Active digitalisation, the advancement of AI and recent geopolitical dynamics in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have intensified the issue of crime-related hybrid threats and the appropriate legal responses [1; 9; 12].

EU states are increasingly facing forms of criminality that are taking on hybrid patterns: from the smuggling of conscripts and weapons triggered by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, to interference in domestic political and economic processes through disinformation campaigns and illicit financial flows. The escalation of hybrid threats serves as a catalyst for legal transformation within the EU, given the public demand for security (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Seventh Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Security Union Strategy and Annex, COM (2024)). However, the imperative of security, which requires flexibility and rapid adaptation, often conflicts with the law, traditionally focused on stability, consistency and proceduralism.

In response to the growing threats, states continually seek a balance between repressive and preventive countermeasures commensurate with the danger dimension. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable lag in social and legal control over organised crime, particularly considering its trends of transnationalisation. Governments are constrained by regulatory, linguistic, and jurisdictional barriers, the temporality of law, and diplomatic procedures. Criminals, as a rule, do not face such obstacles and actively exploit legal gaps. Under these circumstances, states tend to use security instruments that deviate from the classical approaches to counteraction based on principles of the rule of law more often.

The prioritisation of security facilitates the emergence of the “rule of security”, which can be defined as a legal paradigm in which security becomes the primary normative axis, displacing or marginalising traditional rule of law principles, particularly in response to non-traditional (hybrid) criminal threats. The “rule of security” gives rise to the ambivalence of security: as a legal category, security can both guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens and restrict them under the pretext of ensuring public order, safeguarding national security or protecting state interests. The issue reflects a broader trend of securitisation in law, which, without critical reflection, risks undermining the foundation of legal legitimacy of crime counteraction.

The phenomenon of securitisation has received considerable attention in political and social sciences [3; 13; 14; 15], including reasonable criticism [2; 11], however, its legal implications in the field of crime prevention remain insufficiently explored.

The concept of the “rule of security” has not yet been systematically doctrinally elaborated in legal studies, although practices in the criminal justice sphere aligned with it are becoming increasingly common.

In particular, numerous contemporary regulatory changes are driven by the implementation of advanced technical security measures. Modern artificial intelligence systems, capable of analysing vast amounts of data, enable the prediction of crime probability in specific regions or based on particular characteristics. Consequently, the paradigm of crime control is shifting: law enforcement is increasingly taking on the nature of predictive control, which in turn raises concerns about a potential erosion of the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, international and regional standards, such as the UNTOC and the ECHR, coexist with national regulatory systems that may differ significantly in their strategies for balancing security and fundamental rights. In some jurisdictions, the boundaries between law, legal exceptions and arbitrariness are becoming increasingly blurred in the context of tackling serious crime.

Furthermore, there is a growing asymmetry in adherence to the rule of law and the effectiveness of security measures across different legal regimes, indicating the transition of emergent regimes to a state of regularity by the institutionalisation of emergency powers. The national margin of appreciation permitted under Article 15 of the ECHR (derogation in time of emergency) should be carefully monitored and framed to avoid abuse of the “rule of security”.

Among others, three areas (though not exclusively) should be highlighted, which illustrate the tension between the need to ensure security and the need to uphold the rule of law.

Firstly, given the digital transformation of organised crime [6; 7] and associated hybrid threats (the use of the dark web for trafficking in drugs, weapons and human organs, the use of crypto-platforms to evade economic sanctions, etc.), a shift in the battlefield towards the cyber space is observed. An increase in security pressure in the cyber domain is anticipated, posing risks to confidentiality, privacy and the protection of personal data.

Secondly, in the geopolitical dimension, there is a growing use of organised crime by certain states to achieve foreign and domestic policy objectives (North Korea, Iran, Russia) or for broader ideological objectives such as international terrorism.  State-organised crime [5] creates a peculiar conflict of interest or paradox, where the very institutions tasked with implementing international standards to combat organised crime are themselves part of the problem. Some studies point to a link between authoritarian processes and the growing risk of the abuse of international legal assistance institutions to persecute political opponents [10]. In effect, this constitutes a non-violent undermining of the rule of law from within.

