I find Officer Martin’s Level III (Electronic Device) Use of Force to be within Division policy. I also find Officer Pinkerman’s Level I (Physically placed onto the ground) to be within policy. Mr. Youngs appeared to be in a mental crisis, had previously harmed himself before officers arrived on-scene, and was in need of immediate medical treatment. Mr. Youngs was not following the commands of officers and attempted to run back into his apartment, where he could have obtained a weapon and caused further harm to himself.
In the model it urges the officer to consider specific factors before determining if force is necessary to cause compliance. The factors that the officer must consider are “the severity of the crime, if there is a flight risk or the resistance of arrest”. Deadly force in Minnesota is permitted only if it serves in “protecting the officer from death or bodily harm, effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony. For example, if the suspect used or threatened to use lethal force, or if the police officer believes that the suspect will cause death or great bodily if they are not apprehended”. The policy encourages the police officer, if feasible to issue verbal warnings before using deadly
How do police decide how much force should be used in a situation and how has that changed throughout the year? Has Tennessee v. Garner been effective in protecting individuals against excessive force? Before the case Tennessee v Garner in 1985, how to police decided if they should use deadly force determined by one of four groups; these four groups were The Any-felon Rule; The defense-of-life Rule; The Forcible Felony Rule, and The Model Penal Code. The extreme one was the Any-Felony Rule which was “English common law authorized officers to use any means necessary to arrest felony suspects or prevent them from fleeing. In the United States, courts interpreted this rule as legal permission to shoot an unarmed felony suspect in flight” (Tennenbaum)
To begin with, excessive is the uncontested right of a police officer. The use of force to a police officer is necessary to apprehend or subdue a suspect of a committed crime. When a police officer use of force exceeds the necessary use of force of a particular situation to complete their lawful purpose. In particular, use force for self-defense, for example, a suspect tried to assault one of the police officers in a crime scene, so the other police officer teasers the suspect to protect his or her fellow officer. However, if the police officer uses his or her right to force for unlawful or self-defense purpose, it is then deemed unethical and illegal.
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.
Utilization of Force Continuum are to a great extent in light of the basic law elucidation that cops need not withdraw when stood up to with resistance and the Tennessee v. Earn (1985) and the Graham v. Connor (1989) choices by the United States Supreme Court, which held that there must be a target sensibility while assessing the sort of power
Training ranges from “firearms to physical defensive training” (ARCS Federal, 2015). Initially, police officers were using the Use of Force continuums to determine which level of force would be applied from the suspect’s actions (Johnston, 2015). However, the continuums caused problems for police officers in court because the court and police officers had different viewpoints about whether the Use of Force tactic used was reasonable. This specific pitfall, one of seven, led law enforcement agencies to analyze Use of Force situations from the FLETC approach. Also, the FLETC approach made sure police officers “based their decisions upon the same criteria that will be used by the courts to
Police officers have vowed their life to protect and serve. They risk their lives every day for their communities. As the last few years have sped past us, police officers have been very aggressive with the force they use when arresting a suspect, or even people in general. According to a Texas article on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, “police officers typically use force offensively rather than defensively and do so with at least some degree of premeditation.” (Gross,2013, page 167).
An issue I am passionate about is… …feminism. I believe that there is a common misconception, particularly by men, that once voting rights for women were established, feminism was no longer necessary. Unfortunately though, that is definitely not the case. Women still make less money than men for the same jobs, sexual assault cases are way too frequent, and women are underrepresented in almost every professional field.
Use of force is the amount of force used in a given situation during police work. The police are supposed to follow the continuum when it come to using force. This continuum is known as the “Use of Force Continuum”. Despite this, use of force is still a constant problem in policing. There are many cases where a cop are sued for using more force than necessary, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident.
Following several videos of police brutality that surfaced social media, people are demanding for a reform in the law enforcement system. One of the main arguments is that law enforcement officials are overstepping on their power to consider what a reasonable way to deal with suspects is and what is not. The law requires two conditions to be met in order to justify the use of deadly force. They are called the “necessity” and “proportionality” requirements. The proportionality requirement considers whether that person is a threat to the police officer or the environment.
There have been many stories where the lives of citizens and officers have been taken by the incorrect use of force. There is no universal definition of the use of force by police officers. When the use of force comes into play, the correct conclusions must be made as to when the force is necessary, whether the officer has
The main goal of a officer is to gain control of situation, to protect and serve the community. So if they can 't regulate the problem, by using the low levels of force, then they simply must increase the amount of force. Also
In some cases, police officers exert excessive force on individuals. The amount of force should be necessary for the situation. For example, a police officer should not use a weapon because a civilian will not obey an initial command. In the article, When Does Force Become Excessive?,
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
