In the United States, the police have the authority to use coercive force in several occasions, but only when citizens do not comply with the officer. In the states throughout the country, there have been incidents in which people believe that the police used unnecessary use of force on a victim. It has been argued that police have been taking advantage of their authority and power for no reason. In these cases there have been tragic incidents in which citizens either get killed or get beat up by police officers. Most of the time, these cases end up having riots by the community to make the court to convict the officer that killed an innocent victim. An example of this can be the Michael Brown case, a teenager who was shot to dead by a Missouri …show more content…
Many people do not understand that police use this tactic for their own protection, but they do know that at times they use it when they do not need to. In the case like Eric Gardner in New York, use of force was required because he did not want to be handcuffed and there was a superior comparison physically to the cops. According to the magazine when should cops use force it states, “once things get physical, officers have little choice but to jump in as quickly as possible (Moskos, 2014).” The use of force can be judged proportionally by what happens before the act because if officers allow people to get physically, it will not only put the officer in danger, but also those around. Eventually, there are other strategies to use rather than the use of force. According to the magazine daily news it suggest, “the NYPD Patrol Guide encourages the use of pepper spray for noncompliance (Moskos, 2014).” It seems like it is a less lethal technique, but it is actually still dangerous because people may be allergic to the acidic substance and might end up dying. Overall, the use of force needs to be done, but only when it is 100% necessary or else the community will see it as a violation of the law. If the use of force is being used when it is necessary, people will not be disrespecting the police and protesting police …show more content…
I mentioned a few reasons on how the use of force has made police officers look bad. It is making officers look bad because recordings from the public only show the beatings and shootings, but do not capture the beginning of the confrontation. It will be bet for officers and the goof being of the community I officers use body-worn cameras because it will capture every second that happens between confrontations. The use of force is granted to the officers if they feel like the suspect is dangerous or is not complying with the officer. It was a right given to them by a case back in 1985, in which a person was killed by deadly force. Nevertheless, that is why sometimes police officers might get away with the killing of a citizen because there is not enough evidence that the use of force was not necessary. If these cameras are installed in officers uniforms the use of force will definitely decrease and will make the community feel safer and police officers gain more respect from the public. Finally, if the use of force is not necessary then a police officer can get suspend from the department after a judge has viewed the happenings of the case. The uses of cameras will not only make police officers use less force and the public feel safer, but it will also help the country become a safer place
One of the most controversial subjects not only in the realm of law enforcement, but in the United States today is that police are out of control with their “use of force” tactics. It is always a tragedy when someone has to lose their life at the hand of police, but sometimes a little respect and compliance can go a long way. The case with Eric Garner is no different. “On July 17,2014 in Staten Island in New York, Eric Garner was approached by NYPD officers about selling illegal cigarettes. At this point Garner becomes very irritable yelling at police for always trying to arrest him over petty deviant acts.
One common opinion is that officers should not use more force than is necessary or reasonable, and even then, that force should be used only as a last resort. “Police use force to affect civilians’ conduct. On a day-to-day basis, they do so most often by employing the least degree of force available to them, their mere presence. Cops wear uniforms and drive distinctly marked cars so that, without saying a word, they may have an effect on citizens’ behavior” (Fyfe, 38). When an officer’s presence fails to fulfill the desired conduct, the next course of action for said officer would be verbalization.
There are some episodes where police officers use excessive force on suspected criminals. For instance, there is a scene where a young woman is suspected to be in possessive of some ammunitions and when she tries to resist arrest the police officer uses excessive force in her arrest. There are also other myriad instances on the move when the rights of the individuals are violated. This has changed over time. Human rights activists have come out strongly to condemn the excessive use of force in combating crime.
It is unfair to send police officers out into the public with the fear of second guessing themselves every time they make a decision. If they have body cameras they will have the proof of the film to back up whatever decision is made. During a study in 2013 they accumulated stats showing first, Shifts without body cameras experience twice as many incidents of use of force of shifts with body cameras.
