Police enforce social order through the legitimized "use of force". Use of force means the amount of effort required by police to get compliance by an unwilling subject. The levels of force that police can use include basic verbal and physical restraint, this is also known as "less than lethal force". There is also "lethal force" or deadly force which is defined as the force which a person uses that causes serious bodily harm or death. In most jurisdictions the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity or as a last resort. Deadly force is seen when other means have failed or cannot reasonably be used. Police officers are taught to only use the amount of force that is necessary to control an incident, effectively make an arrest or protect themselves or others from harm or death (http://www.nij.gov).
Officers have received guidance from their training academies and agencies on use of force but there is no universal set of rules that governs when officers should use force and how much is "enough". Although in most police agencies, excessive or lethal force is rare, the frequency of police use of force that may be defined as "justified" or "excessive" is difficult to estimate.
We have all seen stories in the news about police officers who go above and beyond what is "necessary" for the situation they are in. This usually results in a lawsuit and the police officer if found guilty will lose their job. I find myself on the fence with the ethical aspects of this issue because it is so hard to define what "excessive force" is since there is no real, defined rule. Each person has their own interpretation of what they find necessary to restrain someone or protect themselves from someone. A lot of the time it comes down to their word vs. the police officers word if there wasn't any video recording from the police car or witnesses. Yes, I think it would be excessive to get physical with someone in a calm environment over something petty like talking back or being a smart-ass. I don't think it is necessary for police officers to slam individuals around, into walls or up against the police car. I definitely don't think it is necessary to beat, kick or hit individuals especially if they aren't a threat (don't have a weapon) or are already secured with handcuffs. I do find it necessary to use excessive force when an individual is highly resistant, is a threat to others around him or her or has a weapon. It seems to occur most often when there are large crowds such as rallies or protests. Also, events of excessive force tend to appear in largely populated areas that are known for having high crime rates as well as gangs. The only time it would be necessary to use lethal force would be when excessive force isn't working or it isn't safe to get close to the individual. Most of us heard about the 34 year old woman in DC who went on a rampage and slammed into secret service vehicles as well as into one of the buildings. Police went against the common protocol and shot off multiple rounds with people around and her young child in the backseat. She was shot in the head and killed and now people are questioning whether or not lethal force was required. Could they have done something else to stop her vehicle? She wasn't armed and her motives were unknown, but no one will ever know if they could have avoided lethal force that day.
excessive force videos
justified excessive/lethal force
.
.
I think that this is a great inspection of the ethics of force used by officers of the law. When the standards become blurry, it really makes people think hard about how they feel about something, whether they agree with it or not. Not so with some things that are given to us black and white, with very defined right or wrong answers or reactions. Unfortunately, blurred lines typically sow discord and controversy. Whether right or wrong, we like standards and rules. (except for criminals of course :)
ReplyDeleteSo many times in the media they make the officer look like the worst person in the world. Often times these scenarios are taken far out of context and the actions taken by the officer were quite acceptable if one was to understand the whole situation.
ReplyDeleteGreat read. Lots of good stuff going on here. And I feel that you summed it up ideally when you stated their isn't a single set rule of when force is legitimatized, and for what level of force is required. It is one of the biggest gray areas out there and I don't envy any police officer who is caught in the situation of needing to decide how much force is authorized or not.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic and I bet you could go on for pages and pages about it. I imagine that it would be really difficult to be a police officer and have to make these kind of decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe line between excessive force and non-excessive force is definitely vague. You did a good job explaining what is necessary in individual cases. I find it very interesting that excessive abuse increases when population density increases. When gangs are involved, an officer can never be too suspicious and many times has to make very quick decisions on the amount of force that they need to use. In these areas, the police seem to get a bad rep because of this, even though they are just trying to protect themselves and the public to the best of their capabilities.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting read with all the hype in the media lately on police officers and their role in society. While I believe that there are some less than great police officers, I know that there are many who go to work everyday to protect and serve the communities in which they live. Routine police work does not often involve the use of excessive force, but occasionally the job may warrant the need. I am not about to second guess the decisions that officers make, especially in high stress situations. Someone once told me, it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
ReplyDelete