Thirdly, legal measures to combat organised crime in conflict and post-conflict environments are manifestations of crisis management. In conflict-affected jurisdictions, emergency regimes such as martial law are often introduced, significantly restricting constitutional rights and expanding the discretion of security forces. Legislation to combat crime is adopted ‘in the heat of the moment’ or retrospectively without proper legal scrutiny. In post-conflict contexts, organised crime is closely intertwined with political structures, corruption networks and the shadow economy, rendering them even more fragile. Instead of effective reconstruction and the expected rule of law, what occurs is the ‘criminalisation of peace’ [4]. Weakened institutions and high levels of corruption create a security vacuum. In response, risks of the ‘securitisation of peace’ are mounting.

Combating serious and organised crime has transcended the traditional scope of criminal justice, becoming a key issue for safeguarding democratic and legal values. In this regard, it is necessary to reevaluate the extent to which contemporary legal mechanisms for responding to organised crime comply with the requirements of the rule of law, to examine the challenges that the “rule of security” poses to democratic institutions, and to consider what the legal ecosystem of security should look like in response to crime-related hybrid threats.

These developments reflect the growing need for a new legal architecture capable of functioning in conditions of non-linear change and “unstable normality”.  They also address the need of a model of adaptive, hybrid threat-resilient legal system that relies on institutional flexibility and transparency, maintaining its democratic nature even under the pressure of exceptional circumstances.

References:

Arkan, Z. (2025). European security and hybrid threats: A narrative in the making. Springer International Publishing.

Balzacq, T. (2005). The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. European Journal of International Relations, 11, 2, 171-201.

Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.

Cockayne, J. (2013). Chasing shadows: Strategic responses to organised crime in conflict-affected situations (Oslo Forum Papers No. 2). Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue & United Nations University. https://www.hdcentre.org/publications/chasing-shadows/

Decoeur, H. (2018). The phenomenon of state organized crime. In Confronting the shadow state: An international law perspective on state organized crime (online ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198823933.003.0002

Di Nicola, A. (2022). Towards digital organized crime and digital sociology of organized crime. Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-022-09457-y

Europol. (2024). Internet organised crime threat assessment (IOCTA) 2024. Publications Office of the European Union.

Europol. (2025). European Union serious and organised crime threat assessment – The changing DNA of serious and organised crime. Publications Office of the European Union.

Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era (3rd ed.). Polity Press.

Meacham, S. (2022). Weaponizing the police: Interpol as a tool of authoritarianism. Harvard International Review. https://hir.harvard.edu/weaponizing-the-police-authoritarian-abuse-of-interpol/

McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 4, 563-587.

Racoveanu, C. (2024). Artificial intelligence – A double-edged sword. Organized crime’s AI vs law enforcement’s AI. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 18(1), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2024-0044

Sperling, J. & Webber, M. (2018). The European Union: Security Governance and Collective Securitization. West European Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1510193

Taureck, R. (2006). Securitization theory and securitization studies. European Journal of International Relations, 9(1), 53–61.

Wæver, O. (2007). Securitization and desecuritization. International Security, 3, 66–98.

Tetiana Melnychuk is an Associate Professor at the Department of Criminal Procedure, National University “Odesa Law Academy” (Ukraine), holding a PhD in Law. Her academic and research interests focus on criminal procedural law. She is currently a Visiting Researcher at the University of Osnabrück (Germany), where she pursues comparative legal research in the field of criminal justice.

The operation, which has now concluded, involved customs officers, federal police, and tax investigators working in concert, according to the Offenburg Federal Police. However, authorities have not yet disclosed key details about the raid’s outcomes, including whether any arrests were made, the number of properties searched, or what evidence was secured.

Geographic Scope of the Operation

The operation concentrated primarily on Baden-Württemberg, with searches conducted in:

• Cities: Baden-Baden, Böblingen, and Lörrach
• Districts: Ortenaukreis, Zollernalbkreis, and Enzkreis
• Additional searches were simultaneously carried out in Berlin.

