How Do Police Officers Use Deadly Use Of Force?

Since their has been policing entities, it is understood by most that law enforcement officers have been performing a public service that is not easy to carry out. To assist law enforcement officers in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force. In discussing police misconduct, this report acknowledges not only the legal grant of such authority,

The media has scrutinized the use of force even more recently. Recordings of officers using force (weather excessive or not) become uploaded to the web and many individuals quickly jump to conclusions. Police use of “force” is up to the discretion of each individual police officer, and with each action a multitude of consequences can occur. The public often gets enraged after a court justifies the use of force, but often individuals do not have the full facts or understand how the justice system works. The outcomes of some use of force cases, many individuals are asking for transparency of agencies. Policy makers are often quick to react to satisfy the public by changing police policy.

For many individuals, police brutality is a non-existent matter because it does not directly affect them or the community in which they live. Yet for others, this is an everyday occurrence and few limitations have been set as to what is unjust and malicious behavior of an officer towards the public, therefore, several officers are rarely prosecuted for this type of

In this essay a discussion will be explored about the benefits and problems associated with police use of discretion. Which current policing strategies have the most potential for controlling officer discretion and providing accountability, and which have the least, and why is that the case? And finally, how might these issues impact the various concerns facing law enforcement today?

There is no question that police brutality, when it occurs, is one of the most egregious violations of public trust that a public servant can commit. Police officers, those individuals taxed with protecting the public from danger, should never be in a situation where they pose a threat to the public. Furthermore, there is no question that police brutality occurs. Moreover, generally when there are allegations of police brutality, there has been some type of underlying violent incident. In addition, while issues of brutality may seem clear-cut to a disinterested observer, it is critical to keep in mind that law enforcement officers are not presented with textbook examples of the appropriate or inappropriate use of force, but real-life scenarios involving quick decisions. There are many arrest and non-arrest scenarios where officers need to use force to protect self or others; and the degree of force required may be greater than what a disinterested observer would assume. Another recurrent issue in debates about police brutality is that racial bias appears to be a motive behind police brutality. When one considers that minorities are disproportionately likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes, one would expect to find a disproportionate number of minorities among those alleging police brutality. Therefore, while acknowledging that police brutality, when it occurs, is a serious problem, the reality is that most

Police brutality is seen as a real problem in America today. What people do not seem to realize is that the police carry a massive burden each day. The work that officers do has the potential to be very demanding and sometimes involves dangerous situations. In these situations the officers are in the position where they may be required to use force to gain control. The continuum of force dictates the level that is most appropriate for the situation. Most people do not realize that is not the officers job the meet the force. However, it is their job to overcome the force. Police departments have very strict standard operating procedures about officer use force and how force is applied. With this paper, I will attempt to explain the continuum of force, police discretion, and why the police can do some of the things they do.

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

In light of the recent spate of police-involved homicides of suspects who may or may not have put the lives of the police involved in fear for their safety and well-being, this paper seeks to examine the use of deadly force by police officers in the line of duty. The training involved in using one’s service weapon in situations that call for a determination of the use of force will be explored, as will the rules, regulations, and extenuating circumstances that lead to the firing of a service weapon in the line of duty, resulting in the death of a suspect. The Supreme Court cases that have led to and/or upheld laws allowing a broader interpretation of what is considered justifiable use of deadly force will be briefly examined. Additionally, the use of non-lethal weapons, such as Tasers, by police forces and how the availability of these weapons influences the rate of deadly force will be inspected. Finally, an elucidation of the various perceptions of the general public of the police after use of deadly force is used within their communities will be addressed.

Police abuse of force has become a serious issue in society as it can severely harm many individuals. As previously mentioned in The Christian Science Monitor, it was “found that the officers wearing body cameras had 87.5 percent fewer incidents of use force” (Gass). Police are often compelled to act with more safety with use of body cameras. During the use of body cameras of reports again showed great reductions in police use of force in police body camera usage. In the Huffington Post, “a study of a yearlong program conducted showed a 59 percent reduction in use-of-force incidents by officers wear cameras” (Huffington Post).

The use of excessive force by police officers is a topic that continues to make headlines and a study that needs to be done. Although much research has gone into this topic there still is no consensus on why the use of excessive force occurs. Some studies suggest lack of training and/or problems with organization policy/procedures. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use force when necessary, but when the level of force is excessive, however, the actions of the police come under scrutiny. The resulting effects can include; public outrage, scandal, negative reputation for not only the officer but the law enforcement community, and criminal considerations. Although there’s is no concrete definition of excessive force, police

Police fierceness and police militarization are getting to be noticeably intriguing issues of exchange in the United States today. The threats of police militarization are winding up more predominant and instances of the utilization of ruthless power by police are ending up more typical. The inquiry is, how would we manage these sorts of issues as far as indicting police who utilized merciless power and how would we keep these cases from happening? What are the upsides and downsides of mobilizing police powers around the nation? The response to taking care of issues with police ruthlessness is very straightforward: body cameras.

When debating the issue of police use of force, the issue of what actions constitute too much force must also be addressed. Another concern is the possibility of corruption amount officers. When given such great power, the probability of corruption is high. Officers generally do not start out as corrupt, but years of work on the force can create animosity between officers and suspects and lead them to decide to use force more quickly (McEwen, 1996). Many times, officers patrol the streets alone which creates the opportunity for potential abuse of power (McEwen, 1996). Although police officers need to be permitted to exercise some discretion, they also need limits and guidelines to follow when using their powers of discretion (Manning, 1997). The decision to use force should not be taken lightly in that citizen’s lives are at stake. Police should be allowed discretion in decisions to use force; however, this discretion should be limited. In several cases in Arizona, officers have used deadly means of force. In all cases, the officers

Results from this study suggest that when people, such as police officers, are given the authority to use whatever force deemed necessary by an authority such as the police department, they feel justified using their “power” however they feel. David Lester conducted a study in which he found police officers attain an “expectation of harm” through their schooling at police academies (Lester 186). Lester found “shifts in…attitudes during both academy training and the period of working” (Lester 186) to officers being less willing to admit to the existence of police brutality. It seems that the departments do not see the occurrences as brutal, but as self-defense.

A growing concern in America is the unnecessary use of force police officers use on the innocent or those in their custody. The role of the police officer carries both power and authority and the abuse of that power and authority raises issues society must face. This paper discusses the problem of officers who use unnecessary force, what managers and executives are doing to deal with this problem and the ethical dilemmas associated with the use of excessive or unjustified force on the police department.

Allegations of police brutality by the U.S. police departments have been on the rise for the past two decades. The use of excessive force by police officers beyond what is considered necessary is not a new fact to the world. Many of these encounters with civilians have been unjustified because the majority ultimately ends in death. The police involve the use of weapons such as batons, Tasers, pepper spray, or guns. This may also include false arrests, psychological trauma, and verbal abuse. Some individuals will state they are just doing their job, but others argue these cases can be traced back to poor training and policies. Every police officer has the right to protect himself and the community, but they should be able to discern when to use reasonable or excessive force on the civilian depending on the situation at hand.