The law officers was not charged for the incident, so it created a riot in Los Angeles. (Police Brutality). The final problem is there is not enough of different race working together. There was an investigation that was affected by the police officers, because of their nationality within other officers. “Additionally, the boards often found police unwilling to cooperate with their investigations due to a desire to protect their fellow officers- a phenomenon known as the “blue wall of silence”(Police Brutality.)
Note that the use of force is not permitted and thus against the law, but it is justified in some instances. This will be explained in detail below. The police in more than one instance in their career have come face to face with many scenarios in which their lives were in danger. Many security officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. Whereas the use of deadly force is illegal, there are exceptions to this law, especially in the event of self defense.
Sadly, most people tend to learn only from their own experience. Everyone hear and see how using a cell phone device while driving is dangerous, but most believe it couldn’t possibly happen to them. They hear how it is dangerous to the person driving, also dangerous to the people and cars surrounding that driver. In addition, there are many tragic stories out there like Winfrey mentioned. People hear about lives that has been lost and damages many accidents caused but they choose to ignore it.
First, they shouldn’t wear body cameras because it raises high privacy concerns. For example, “Recordings raise high privacy concerns. In some states, anyone can access the video.” (Should Police Wear Body Cameras, pg.23) Also, “Study Reveals Police Officer Are More Likely To Be Assaulted.” (Study Reveals Police Officers Wearing Body Cameras Are More Likely To Be Assaulted, pg.1) In my understanding, the critics are saying their privacy is more important than their security. We can use body cameras to help solve crimes and protect our country in the process. They are also saying police officers are more likely to be assaulted.
The police department made a big case because out of this. I am not saying it was dumb, but what I am trying to say is that the police department could have only sent a couple police officers to the scene. This was a pressured conflict. Maddie did good by telling the police about this. The police didn’t send any duty officers that were supposed to fix everything.
However, some people believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Thanks to our Second Amendment, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to defend ourselves. However, it’s difficult to predict what might happen if you didn’t own a gun in that scenario. The intruder could possibly have a firearm, there is nothing stopping them since they’re already disobeying the law by breaking and entering. Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property.
The most important weakness of this policy is that it offers grounds for dirty cops to utilize force illegally to pursue selfish personal agendas that are not in the interests of the public. A police officer can use deadly force and allege that the use of force was necessary when indeed it was not and since there are no effective ways to measure such allegations such officers will end up going scot free. The police officers are supposed to be each other’s keepers and prevent their colleagues from misusing the authority given by the policy while officers who break the law can be charged in court. However, this is not guarantee that such authority will not be used illegally. Another weakness is that cases of mistaken identity can lead to harm to innocent civilians who are suspected of being
Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage. Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true.
That is why I think the Miranda Rights are more than just words. Not many people think that the Miranda Rights are important to people's everyday lives but it does. Even if people do not realize it the Miranda Rights do apply to our everyday lives The Miranda Rights are the right people must have read to them when they are being arrested or questioned by police or any authority if they are not read to them the authority can get in trouble for breaking a rule in their police academy or if it is bad enough they could get fired from the police force where they work
But respectfully, law enforcement’s duty is to protect themselves as well as the citizens. Sometimes, when using a less deadly force, fighting while trying to subdue a suspect may occur and could potentially lead to what some innocent bystanders call police brutality. Depending on the situation, police officers should know when to use force, and if it comes down to excessive force, then they will have to answer for their actions. Police brutality has no set rules or bindings in state policies. In fact, police brutality is wrong and its considered to be misconduct on behalf of the law enforcement
To take a posture in this situation is difficult because there is not enough information released and the judicial process of these cases are mostly carried out in secret by the police. For example, in the case of Keith Lamont, the police did not release the video of the shooting immediately. I understand that they should handle the situation carefully in order to prevent instability, but I also think they are abusing their power to control what is released and what
One of the most recent controversial topics sweeping the nation is on the topic of police brutality. Victims of police abuse tend to state that their rights had been violated. As a result, usually if there had been a violation of an individual’s rights, then the evidence seized by the police against that person becomes admissible. However, the idea of punishment for police officers who violate the rights of the people was never implemented into the Constitution. This concept was created by the Supreme Court through many cases.
Justifying the FLQ by enforcing the War Measures Act was not necessary because the basic rights of people were violated in the process, as it gave law enforcement the right to search, seize, and arrest anybody without sound reasoning, doing more harm than good. Yes, the FLQ was unpredictable, dangerous, and uncontrollable, but the situation did not needed to be handled the way it was, as it invaded the privacy of citizens, and took away their basic rights. The Front de Libération du Québec kidnapped two government officials, carried out many bombings, and caused incidents resulting in injuries or even death, showing terrorist-like characteristics, put lots of pressure on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. He introduced the War Measures Act to
Should the right to bears arms be more restricted? The governments primary role is to protect the right 's of law abiding citizens, so when did restricting those rights become so popular? The school and mass shooting 's that have plagued our country over the recent years have been the result of mentally disturbed criminals. The fundamental problem with gun bans or further restricting gun rights is that it only works on citizens that are already predisposed to obey the law in the first place. Criminals, which by definition have no regard for the law, will not be phased by the governments restrictions with such laws.
Geoffrey P. Albert of the University of South Carolina, Griffith University focuses his essay, “Toward a National Database of Officer-Involved Shootings”, on the lack of a trustworthy database to keep track of such events like officer involved shootings. In regards to police involved shootings, an initial problem continues to be the fact that reporting these cases is optional for a department. With that being said, it is often that departments fail to formally report these shootings. Which then provides for inaccuracy when trying to determine an average number of shootings. His work is much needed in the police department society especially because they are in desperate need of an accurate and consistent way to record the data the erupts behind