Editorial: Police Commission’s approval of a ‘de-escalation’ policy at the LAPD could save lives

Boiled down to its essence, the question before the Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday was this: Is it merely a nice idea for a police officer to try to defuse a tense situation before applying potentially deadly force, or is it part of the job?

The commission’s answer was similarly straightforward, and correct: It’s part of the job. That means that when they evaluate police use of force in the future, the LAPD and the commission will consider not only whether the use of force was justified, but whether the officer properly attempted to de-escalate conflict and avoid violence.

The police union’s many arguments against the new policy all contain at least a grain of truth. Most civilians have no notion what it’s like to confront a suspect who may be crazed, ill, drugged, angry or otherwise dangerous, and to engage in those confrontations not just once, but routinely, day in and day out. Nor can most non-cops generally appreciate what it’s like to have their actions subject to question in citizen complaints, internal affairs investigations and lawsuits, even if they have no merit.

But again, that’s part of the job, and always has been. In fact, this “new” policy isn’t even new; it’s a return to former and long-standing LAPD policy that was changed beginning in 2009 in an effort to improve the city’s position in lawsuits. Nor is it even much of a change in policy, but rather a restatement of what officers are taught in training: The use of force should be the last resort after an officer exhausts all other viable options, and should be used only to prevent loss of life or great bodily injury.

Nor is it even yet a policy, but rather the framework of a policy. The policy itself will be hammered out, as it should be, with the input of police officers and their union. Without any details, it is very difficult to credit the union’s most serious assertion — that the new-old policy will cause officers to doubt themselves in dangerous situations requiring split-second decisions and make themselves more likely to be killed.

And yet the commission’s decision is extremely important. Officer actions that fall short of the standards set in training should be found to be “out of policy,” even if such findings may lead to big payouts of public money to plaintiffs who sue the LAPD. Protecting the public purse is a worthy goal, but there are things that take even greater precedence, such as making it abundantly clear to all — officers and the public alike — that the policy of the Police Department is first to protect life with all the skill, training and judgment that a first-rate professional law enforcement agency can muster.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook