When can an officer use force during an arrest? Understanding resisting arrest and proportional force.

Let’s talk about a core question that often comes up in training and real life: when can a law enforcement officer use force during an arrest? The short answer, as many Missouri and Kansas City policies point out, is: only when the suspect resists arrest. It sounds blunt, but there’s a lot of careful thinking behind that rule. Let me explain how it works in practice, why it matters, and how it keeps everyone safer—including the person being arrested, the officer, and the public.

What this rule really means in everyday life

Imagine you’re walking down a busy street in Kansas City, and a scene unfolds: an officer asks a person to stop and put their hands where they can be seen. If the person complies calmly, the officer proceeds with the arrest using verbal commands and routine steps. If the person resists—pulls away, twists, or struggles to break free—the officer may need to use force to gain control and bring the situation to a safe conclusion.

That “only when resisting” principle isn’t about picking a fight or showing off some fancy moves. It’s about proportion and purpose. The force used should match the level of resistance and be the minimum necessary to achieve compliance. If the person isn’t resisting, adding force would be inappropriate and could expose everyone to unnecessary harm or civil rights concerns. Think of it like a toolkit: you pull out a stronger tool only when the problem demands it.

The two big ideas behind the rule: safety and rights

Two threads run through this idea, and they’re both important for anyone studying or working in security in Missouri.

• Proportionality and necessity: The idea is simple on the surface and tricky in practice. If someone is standing still, talking, and following commands, there’s usually no need for force. If the person actively resists, a proportional response helps the officer prevent injury and stop the threat from escalating. The key word here is proportional—no more than what the moment requires.

• De-escalation first, force second: Before any touch is made, officers are trained to use verbal commands, calm tone, and de-escalation techniques. The goal is to gain voluntary compliance. Force becomes a last resort, used only after attempts to communicate and to reduce risk have failed.

What counts as resisting?

Resisting isn’t just “being mouthy.” It’s any act that makes it harder to apply the arrest or to restrain the person safely. Examples include pulling away, twisting limbs, shoving the officer, or attempting to flee. Noncompliance—such as refusing to stop at a command or not showing hands—may require repeated commands and further de-escalation, but it isn’t automatically a green light for force. When resistance occurs, the force used must be measured, reasonable, and tied to the action that the officer is trying to counter.

Important nuance: right vs risk

The moment an officer feels threatened by an ongoing risk, there’s a natural tension: how to protect themselves and others without overreacting. In Kansas City and throughout Missouri, officers are trained to assess risk continuously. If a suspect’s actions create an imminent threat—think capacity to harm the officer or bystanders—the response may be justified at a higher level. The critical distinction, though, is that the trigger for force is the act of resisting arrest, not fear alone. Fear is a human reaction; resistance is a behavior that can be observed and measured.

Verbal commands, de-escalation, and the path to control

Here’s a practical snapshot of how the process tends to play out in the field:

• Step 1: Clear commands. The officer gives several clear, concise instructions. The goal is to inform, not to confuse.

• Step 2: De-escalation. The officer uses a calm demeanor, reduces the pace of commands, and looks for cooperative cues. This is the bridge between words and action.

• Step 3: Assess resistance. If the suspect complies, the officer continues the arrest. If resistance appears, the level of force may rise.

• Step 4: Proportional response. Any physical intervention is calibrated to the resistance. The aim is to gain control with the least force necessary.

• Step 5: Aftercare and accountability. The moment the person is secured, the officer documents the encounter, and supervisors review the use of force to ensure it stayed within policy.

A note on what this looks like in Kansas City

Local policies emphasize that force must be necessary and proportional. Officers are encouraged to seek voluntary compliance first and to step back to de-escalation if the situation allows. In practice, this means training that stresses communication—speaking in plain language, avoiding confrontational postures, and recognizing when a situation is evolving into something more dangerous. Body cameras and post-incident reviews are part of the accountability layer, helping ensure that force is used appropriately and that rights are respected.

