After reading this case, there were many things that went on in my mind. Qualified immunity is what stood out to me. According to the Legal Information Institute, it states, “Specifically, it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right” (Legal Information Institute). To me, I think when a police officer use any type of force, they are going against that person having constitutional rights. I feel as though police officers think that it is their right to use excessive force when they are in a tough situation such as this.
Are CO’s encountering legal ramifications if departing the confines of the building and helping Police detain or move a detainee. Indemnification is the question? Clearly, bringing a civilian into the building, by force, lends itself to possible legal questions. Additionally, if that civilian is under the influence of alcohol, or other ingested substances (spice), and the Officer is injured or by happen-stance injures that individual, legal issues will occur. If that Officer is accused of improper procedures, or touching, legal issues again arise.
For an example, to add an exception on state wiretapping laws for body cameras to be allowed, and used for law enforcement purposes. As Roll explains, “All of these conflicting standards in states show just how thorny body camera implementation could be”. In the united states the new body camera program could cause more conflict towards militarizing the police force or, it could be another helpful tool for the
Being a federal agent can be hard you need to have lots of education and skills. Being a federal agent is fun but you need a lot of experience and education. “All federal agents need
Since I would be the senior officer training a rookie officer, I would inform the officer even a minor traffic stop challenges the ideology of the Sovereign citizen and can easily escalate to a violent encounter. While violent encounters with individuals of this philosophy are rare, they can be sudden and deadly. You need to have the right mindset going into the stop and be prepared for the tactics employed by sovereigns. I would inform the officer to maintain focus on situational safety, be aware that the stop may be recorded and/or videotaped by the Sovereign citizen, apply enforcement as appropriate, we will try to make every effort to identify the subject and conduct searches and seizures that fall within legal authority. As a matter of practice every law enforcement officer at every traffic stop will request three items of each operator, license, registration and proof of insurance.
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
A police officer is an employee of the government who has been given the duty to enforce the law by maintaining order and arresting lawbreakers. If I were to go into law enforcement then I would like to be the Social Agent, since the major duty of the police is to serve and protect the public; hence, I would be willing to combine with other typologies (Patterson, 2014). Actually, it is useful to have these typologies, as it will ensure that the public and the police officers get to understand that police officers can be different but their main aim is to serve the same purpose. The following are the reason why I feel it is good to have the typologies Typologies will enable me to create a good relationship to all people that includes both the
“These officers are just defending themselves against being attacked. In the constitution it justifies the force of arms if you feel like your life is in danger. These officers are putting their lives on the line and have the right to use force- deadly force if necessary” (Brown). In this excerpt, Minister Keith Bell expressed his feelings on the police action shootings during the year 2014. “There are times when police [sic] are on routine patrol and their car gets shot up.
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
Comey believes police officers have the right to be forceful when confronting a suspect. He also indicates that videos of police brutality should not be posted or distributed in any way. Not do only this sounds absurd, but it also sounds as though it is not significant if some of the people who are arrested are also brutally treated. If police officer can be abusive and treat their suspect roughly then they would be breaking Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend.
State laws that authorize police use of force, which are backed up by Supreme Court precedent, give police significant latitude in using deadly force. In the 1989 case Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that officers may use force to effect a lawful arrest or if they reasonably believe that the person represents a serious physical threat to the officer or others. This means that police may use force over any resistance to arrest and that if the resistance escalates, officers may escalate their force. The court also said that the number of circumstances must be judged with an understanding of the split-second nature of police