In every viral video of a police encounter gone wrong, the focus is almost always on the officer’s actions. Commentators argue over whether a punch was justified, whether a Taser was excessive, or whether deadly force was necessary. But one crucial detail rarely gets the same scrutiny: the suspect’s decision to escalate the encounter in the first place.

The current public debate about police use of force too often assumes a one-sided responsibility. Officers are told to de-escalate at all costs. They are trained to manage chaos without harming the chaotic. But what happens when a suspect refuses lawful commands? When they resist, fight, or flee? The reality is, many of these incidents—and the lawsuits that follow—could be avoided entirely if cooperation were treated as non-negotiable.

A Broken Incentive System

From an economic perspective, the status quo is deeply flawed. Cities across the U.S. spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year settling lawsuits stemming from police use of force. New York City paid out more than $530 million in five years on police misconduct claims, much of it on settlements rather than judgments. Los Angeles spent nearly $81 million in 2022 alone.

This isn’t just a budget issue—it’s an incentive issue. When individuals know there’s a chance they could turn a violent, non-compliant encounter into a civil rights lawsuit, it creates a perverse feedback loop:

• The suspect refuses to comply.
• The situation escalates.
• Force is used to regain control.
• The suspect sues, claiming excessive force—even though their own actions triggered the chain of events.
• Cities settle to avoid lengthy, expensive litigation.

In some cases, the optics of the encounter—a shaky cell phone video or a controversial narrative—outweigh the facts. Even if the officer acted within policy, political pressure and legal costs often push cities to settle.

This cycle sends a dangerous message: escalate, survive, sue.

The Hidden Costs to Society

Taxpayers are paying twice for this dysfunction. First, they’re funding police departments tasked with maintaining public order. Second, they’re footing the bill for lawsuits born from suspects’ non-cooperation. That’s money that could be spent on training, community programs, infrastructure, or reducing crime itself. Instead, it goes to payouts—sometimes to individuals who created the risk by refusing to follow lawful orders.

Beyond the financial waste, there’s the human cost. Officers suffer injuries, careers are destroyed by viral misinterpretations, and communities grow more polarized. Meanwhile, truly egregious cases of police misconduct get drowned out in a sea of questionable claims.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

A Common-Sense Reform

There’s a simple fix: tie the right to sue for excessive force to a person’s behavior during the encounter. If a suspect refused lawful commands without legal justification, and that refusal led directly to the use of force, they should forfeit the ability to recover damages.

This doesn’t mean eliminating accountability. Officers would still be prosecuted for clear misconduct. True victims—those complying with police orders who are still harmed—would retain their right to sue. But it would end the absurdity of rewarding individuals who actively created the danger.

As one version of this reform, lawmakers could codify a “cooperation prerequisite” for civil actions against police. Similar to contributory negligence in tort law, a suspect’s own illegal actions would bar or reduce recovery.

Changing the Conversation

Critics might argue this policy shifts too much power to law enforcement. But consider the alternative: placing the full burden for a safe encounter on the officer, while treating the suspect’s decisions as irrelevant. That’s not just unfair—it’s untenable.

If society truly wants fewer violent encounters, the first step is simple: teach, expect, and enforce cooperation. Cooperation doesn’t mean surrendering your rights; it means resolving disputes in court instead of on the street. The justice system is designed for grievances. The sidewalk is not.

The Bottom Line

Every year, cities pour millions of taxpayer dollars into settlements for incidents that began with non-cooperation. This isn’t just bad policy; it’s bad economics. By redefining the rules and making cooperation the expectation—not an option—we can protect officers, suspects, and the public purse.

At the end of the day, one fact remains unassailable: had the suspect complied, the use of force—and the lawsuit—likely never would have happened.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #LawAndOrder #PublicSafety #TaxpayerAccountability

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!