Nature of the Investigation

The Baden-Baden public prosecutor’s office authorized the operation based on allegations that the suspects were involved in:

• Human smuggling of individuals from third countries
• Gang-related tax evasion
• Wage-related fraud

Next Steps

Authorities have indicated that additional information will be released on Friday. The investigation ties into broader concerns about organized crime in Germany, as highlighted in recent reports including the BKA situation report on organized crime’s economic impact and investigations into smuggling operations along the Balkan route.

Source and picture

Police in Germany will soon be allowed to shoot down drones that are violating German airspace. The cabinet agreed the law after disruptions to airports across Europe — including Germany — by rogue drones. The legislation still requires parliamentary approval.

Germany is facing a growing threat from unauthorized drones, after sightings near Munich Airport stranded thousands of passengers.

Officials suspect foreign interference, possibly from Russia.

The government is expanding federal police powers to intercept drones using jamming, GPS disruption, and even shootdowns.

But experts warn that defending thousands of critical sites 24/7 is unrealistic, highlighting gaps in Germany’s drone defense strategy.

© 2025 Deutsche Welle

Federal police organizations are taking new measures to counter this growing danger, Groetsch told Anadolu in an interview, expressing optimism for positive results.

“Right-wing extremism remains the greatest threat to peaceful coexistence and security in Germany”, he said.

“The German police stand firmly committed to protecting our democratic constitutional order and ensuring peaceful coexistence throughout the country. All people in Germany, regardless of their origin, can place their trust in our police”.

Groetsch, a former lawmaker for the Social Democratic Party (SPD), became Germany’s first federal police commissioner in 2024. He serves as an ombudsperson for federal police agencies, including the Federal Police (Bundespolizei) and the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt, or BKA).

He took office during an unprecedented rise in far-right incidents, with Germany recording 42,788 crimes last year, a 48% increase from 2023. Rights groups have criticized German authorities, accusing them of insufficient investigations and bias against migrants and refugees.

Groetsch emphasized that authorities are taking these concerns seriously, implementing new initiatives to address hate crimes, especially online abuse directed at minority communities.

“When we talk about issues like hate crime online, which largely comes from the far right and is directed against migrant communities, the BKA, for example, has positioned itself extremely well on this issue”, he said.

“The BKA has established a specialized, well-resourced division dedicated to this issue. But of course, this should also apply to police authorities throughout Germany, not just the central division of the BKA.”

Police must ‘treat everyone fairly and equally’

Groetsch highlighted that his office thoroughly reviews complaints, including those related to racial profiling and discriminatory conduct by individual officers. He acknowledged that German police organizations face a significant trust deficit among migrant communities, describing it as a serious issue requiring urgent attention.

“People who emigrate to Germany arrive with over 80% trust in police authorities, stating they can trust the German police. However, after experiencing perceived discrimination, this trust plummets to less than 20%”, he explained.

“This highlights the critical importance of ensuring police treat everyone fairly and equally, without discrimination, across Germany. We need to strengthen awareness through police training and continuing education, and ensure it actually happens. That is part of my mission,” he added.

Before becoming the federal police commissioner, Groetsch served as the SPD’s senior representative on the parliamentary committee investigating the German state’s failure to prevent the racially motivated murders by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Underground (NSU) terror group between 2000 and 2007.

For years, German police and intelligence wrongly ruled out racial motives, instead suspecting immigrant families of involvement in organized crime. The public only learned of the NSU’s existence in 2011, when two members died following a failed bank robbery and police discovered weapons and far-right literature in their apartment.

Groetsch, a former police officer himself, insisted authorities have learned significant lessons from past errors during the NSU investigation. He said current measures now emphasize combating discrimination and bias while actively recruiting officers with migrant backgrounds.

“This is also one of the 47 recommendations from the first parliamentary investigative committee on NSU murders,” he said. “The police and all security organizations must become more diverse. The personnel of the security authorities must reflect a society that has become more diverse than it was 50 years ago”.

He concluded that, ultimately, ensuring fairness and diversity in policing is central to preserving trust in law enforcement among all communities.

Source, text and photo

Violence may be a part of these routine operations: police officers, when necessary, use varying levels of force to constrain dangerous activities or people or to ensure the safety of community members. At times, other first responders or officers experience violence when attacks are directed against them. Defending oneself, repelling dangers from others, and enforcing measures against resistance are, therefore, everyday police tasks.

