The principle explains that police should use only the amount of physical force necessary to restore order and protect public if using warning or persuasion is not working on an individual. This is important because it is not ok for anyone to use physical force in not completely necessary. If using physical force is not required, then it should always be avoided. Although, if an officer must use physical force than it should be the least amount necessary to protect the individual and surrounding public. For modern police officers this an important principle, this is not always followed and not following this principle causes many unnecessary tragedies and conflicts.
Xialea Mclean Police force is sufficient or should use more Police officers are only supposed to use the amount of force necessary to prevent any accidents. According to the National Institute of Justice ,"the use of force by law enforcement officers becomes necessary and is permitted under specific circumstances, such as in self-defense or in defense of another individual or group. " The law enforcement are allowed to use lethal, non-lethal force, physical, and verbal restraints. The amount of force used by the law can be depended by the situation they are currently in. While on duty, a officers are trained to judge when the situation requires a use of force.
Police work is unpredictable and is very dangerous. In some situations, officers may have to utilize use-of-force tactics in order to gain control of a certain situation. This essay will focus on the discussion of polices discretion to use force limited to a suspect who is being “uncooperative” and what mitigating factors may escalate or de-escalate force response by an officer. Written guidelines have the effect to limit the amount of discretion that an officer might use during stressful and dangerous situations in which they find themselves.
They would probably be more lenient when it came down to using to use excessive force. Instead of automatically reaching for their gun, the officer would try to talk to the person, only taking out their firearm if the other person had one or they feel threatened. You can’t feel threatened by a person with no weapon. The way excessive force is measure is through three questions: “First, what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing? Second, did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officers or the public?
As long as good consequences for the most amount of people will result, it is considered moral. The Pre-Crime system also uses this rationale. Pre-Crime is all about the sacrifice of a few for the good of the many. However, if one were to place oneself into a Pre-Crime would-be criminal’s position, it becomes unjustifiable to punish people like this. After all, no one person wants to be treated as a tool.
Fear is the number one reason police officers give for hesitating in a crisis. But, it is not fear for themselves. Some of the reasons many officers cite for hesitation is fear of litigation; loss of their job and pension; investigation by Internal Affairs; or of possible criminal action against themselves. There are many factors that can lead to an officer hesitating in the kill zone. Any hesitation in a crisis can potentially cost an officer his or her life, or it could cost the life of the alleged perpetrator or even an innocent bystander.
Police brutality is when a police officer uses any type of force on someone that exceeds the necessary amount to accomplish a lawful police purpose. The force doesn’t have to just be physical, it can also be physiological harm through intimidation tactics. So in simpler terms, police brutality is when a police officer uses more force then what they should use to stop a person or animal. There is some ways that we can help prevent police brutality, one of the ways we can help prevent it is by giving police better training in a nonviolent way. This is especially important when dealing with violent animals.
Firstly, Alexander was someone who was violent which is not exhibiting nonviolence. A good leader should be nonviolent in order to be a good example for his people. Violence is not the only way to solve
This is a consistent ideology shared by many people in society today. There are two types of accounts mentioned by this article. The first being excuses meaning that they acknowledge that such behavior is bad but they do not take full responsibility for them. The second is justification in which they take full responsibility for the actions but deny the stigma associated with the act. This is believed to be a way of thinking because in their minds, the way society reacts to the deviant act of assault such as the police officers questioning and the court appearances actually inflicts more harm on the child than the actual act
Both criminals and officer should be protected. But not all situations are brutal from the 8th amendment, there may be people that watch footage in cases, and inform others. For instance watching the footage and blaming a police officer for using unnecessary force. Although it is an issue, in riot situations, many people believe that officers should have the right to defend themselves and others such as the surrounding; communities, people around, or even businesses. People consider that using tasers or pepper spray or even using just a little force is considered police brutality.
Stop and Frisk can be a very slippery slope for anyone to process the idea of someone committing a crime from observation. Sometime people can look like they are committing a crime. However, “who’s to say that the person isn’t mentally ill or playing a prank”. Somehow, we don’t know for sure but on the other hand maybe we should question the person that looks suspicious.
In such cases, it is immaterial whether the attacker has committed a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any crime at all” (Katzenbach et al., 1967). Although this appears to be a sound example of a good policy set forth in the report, it is too opened ended and appears to go against other detailed guidelines that the report states, such as the outlines that specifically say when a weapon can and cannot be used. As we know, many times the usage of a firearm is unwarranted by police (Katzenbach et al., 1967) therefore, can the idea stated above, which outlines that police are supposed to make a choice about what kind of force they should make, undoubtedly in the heat of moment, truly offer protection if we know that the decision often made is unwarranted? Through the Report’s guideline no one can be safe because of the variation and differing degrees of safety that it
Don’t get me wrong I understand that in certain situations where there’s no other option. But under legal requirements deadly force is only to be used when there’s reasonable belief that the suspect will possibly harm an officer or others in the community. In a situation, such as A shootout with a suspect or a hostage situation I would be understanding of the use of Deadly force and it is justified on the part of the officers. Another situation I feel it would be necessary is when A suspect is seen brandishing a weapon or if you’re in pursuit of a reckless runaway driver that is exhibiting actions to make you believe that they have a disregard for the safety and lives of others. That’s another situation where the officer either has no choice or the decision they make will prevent any senseless