Bullets and Brains

Let’s face it: the bullet, as a regrettable last resort in policing, is unlikely to disappear entirely.

However, reducing the need for lethal force does not begin with new weapons, less lethal or otherwise, important as they may be. It begins with something more fundamental: our officers and the information we give them.

It starts with officers who are carefully selected and trained for empathy, composure under pressure, and the ability to de-escalate with clarity and skill. It continues with cultivating a team culture that prizes professionalism, compassion, and emotional intelligence.

And it depends on equipping those officers with timely, relevant information, before they have to ask for it, so they can assess, decide, and act with precision in the moment.

This is where technology becomes transformative – not by replacing human judgment, but by reinforcing it. The best systems amplify situational awareness, streamline decision-making, and help ensure that responses are appropriate and proportional.

This natural order – people first, information second, force only when necessary – is the foundation of ethical, modern policing.

First, good people.

Officers of strong character, chosen not just for tactical skills or physical presence, but for their empathy, discernment, and emotional steadiness. Officers who serve from a place of integrity, not authority, who understand that real power is earned through trust, not fear.

Even the best officers are limited without context. Access to real-time data – on individuals, vehicles, environments, and risks -enables them to respond wisely and with restraint. When that information arrives proactively, quietly, and accurately, it empowers decisions that de-escalate rather than provoke.

Yet even in some of the world’s wealthiest and most technologically advanced countries, officers are still deployed without direct access to such tools. This is not a technical gap – it is an institutional failure. It violates the basic principles of ethical leadership and good employability.

• From a safety standpoint, withholding relevant information exposes officers to unnecessary risk. In the absence of key data – warrants, violent history, stolen vehicle status – they are forced to rely on instinct alone, increasing the chance of escalation, error, and harm.
• From a decision-making perspective, depriving officers of context leads to poor outcomes. Without clarity on who they’re engaging, they may act too aggressively – or not decisively enough.
• From an employer’s duty-of-care perspective, this is a breach of responsibility. Leaders are obligated to equip their personnel with the tools necessary for safe, professional conduct. Anything less shows disregard for officer safety and their mission’s legitimacy.
• From a community standpoint, it is a failure of respect. A well-informed officer is more capable of showing discretion, fairness, and restraint. Denying that capacity erodes public trust, especially in communities that feel already fatigued by over-policing and misjudgment.

When the technology exists – and the means to implement it are readily available, failing to act is no longer a neutral oversight. It is a conscious choice. And it is indefensible.

In policing, information is not a luxury. It is the minimum standard.

Finally, and only then: force.

The use of force – especially lethal force – must be rare, deliberate, and grounded in informed necessity. It should be supported by extensive training, oversight, and a full spectrum of non-lethal alternatives. When used, it must be a last resort, not a default position born from ignorance or lack of support.

This is the order that honours both the badge and the people it protects:

Good people. Informed decisions. Measured force.

Modern technology has a vital role, not as a substitute for wisdom, but as a support system for it. The best tools don’t just connect systems; they reduce friction, support discretion, and protect everyone involved – officer and civilian alike. These tools are not designed for those who lead through confrontation. They are for the modern peace officer: disciplined, community-rooted professionals who bring calm, insight, and purpose into every interaction.

E D