The use of reasonable force is legitimate, but always there is a delicate balance, as the two sides (violence against police officers and by police officers) seem to correlate with each other. Using less force can result in police officers being victimized.

Excessive force is a crime and turns the police officer into an offender. The responsible task of using force in the line of duty requires a lot from officers and can have severe consequences for individual officers as well as for the general population.

This is demonstrated by events such as those following the death of George Floyd in the United States, the debate following the fatal shooting of a 16-year-old in Germany in the summer of 2022, and the riots in France in 2023 after the killing of a 17-year-old by the police.

Ultimately, trust in the police also seems to depend on the delicate matter of the excessive use of force, which can then shape future interactions between the public and the police. 

Therefore, both for the prevention of police violence and as a means to reduce violence against emergency responders, effective de-escalation can be incredibly valuable.

Effectiveness of De-Escalation and De-Escalation Training

Numerous techniques exist to serve as de-escalation. However, when and whether these are successful has not been well examined. Nevertheless, police officers use these techniques every day. 

In most cases, community members are treated respectfully, police measures are transparently explained, and words are chosen to be easily understood.

Listening is also a widespread strategy in daily police work. While at one time, it may have been relatively rare to systematically attempt to calm down an agitated member of the public and show them empathy, these skills are becoming more frequently employed in modern policing.

Neglecting de-escalating techniques can lead to unnecessarily negative outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which techniques work (and in what circumstances they work). Similar uncertainties about effectiveness exist for de-escalation training. Sometimes, the effect of such trainings lies primarily in the realm of knowledge and changes in personal attitudes. Participants could remember the content well and were convinced and motivated to apply the learned skills, but many retained various behaviors and did not change their behavioral habits in some areas. This is why a part of the research on de-escalation found that de-escalation trainings did not make violent or aggressive events less frequent. On the other hand, de-escalation training did correlate to a significant decrease in the use of violence, as well as in the number of injured police officers and community members.

Potential Influence on De-Escalation

Techniques and tactics of de-escalation do not universally work, regardless of the situation and the individuals involved. They are not an algorithm that reliably resolves conflicts.

Instead, they are more of a heuristic. Their use and effectiveness can depend on various factors.

Some critics argue that police officers face increased danger when they choose to de-escalate rather than use force, fearing violence against police officers may rise. If one were to accept this view, de-escalatory behavior would be discouraged and any attempts at it would be hesitant.

However, evaluations and analyses of attacks on police officers tend to show the opposite outcome; instead, de-escalation promotes the safety of police officers. Police officers are authorized to use force in various forms, so they are trained in hands-on compliance techniques and in the use of tools and firearms.

However, de-escalation must be learned and practiced, too. The question arises as to the relationship between training for the use of force and training for the prevention of violence through de-escalation. Do they compete with each other, or do they not influence each other? If competition is assumed, then care must be taken to ensure that there is no significant imbalance, which would result in de-escalation being used less frequently in police practice than may seem possible. Research in both the United States and Europe shows that use of force takes up significantly more time and space in training than de-escalation.

De-escalation techniques are often listed as one item in a collection of different methods and tactics. Thus, de-escalation appears as an isolated action rather than a process. However, this does not correspond to the interaction process in which de-escalation may be used. Police interaction must be understood as a process that is always, from the beginning, associated with both escalation and de-escalation. There is, thus, no communicative action of a police officer that does not also affect the course of the conflict. De-escalation or escalation is, therefore, always taking place. This means that, in community-police interactions, de-escalation must be ongoing and cannot be “initiated” only during the interaction. This fundamental understanding may explain why de-escalation techniques sometimes appear ineffective. For example, an expression of empathy won’t be credible if the police officer has previously behaved in a manner that demonstrates no respect for or interest in the person.

Like doing the right thing at the wrong time, a specification and structuring of the de-escalation process is necessary. This allows police officers to orient themselves in the process of de-escalation and suggest appropriate techniques for the current situation. This structural concept is common in police negotiations, where some models like the Behavioral Influence Stairway Model or the Structured Tactical Engagement Process Model are described. For everyday operations of police officers, it can, therefore, be assumed that a model designed for de-escalating everyday conflicts can be just as helpful, thus supporting de-escalation in routine operations.