Common myths—and why they matter

You’ll hear a mix of ideas in the field. A few myths are worth debunking:

• Myth: An officer can use force any time they feel scared. Reality: Fear is not a license to harm. Force must be tied to actual resistance and risk, not to fear alone.

• Myth: If someone moves suddenly, it’s resistance. Reality: Sudden movements can be dangerous, but they’re not automatically resistance. The officer must interpret the context, communicate, and use force only if necessary to counter a threat.

• Myth: Noncompliance equals the same as resisting. Reality: Noncompliance—like ignoring a request—doesn’t automatically justify force. If there’s no active resistance, de-escalation and compliance remain the path.

Real-world scenarios (kept simple, not sensational)

Let’s ground this with a few straightforward, non-graphic examples:

• Scenario A: A person stops and puts their hands in the air when asked. No force needed beyond the initial approach. The arrest proceeds with verbal commands and standard procedures.

• Scenario B: The same person starts pulling away as the handcuffs are attempted. The officer may need to use a hand-control technique or a hold to prevent escape, carefully matched to the resistance.

• Scenario C: The person remains noncompliant but does not pose an immediate threat. The officer continues to communicate and might call for backup, using the minimum force necessary if the resistance intensifies.

Why this topic matters for aspiring security professionals

If you’re in Kansas City or anywhere nearby, understanding this rule helps shape a professional mindset. It’s not just about knowing what’s allowed; it’s about thinking through safety, ethics, and civil rights every step of the way. A security professional who grasps why force is limited to resisting arrests tends to behave more responsibly, document clearly, and recognize the weight of responsibility on their shoulders.

Practical takeaways you can carry into daily work or study

• Remember the sequence: commands, de-escalation, assess resistance, respond with proportional force, then accountability.

• Treat “resisting arrest” as the trigger for force, not fear or uncertain risk.

• Communicate clearly and humanely. Simple language, steady tempo, and calm eyes can de-escalate before force is needed.

• Document everything. Details matter—what was said, what actions occurred, and how the response matched the resistance.

• Respect rights as a core pillar. Safety and rights aren’t opposites; they travel in tandem.

A little reassurance about the big picture

Policing, security, and the law aren’t about perfect outcomes every time. They’re about consistent principles that protect people. The rule “use force only when the suspect resists” isn’t meant to be a trap; it’s a guardrail. It helps ensure force is used only when necessary, lawful, and accountable. And that, in the end, serves the community best.

If you’ve ever wondered how these rules translate from the courtroom to the street, you’re not alone. The bridge between theory and practice is built on training, reflection, and ongoing dialogue about what keeps people safe while honoring their rights. In Kansas City, that balance is part of a larger conversation about public safety, neighborhood trust, and the everyday courage it takes to enforce the law with fairness.

Quick recap, in plain terms

• The main rule: Force during an arrest is permissible primarily when the suspect resists.

• The why: Proportionality and safety, with a strong emphasis on de-escalation first.

• The how: Start with clear commands, use non-force tools if possible, escalate only to match resistance, then secure and document.

• The big picture: Respect for rights, accountability, and a measured, thoughtful approach to every arrest.

If you’re exploring this topic in Kansas City, Missouri, you’re stepping into a field where action meets consequence, and where clear thinking can make all the difference. The idea that force is a last resort, reserved for resisting arrests, isn’t just a rule on a page—it's a lens through which daily decisions are weighed, communicated, and reviewed. And that makes all the difference when the clock is ticking and the street is crowded.

End note: a gentle nudge toward practical learning

For anyone working toward a career in security or law enforcement in Missouri, keep these questions handy as you observe or study:

• What counts as resisting in a given moment?

• What verbal commands can I use to maximize compliance?

• How would I document the incident so it’s clear, accurate, and fair?

Those are the kinds of questions that turn an understanding of a rule into reliable, ethical action—the kind of action that earns trust and keeps people safer, every day.