Why has the Ask, Tell, Make approach been reassessed?

Why has the Ask, Tell, Make approach been reassessed?

• A. Telling officers to walk away from or ignore danger
• B. Use of force is not always a linear process
• C. Trying to put officers in an unwinnable situation
• D. Telling officers they can't use force - including lethal force - when appropriate

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is that use-of-force decisions in the field don’t follow a strict, step-by-step path. In real-life encounters, conditions change in real time—threats evolve, distances close or open, a subject’s behavior shifts, and factors like safety and available options rapidly influence what actions are necessary. Because of that, the Ask, Tell, Make approach isn’t meant to be a rigid sequence you must complete in order; it’s a flexible framework that supports adaptive decision-making. Officers may use verbal commands, or repeat them, or skip to the next action if the situation demands immediate intervention. This non-linear reality is why the approach was reassessed: it emphasizes how to respond effectively and safely as conditions change, rather than insisting on a fixed progression. Telling officers to walk away from danger would undermine safety, and saying they can’t use force when appropriate isn’t the point of the reassessment. The idea isn’t to place officers in unwinnable situations or to deny necessary force; it’s about recognizing that force decisions are dynamic and require adaptability.

The idea being tested is that use-of-force decisions in the field don’t follow a strict, step-by-step path. In real-life encounters, conditions change in real time—threats evolve, distances close or open, a subject’s behavior shifts, and factors like safety and available options rapidly influence what actions are necessary. Because of that, the Ask, Tell, Make approach isn’t meant to be a rigid sequence you must complete in order; it’s a flexible framework that supports adaptive decision-making. Officers may use verbal commands, or repeat them, or skip to the next action if the situation demands immediate intervention. This non-linear reality is why the approach was reassessed: it emphasizes how to respond effectively and safely as conditions change, rather than insisting on a fixed progression.

Telling officers to walk away from danger would undermine safety, and saying they can’t use force when appropriate isn’t the point of the reassessment. The idea isn’t to place officers in unwinnable situations or to deny necessary force; it’s about recognizing that force decisions are dynamic and require adaptability.