Reprisal In International Law

When a situation requires deadly force, the police officer is more than likely acting in self-defense and in the defense of another person or group of people. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the use of physical force is defined as “the amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject”. Police officers use the force that is necessary to placate or incapacitate the ‘subject’ and eliminate the threat (National Institute of Justice,

The issue of concealed carry is one that evokes heated debate upon mention. One one hand, concealed carry allows people to defend themselves in public, should the situation arrive. One the other hand, concealed carry may cause unnessecary shootings, or accidents. Both sides of the debate have valid concerns.

Situations of war are complex affairs that are difficult to regulate, analyze, and understand. Often during war, individuals and groups face situational pressure to perform actions and make decisions that would otherwise be morally unjustifiable. Many people hold the view that killing during war is not morally wrong, because during war morality seems to shift and what was before wrong becomes allowed and often celebrated. However, while certain types of killing can be morally justified during wartime, some types of killing remain wrong. In this paper, I will argue that the intentional killing of innocents in wartime is wrong, because war invites certain moral boundaries and killing innocent people violates these boundaries.

Criminologists have not always been favorable toward incorporating terrorism into their field of study because of the political dimensions of terrorism, which have been claimed to prevent scientific analysis. This argument can be contested, however, because all acts of crime are subject to definitions and responses by a variety of institutions, such as law and police, in addition to their analytical treatment in the sciences. More recently, indeed, criminological models have been forwarded that conceive of terrorism in terms of crime and deviance. From the viewpoint of crime causation perspectives concerned with the etiology of criminal behavior, terrorism can be conceived as a form of violence, the causes of which can be analyzed at the micro-

The “Castle Doctrine” or popularly known “Stand Your Ground” law has its explanation and powers different in various above mentioned states. In-fact, few states have authorized its citizen to use power and armed resources to deal with the situation of self-defense without any need to think of consequences. The law will protect the person who is on right. These provisions have been adopted following the crime prevailing ratios in the states and where the rescue forces cannot reach due to some constraints (Christopher Reinhart, 2007). Use of Deadly Force Warranted?

Even if said person is a threat to the officer, himself or the public population. “In this context, public concern about police shootings is understandable. It is wrong, however, to decide that there is an established number of times that cops can shoot people and then condemn officers for exceeding some "quota." (McNamara, J. D., 2004, p.1). Excessive shooting is a sign that maybe that officer should not be handling a firearm.

Normally I advise a verbal warning like "back off" to a potential assailant while holding up a charging stun gun. Sometimes the sight and sound of a charging stun gun has been known to change many a bad guys ' mind. It 's like saying 'you really don 't want a bite of this do you? ' If you are in the market for a self defense product look for quality, effectiveness, and a biggie-LEGALITY. Stun guns and Tasers are not legal in some states.

The law gives police officers the right to use force whenever their life or the life of citizens is in danger. Besides, the public tends to

Is it right for the citizens to have to take the disrespectful treatment certain cops give them? Of course not all officers of the law are like this. They all have the good, the bad, and the ugly. It’s the scumbags that harass people and take advantage of the badge and gun that give police officers a bad name. But if all police officers know that they can get away with certain things and they are aware of the things they can get away with, then eventually humanity will see an even bigger threat to society than what these police officers say is a threat.

Mostly the countries have been facing transnational threats, so called nontraditional security challenges, such as illegal migration, drug and human trafficking, gun running, smuggling of commodities and cross border terrorism and so forth. Transnational crime blurs the line between "crime" and "national security" because criminal organizations are now perceived as posing a national security threat to some countries as well as the international community. Officially demarcated borders cannot keep out transnational threats and such threats have not yet addressed because of some obstacles including mistrust and lack of regional cooperation. In an increasingly interconnected world, security issues are transnational and cannot be addressed effectively by individual states. Transnational threats require common efforts and joint action by governments across borders in order to be dealt with.

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.

Scholars agree that lone wolf terrorist are often unpredictable in their actions because their plan is uniquely theirs and not backed by supporting organizations or networks. Additionally, they tend to be individuals that run under the radar of law enforcement

Ever believe that you are protected, but deep down there is a feeling that says otherwise. Many police officers follow the law and protect innocent people. But there are some out there that are the total opposite. They use force for reasons that are unjustified. Police brutality spreads out around the United States.

The Second Amendment is a frequently debated topic in today’s society. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights were passed. The Amendment was easily accepted because of the majority consensus that the government should not have the ability to take weapons away from people. In many countries, corrupt governments use armed soldiers and other arms to control and oppress people.

America is one of the most unique and prominent countries in the world, primarily because of it powerful and efficient legal system. With that being said, it is that efficient legal system that provides Americans with the freedoms that they have known and grown accustom to. However, if one of those freedoms were to be stripped from the American people, one would assume that America as we know it, would be drastically changed forever. Yet, if American’s had to give up one of their constitutional rights, it would be safe to assume the right to bear arms would probably result in the least amount of change in American society while simultaneously providing a new level of protection to the American people.