[NOTE: For more than a decade, I’ve argued on this blog that relying on the Supreme Court’s 1989 Graham v. Connor standard of “objective reasonableness” sets a dangerously low floor for police use of force—one that treats fear as a legal defense rather than requiring officers to exhaust every alternative. Over the years, more than 40 European nations have proven that a far higher standard—absolute necessity and mandatory de-escalation—saves lives without making policing more dangerous. Today, as cities wrestle with these issues of race and deadly force once again, I want to ask for your feedback: How do we practically organize to raise the standard of deadly force in our own cities? Read the overview below, and if you’d like to dive deeper into the historical data, legal framework, and full citations, send me an email at davidccouper@gmail.com, and I will gladly send you a draft of my 2,500-word White Paper on this matter.]
__________________________________________________
The Power You Already Own
Whenever a fatal police shooting shakes a community, the cycle is painfully predictable: outrage, protests, investigations, and eventual calls for legislative change. But two landmark national reports—the 1967 Katzenbach Commission and the 2015 Task Force on 21st Century Policing—reached the exact same conclusion: statutory laws set the lowest legal baseline, not the standard for excellence.
Real accountability doesn’t require waiting for state or federal laws to change. It happens right here through administrative rule-making—internal policies set by local leadership.
Many Madisonians are unaware of the power our community already holds:
- The Mayor leads the department: Under most state laws, a police chief must follow the lawful orders of the mayor.
- The Chief works within limits but can issue administrative rules for the operations of the department.
- You can act today: City leadership can enact stricter use-of-force policies immediately.
Madison has done this before. In the early 1970s, Wisconsin law permitted police to shoot any fleeing felon, including non-violent property suspects. Recognizing that “lawful was awful,” Madison police enacted strict internal rules limiting deadly force strictly to immediate threats. Over a decade later, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted that exact standard nationwide in Tennessee v. Garner.
Proven History
Systemic change isn’t theoretical; Madison proved it works.
When Madison shifted toward Community-Oriented Policing—emphasizing de-escalation, guardian-style service, internal democracy, and high-trust community engagement—critics claimed soft tactics would endanger officers.
The results proved the opposite:
- Officer safety improved.
- Community trust skyrocketed.
- Police-involved fatalities plummeted: Only one person was killed by police action in Madison over a 21-year period (1972–1993).
When police treat the public as partners rather than adversaries, safety improves for everyone.
A System Problem, Not an Officer Problem
The tragic recent death of Corey Ruiz in Madison is the latest reminder of a system in crisis. Nine city residents have been shot by Madison police since the 1990s. While officers were legally cleared under the low Supreme Court baseline (Graham v. Connor’s” objective reasonableness”), taxpayers paid nearly $10 million in civil settlements.
Focusing on “bad apples” misses the point. The problem is not that we have a few rogue cops; it is a work design and tactical culture system that predictably lead to lethal outcomes.
Applying Continuous Quality Improvement means redesigning the process:
- Track patterns: Aggregate data on every force incident and near-miss to catch tactical risks early.
- Review video like flight recorders: Use body-camera footage to fix systemic tactical flaws before someone dies.
- Conduct Sentinel Event Reviews: Analyze critical incidents from dispatch to outcome to address root causes like exhaustion or poor tactical positioning.
The Legal Floor vs. The European Standard
American police are trained under Graham v. Connor, which asks only if force was “objectively reasonable” to a fearful officer in a split second. Fear becomes the legal justification.
Across Europe, police operate under a far higher bar: Absolute Necessity. Derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, force is allowed only when no other option exists. Courts evaluate the entire tactical approach, not just the final moment a trigger is pulled.
The numbers speak for themselves:
| Country | Fatal Police Shootings (per million residents/year) |
| United States | ≈ 3.3 |
| France | ≈ 0.4 |
| Germany | ≈ 0.15 |
| England & Wales | < 0.03 |
| Norway, Finland, Iceland | Multiple years: 0 |
Even in an armed society, requiring distance, cover, and tactical patience saves lives.
Protecting Police Officers
A common concern is: Doesn’t restricting force put officers in danger?
Science and operational data show the exact opposite. Raising the standard protects officers in two vital ways:
- Preventing Moral Injury: Taking a human life inflicts severe psychological trauma. Beyond standard PTSD, officers frequently suffer moral injury—deep distress caused by actions that violate their core moral baseline—leading to depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Mandatory de-escalation prevents the split-second crises that cause this trauma.
- Community Trust as Armor: Officers operating under high-trust, procedurally fair systems face far less hostility on the street. High public legitimacy creates safer working conditions for beat officers.
Three Steps Forward
We don’t lack capacity; we lack political will. Madison can lead again by taking three concrete steps:
- Adopt “Absolute Necessity” via Administrative Policy: Make the sanctity of human life the explicit center of internal department rules.
- Mandate Tactical Patience: Require distance, cover, and disengagement when facing ambiguous or non-firearm threats.
- Practice Procedural Justice: Ensure every citizen encounter is grounded in dignity, neutrality, and respect.
Improving Police: A Necessary Conversation 