The Model of Communicative De-Escalation in Everyday Conflict Situations (KODIAK)

The Model of Communicative De-Escalation in Everyday Conflict Situations (German: Modell kommunikativer Deeskalation in alltäglichen Konfliktsituationen [KODIAK]) aims to provide police officers with guidance for de-escalating conflict situations so that they can act systematically and purposefully, achieving the police operational goal without neglecting officer safety.

Fundamentals

De-escalation aims to avoid the use of force or at least to minimize the intensity of the force used, even if this requires extra effort in terms of exertion, time, or patience. Conflicts are, therefore, always to be resolved without force if possible. If the use of force is unavoidable, only the minimum amount of force should be used. The self-understanding of KODIAK thus also includes the recognition that not all conflicts can be resolved without the use of force by the police. The potential necessity of use of force in such situations is part of the de-escalation concept because the maximum possible violence-free resolution applies to all parties involved in a conflict: civilians and the police. Without an acceptable level of safety, de-escalation cannot take place.

A Multi-Stage Model

The KODIAK model assumes that during de-escalation, the five stages — Safety, Relationship, Calmness, Situation Clarification, and Solution Search — must be sequentially achieved to implement a police measure at a sixth stage, Solution Implementation.

At each stage, it is necessary to assess the current situation. If this assessment concludes that a lower stage is not adequately fulfilled, then the officer must return to that stage.

For example, if during the Calmness stage, the situation changes and safety is no longer sufficient, the officer must revert to the Safety stage and take self-protection measures. Only then can they resume working on the Relationship stage and subsequently return to the Calmness stage.

First Stage: Safety

The central goal of de-escalation is to ensure that all parties involved, including police officers, subjects, and bystanders, emerge from the encounter without physical or psychological harm.

While this may not always be possible, it is nevertheless the aim. Therefore, safety is of utmost priority and serves as the foundation for further de-escalation efforts.

However, officer safety does not begin only upon encountering the individual targeted in the operation; it starts even before contact is made. This includes coordination with colleagues, mental preparation, readiness with equipment, and attentive approach, which are fundamental for the course of the interaction. During contact with the individual involved in the incident, the situation must be “scanned”, meaning an initial assessment of the situation is made, primarily focusing on evaluating the safety of the situation and taking self-protection measures. Self-protection is primarily achieved by observing the individual and visually monitoring their hands. Choosing an appropriate position, considering the use of cover options, and maintaining an adequate distance are all important. Maintaining distance ensures the safety of both officers and the individuals they interact with. This is particularly crucial for individuals with mental health issues, for whom breaching the comfort zone is often more critical and can trigger actions more readily than for others.

In addition to the safety of police personnel, the subject’s safety must also be considered. It will be difficult for people to focus or engage in conversation if they perceive themselves as being in danger. Sometimes, the safety of the police officer and the safety of the person they are interacting with may influence each other in opposing ways: when one has a higher sense of security, the other may feel less secure. In such cases, a compromise acceptable to both parties must be found.

Second Stage: Relationship

A suitable communicative relationship between the interacting parties is the foundation for successful communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Fundamental techniques for achieving this relationship include respectful interaction, kindness, and politeness. Respect involves demonstrating equality, appreciation, and interest.

It is also shown by considering the other person’s feelings (e.g., patiently waiting for reactions, repeating sentences). Additionally, asking empathetic questions about the needs and issues of the other person, acknowledging them as important, responding to their questions, and listening attentively all contribute to de-escalation. Thus, showing empathy is a crucial de-escalation technique, as is (active) listening

Third Stage: Calmness

In police operations involving violence, all parties involved are often excited and highly emotional. This applies to both sides of the interaction.

For example, the police officer may feel tense due to the uncertainty of the situation and the risk of an attack. The victim of violence experiences high stress and fear due to the violent experience. The perpetrator of violence may be angry at the victim or fearful of the consequences of their actions. Alternatively, it could be an agitated individual who is causing disturbance and fear among others, prompting the police intervention, thereby placing all participants under heightened stress. Elevated stress levels can impair performance and decision-making. 