Due to lack of evidence, it is often hard to charge an officer for disorderly conduct, which causes the public outrage and turns them against the justice system. If officers wore body cameras, there would be more evidence to support any claims made between both the officers and the public who ask for answers. A great example of this occurred earlier this year with the death of Mike Brown, who was an unarmed teenager killed by Darren Wilson. Wilson was indicted because of the lack of evidence that Brown was actually a threat. It was basically the public against an officer.
So many lives could be saved and so many police officers’ careers could be saved through the utilization of this idea and the reaping of its benefits. Whether it captures a citizen attack on a police officer or whether it captures a case of police brutality, the great possibilities outweigh the potential cons of police body cameras and make them a risk worth taking. Whether one takes the side of the citizens and believe the police are typically irrational or one takes the side of the police and believe they are only doing their jobs to the best of their ability, the incorporation of body cameras to the controversial police force would be extremely beneficial for
The Benefits of Body Cameras in Law Enforcement How can Body Cameras help Law Enforcement? Dashboard cameras have become an antiquated tool for police officers. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Critics claim that watching the video will alter the officer's memory of the incident. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing”.
Without the videos proving a victim to be innocent, these police would be walking among us as killers, disguised as our protectors. When officers and citizens are aware that their behavior is being monitored, both parties have an immediate tendency to behave accordingly. “The results of this study suggest that this increase in self awareness leads to more positive outcomes in police-citizen interaction,” (Wile, 2015). The government is losing money by not subjecting police to wear body cameras. Police misconduct expenditure costs $1.8 billion annually, while the cost to supply police with body cameras across the nation only ranges up to $20
The force used by officers had declined 60% during the past year. The cameras were introduced and citizen complaints against officers dropped by 88%. The objective of body cameras is to deliver an accurate record of officer engagements for complete situational awareness and tamper proof digital evidence. Body camera should be used by all law enforcement. Body-worn cameras are certain to have a huge effect on law enforcement.
It can be hard to prosecute a cop for these actions due to the constant state of threat a cop’s life is at while doing their job and the unpredictability of their job. An example of an case where the police’s use of force were questioned was the Wardlaw v. Pickett case. In this case a man named, William C. Wardlaw decided to sue the United States Deputy Marshals, William Pickett and Albert Crew. Wardlaw claimed that the two violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force on him and falsing arresting and prosecuting him.
Police brutality has been a raging topic ever since the Ferguson case and officers using excessive force can be stopped by using body cameras to see a cops’ every move. In the article, “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality”, the author brings to concern issues of excessive force to subdue a suspect. The author comments, “Having a video record of events not only deters the use of excessive force, but it also helps dispute or demonstrate claims of police brutality” (Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality 1). Having a video recording of an event can save a police officer's job or destroy it. By being a cop who follows the rules and does the right thing, an officer will not have to change his or her behaviors and will continue being himself or herself.
A major benefit for having body cams is the fact that it will decrease the force used by Police Officers. For the past couple of years there has been many videos of Police Officers using excessive force against innocent victims, especially with African Americans. “The notion has been around for a while. But since August 's fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri -- for which witness accounts varied widely -- it 's gained traction to become part of the national conversation about police conduct.” (Brandon Griggs 1)
For decades now, the controversy over deadly force has continued to show up in the news when police officers have acted in a manner that some citizens find just while others deem completely unfair. Many lawsuits stemming from shootings and crimes have found their way to local courts or the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. A portion of the U.S. population finds deadly force unnecessary when non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray or batons just as easily subdue the criminal. In addition, these citizens argue that officers might be liable for cases filed against them if they use excess force on people that seem suspicious but have not actually committed a crime. On the other hand, the opposing argument in favor of deadly force states that
People pick the side that either defends or criticize police officers use of force. However, the people do not realize that this topic is plainly ridiculous and dangerous. This issue will not only hurt both sides, but also harm innocent civilians as well. Police brutality is a big dispute between different communities; however, there are several solutions that can solve this
There are many pros and cons when it comes to the use of police force. The use of force is strictly a part of the job requirement of protecting and serving our community. It is the everyday battles that force police to make decisions that may seem a bit harsh at times. The use of force is only acceptable under certain circumstances and should only be used when absolutely needed. There are cases when civilians are saved by the use of police force, and there are cases when innocent people are hurt or even killed by the use of police force.