The Denver Police Department’s proposed use-of-force policy reflects a national change in philosophy in how officers confront suspects, experts said, but some areas are too vague and need more specific language to uphold accountability and prevent confusion among officers.

In anticipation of a series of public meetings — including the first one Tuesday — about the proposed changes to the policy, The Denver Post sought reviews from criminal justice experts and compared the policy to a set of recommendations endorsed this month by 11 national policing organizations.

Thus far, most of the discussion surrounding the policy has been focused on whether or not Chief Robert White should have sought community input before writing his proposed policy. Among those who have criticized him for excluding people outside the department are the Denver Police Protective Association, the union that represents police officers, and community groups such as the Colorado Latino Forum and the Denver Justice Project.

Overall, criminal justice experts who reviewed the draft policy agreed that Denver’s police department is headed in the right direction.

“To their credit, they are adjusting to shifting public opinion on police use of force,” said Joseph Schafer, chairman of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Southern Illinois University.

White has invited Denver residents to comment and provide feedback on the policy through an e-mail address or by attending one of three community meetings, the first of which begins at 5 p.m. Tuesday at the Boys & Girls Club of Metro Denver (3333 Holly St.).

Denver’s policy contains many of the recommendations included in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force, which was released Jan. 11 and endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Schafer said.

“None of this is meant to restrain officers in those life-and-death situations where split-second decisions are being made,” Schafer said.

Still, experts believe there is room for improvement.

“When you compare it to the national guidelines, it’s positive and encouraging,” said Lois James, a criminologist at Washington State University’s College of Nursing. “As often is the case with these policies, the wording is confusing and leaves room for ambiguity.”

Nick Mitchell, Denver’s independent monitor who was not involved in drafting the policy, said he plans to release an analysis in the coming days that will address the advances and shortcomings in the policy.

“A vague use of force policy makes it difficult for officers to determine what conduct is allowed or prohibited, and hinders accountability,” Mitchell wrote in a statement to The Denver Post.

White, who wrote the policy along with his top advisers, has said the policy is intended to emphasize de-escalation and to limit using weapons against people they encounter.

The 10-page policy, introduced this month, puts an emphasis on reasonable, necessary and appropriate force rather than legal standards set by state and federal laws and court cases.

The policy’s strengths included a duty to intervene, which requires officers to step in when they see a fellow officer escalating a situation, and a requirement to provide medical attention to someone as soon as the threat of violence has been eliminated, experts said.

James praised a section that says it would be against the policy to use force against someone who is a threat only to themselves. And she said a section that asks officers to slow down or step back to reassess a volatile situation is following national trends.

“The idea can generate a lot of disagreement,” James said. “There is a movement toward more de-escalation and disengagement.”

But James described some areas as “murky,” such as a paragraph that encourages de-escalation “when circumstances permit” and another paragraph that says officers may use force “to meet department obligations.”

“I’m unsure what that means,” she said.

The PPA, which represents Denver’s police officers during collective bargaining, found strengths and weaknesses. In a review provided to The Post, the union supported some aspects, most involving points that recognize officers must keep themselves safe and will be called to use force to defend themselves and overcome resistance.

However, the PPA warned that the policy is in conflict with federal legal precedents that set the standard definition of reasonable and necessary force, according to the review.

It also said the phrase appropriate and necessary “creates a subjective standard which can be applied at the whim of an evaluator” and that it exposes the city to greater damages in civil lawsuits over the use of force.

Robert W. Taylor, a professor of criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas and a former Portland, Ore., police officer, said he found some of the wording confusing and would not be surprised if Denver’s police officers were troubled by the new policy.

The idea of what is appropriate can rapidly change during a police encounter, Taylor said. He took issue with a section that instructs officers not to unnecessarily or prematurely draw their guns.

Taylor questioned when it would be unnecessary and who would decide — when a person has a knife or a gun? What about when a person has his hands in his pocket and appears to be reaching for a gun?

“When you’re in a situation where deadly force is imminent, you’re taking in a lot of cues you can’t measure,” Taylor said. “Officers are going to make that judgment in a hair’s second. It’s going to be difficult for them, I think.”

Like the others, however, Taylor said the Denver Police Department was moving in the right direction under White.

“He’s sensitive to different minority issues,” Taylor said. “That’s reflected in the policy.”