To mitigate this and promote more rational behavior amid emotional turmoil, it is necessary to calm all parties involved and manage stress. Techniques to control one’s stress levels during high-stress phases may include breathing techniques. The police officer should not display signs of high stress, as this can be contagious (“stress contagion”) and, therefore, exacerbate stress for all involved. Additionally, taking time and allowing the individual time to calm down or make decisions is essential, as reducing time pressure reduces stress. Thus, patience is a crucial de-escalation technique.

Fourth Stage: Situation Clarification

Once the situation is relatively safe, a rapport has been established for interaction, and the excitement and stress of all involved individuals have been reduced, efforts can begin to address the conflict itself.

To do so, it is necessary to gather information to understand the situation, what has happened, who is involved in what role, and what needs to be done. Key techniques for gathering information include asking questions and (actively) listening. These not only help clarify the situation but also have a de-escalating effect. 

Once again, empathetic behavior can de-escalate the situation and strengthen the relationship. In this context, allowing the subject the opportunity to explain themselves and articulate their position is helpful. Equally important is speaking in a way that is understandable to the individual, not overwhelming them linguistically, and avoiding the use of police jargon.

Fifth Stage: Solution Search

After essential information has been gathered and is available from the previous stage, the next step involves attempting to shape the further course of the operation together with the police counterpart.

If a need for action binds the police officers and has no room for maneuver, the implementation can at least be developed together with the person. By involving the counterpart, acceptance of the measure can be increased and resistance becomes less likely. Also, through the joint search for implementation paths, potential obstacles and problems can be identified before they arise, thus avoiding surprises.

Additionally, it is important to announce, explain, and justify police measures. This transparency in police action is central to de-escalation. With all approaches to solutions, efforts should be made to ensure that the individual can save face and avoid any threat of status loss. Saving face means that self-esteem, self-image, social identity, and thus “face” (according to the concept of “face” in Ting-Toomey’s Face Negotiation Theory) are not attacked. This also includes “social face”, meaning social status and reputation in front of others. Experiencing humiliation or disrespect, especially in front of socially significant third parties (peers, partners, children), can be triggers for assaults.

Sixth Stage: Solution Implementation

In this stage, the focus is ultimately on implementing the decided police measures. To continue to de-escalate during the implementation of conflict resolution or police actions, it is important to maintain transparency about police actions. This can involve mentioning or announcing implementation steps. Similarly, it is important to ensure that the person does not lose face (socially). Patience remains crucial here and aids in de-escalation.

Switching to the Use of Force

The use of force can occur during an operation for two main reasons.

First, the use of force serves to repel dangers to oneself or others and thus establish a safe state.

Second, force may be necessary to enforce a police measure if the subject provides resistance. In each case, the principle of proportionality must be observed.

Although de-escalation always seeks to avoid the use of force, this will not always succeed. As acceptable safety is the basic prerequisite and, therefore, the first stage of the de-escalation model, it may be necessary to use force to some extent. If the level of safety is not sufficiently met, and achieving it also appears unfeasible, for example, because several attempts to make the situation safer have not been successful, the proportionality of the use of force is assessed. If security is perceived as massively endangered and proportionality is not given, a (temporary) withdrawal may be considered.

As described above, possible solutions to the situations and potential conflicts are sought in the stages of problem-solving and solution implementation. If the individual opposes all possible measures and attempts at solutions, according to the legal situation, the use of force to enforce a required police measure may be considered and, if necessary, carried out. If no solution can be found that is accepted by the individual or if they explicitly resist it, force may need to be used.

Although the complexity of the decision to use force has been only briefly outlined here, it should be clear that the use of force is an integral part of the KODIAK model and, above all, not contradictory to it.

Conclusion

To promote the use of de-escalation techniques and reduce the use of force, police officers must be convinced of the effectiveness of these techniques while ensuring safety. Ultimately, police officers need guidance on when each technique can be successful. It is precisely for this purpose that KODIAK was developed. KODIAK enables police officers to act systematically and purposefully, achieving their policing objectives without neglecting personal safety.

Source and text