slow the person down, they can make decisions

Ego, Fear, And The Tool Belt

SPEAKER_00 4:00

from a calmer place. I'm not talking about ego confidence. I'm talking about skill confidence. Ego confidence says, I'm the cop, so I'm going to win. Skill confidence says, I've been here before, I know what this feels like, I can stay calm. That difference matters, and skill confidence keeps ego from taking over. Now, when officers don't trust their hands, they start reaching into their Batman belt. And look, tools matter. Taser, OC, pepper spray batons, they all have their place. Even firearms, but nobody serious is saying that officers should not have tools. But your gun belt should support your training, not replace it. The problem is when the belt becomes the plan. And when an officer cannot control someone physically, every moment of resistance feels bigger. Every bad position feels like disaster. Every hand movement feels like panic. Every second feels like losing. And when an officer feels like they're losing control, the risk of emotional decision making goes way up. That is where fear, ego, embarrassment, and anger start to drive the interaction. And I'll be honest, used to force decisions made from an emotional state rarely look good. When skill is low, ego gets loud. And we've all seen those videos where officers start calm, the person does not comply, the officer starts to get frustrated, the voice changes, the commands get louder, it starts to get way more physical, the officer can't control the person, now the tools start coming out. Now the whole thing starts to look awful, and perception these days matters. And the public's asking in earnest why did we use so much force? And sometimes the honest answer is because we

Duty, Training, And The Constitution

SPEAKER_00 5:30

did not have the skills to use less. That's not an excuse. That's an indictment. This is a professional failure. Some of that failure belongs to the departments, and some of it belongs to the individual officers. Departments absolutely need to train more, but citizens, you need to fund it. Agencies, you need to stop pretending that a 40-hour training once a year or a few hours of outdated control tactics is sufficient and proficient for officers these days. But, officers, I'm looking right at you, you can't hide behind bad department training forever. If you knew getting into this that your profession was going to have you physically have to control somebody at some point, and you know your department's not giving you enough training, at some point you have to take ownership of your own preparation. Why would you risk your life like that? Why would you risk your coworkers' life? Why would you risk the citizens like that? And why would you risk your family's future like that? And honestly, why would you risk your oath like that? Because at the heart of police work, it has to come back to the Constitution. We don't swear an oath to our ego or to the badge. We sure as hell don't swear an oath to our department policy manual. We swear an oath to the Constitution. And if you're going to use force under the authority of the government, then you owe it to that oath to be prepared. Prepared physically, mentally, emotionally. Because every time we put hands on somebody, detain them, arrest them, or use force, we are exercising government power over a human being. That should never be casual. That should never be lazy. That is something that we should never treat like, oh, well, I hope the Academy gave me enough training. If we're going to be serious about the Constitution, then we need to be serious about the skills that prevent unnecessary uses of force. Because constitutional policing is not just about knowing case law. It's about having control, discipline, restraint

What Controlled Force Really Looks Like

SPEAKER_00 7:15

to avoid violating somebody's rights even when it gets physical. Now here's the citizen side, and citizens are not wrong to expect better. If the government gives legal authority for someone to put hands on you, detain you, arrest you, or use force, the public is not wrong to expect that person to be competent in it. If you're wearing a badge and carrying a gun and exercising state authority, the public should expect professionalism, restraint, and control. And the citizens are absolutely right to expect constitutional policing. That is not anti-police, that's the standard. When police use force, they're not acting as a private citizen. They're acting under government authority. So the public has every right to expect that use of force to be lawful, reasonable, controlled, and constitutional. But citizens also need to understand something. Controlled force does not always look gentle. It can look rough. Risk control, pressure, body weight, pins, takedowns, they can all look rough on video. But there's a difference between controlled force and panic force. The goal is not force that looks pretty, although sometimes an added bonus when it does. The goal is force that's lawful, reasonable, controlled, and less likely to turn catastrophic. And here is the gray area. The public often expects black belt level control to officers that have only been given white belt level training. That is the contradiction. People want officers to use less force, fewer shootings, fewer bad dogpiles, fewer panic taser deployments, fewer bad takedowns, and fewer injuries. I agree. But then we have to train those officers in the skills

Funding, Time, And A Real Standard

SPEAKER_00 8:45

to make those outcomes possible. You cannot demand professional control and then refuse to invest in the skill set that creates that professional control. You cannot demand constitutional outcomes while ignoring the training gap that creates unconstitutional looking force. The oath matters, the constitution matters, but honoring it under stress requires more than words. It requires preparation. And yes, there are real challenges. Training costs money, training takes time, departments are short-staffed, officers get injured, older officers may need modified training. You cannot take somebody that's 48 years old, beat up, been on the department 20 years, throw them into some hard sparring, and expect them to spring back like a 22-year-old fresh recruit. You just can't do that. It's not smart, that's how people get hurt, but this is also why it needs to start early. We need to build this into the profession from the beginning. Make it progressive, consistent, realistic. And I'm not saying every cop needs to be a black belt. That is unrealistic. I mean, hell, a Brazilian black belt takes anywhere from 8 to 16 years, just depending on your athleticism and your dedication to it. But a basic blue belt level of control, I think that's a reasonable conversation to start having. A blue belt doesn't mean you're a world champion, unless you've been sandbagging. It usually means you spend enough time under pressure to stop panicking the second things get physical. You understand bad positions, leverage, and control. You understand every struggle doesn't mean you're about to die. That matters in policing because restraint is not just a moral decision. Sometimes restraint is a physical skill. And if we want officers to use less force, then we need to train them in

Shared Accountability And Two Big Questions

SPEAKER_00 10:20

skills that make less force possible. So the answer is not grappling fixes policing. Grappling does not fix bad judgment, bad policy, ego, racism, poor supervision, poor hiring, or every bad cop. But it does give good cops better options. It gives officers confidence without ego, control without panic, decisiveness without recklessness, and it gives restraint that is actually backed by skill. This is where everyone has accountability. Departments need to train more and cities need to fund better training. Officers need to take personal responsibility for their own preparation. And citizens need to understand that the kind of restraint that they want requires time, money, consistency, and skill. If the public wants less excessive force, and I think most of us do, then we cannot just demand better outcomes. We have to demand better preparation. So I'm curious, what do you think? Should officers be expected to have real grappling experience before they are entrusted to use force on behalf of the government? And if we expect officers to use less force, should departments train them in skills that make less force possible? This is the gray area. You're watching DTV, the donut.