Effects Of Freedom Of Speech On Police Officers

Police officers, like the citizens they protect, can make mistakes. I do not believe that police officers should be held liable for acting in good faith. According to the United States Supreme Court, per Brinegar v. United States, “because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly leading to their conclusions of probability.” (PoliceMag, 2007). The Fourth Amendment protects the citizens of the United States from unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const. amend. IV). Over the course of history, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of protecting the police officers from any liability. My focus will be on the good-faith exception and the exigent circumstance.

The role of police officers is very significant to American history. Police work toward protecting citizens’ rights and helping America become the land of the free. The United States of America is built from the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights and police play a major role in making sure American rights are met. Evolution has changed many of American history for the better; policing is part of those changes. As new issues in society arise, police must change and adapt to protect and serve the public.

Police officers do the same thing every day on the streets protecting citizens’ freedoms given to us by the constitution of the United States.

For as long as there have been Police Officers society has had to deal with misconduct and corruption in the institution. Through the nineteenth century, police officers became muscle employers used to violently end strikes. The rough police officiating and the racist Klu Klux Klan prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The “anti-Klan bill”, intended to enforce both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the first federal law passed defining United States citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law. The 1871 Civil Rights Act, “Section 1983 makes an officer liable for deliberately depriving any citizen of the United States of his or her Constitutional Rights.”(Prusinski,

Law enforcement officers are given much power and authority over one’s civil liberties. Not only do they have a duty but also a responsibility to enforce laws and ordinances in their jurisdiction, maintain order and protect its people. In some cases, the only way to accomplish this is through legitimized use of force. Use of force can best be described as "the amount of effort required by a law enforcement officer to induce compliance of an unwilling subject" (nij.gov, 2012). With that said, law enforcement officers have been given the right to apply only enough force necessary to control a situation, while defending others, preventing escape, during self-defense and while a subject is resisting arrest (Pollock, pp. 234). It is not until that force becomes excessive that it becomes say an issue.

Police have many roles to take on an everyday basis. The main goal for an officer is to keep criminals off the streets and to try and maintain a safe environment for people to live. Many people disagree with some of the decisions officers make to enforce these rules and causes a lot of controversy. Today many people don't respect our police officers because of actions made by others. A major issue today is police use of force, stop and frisk.

I understand police officers everywhere have their own lives on the line, every time they suit up to protect and enforce the law amongst the population. I do appreciate the risk they do to keep us safe from absolute chaos. However the authority these policemen have is mostly abused in one way or another, John Cassidy’s report in the NY Times article “ The Statistical Debate Behind The Stop-and-Frisk Verdict” provides statistical evidence that Black and Latino citizens are stopped a lot more frequently than White citizens. This is because racial profiling, this practice of racism should be ceased completely, especially with law enforcement. They are clearly directed towards minorities, which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

This law is a practice that states officers are liable for violating constitutional rights by using the backing of the state laws while on duty (Kappeler, 2006). Exceeding rightful power is also under color of law by use of sexual assault, excessive force, or any intentional acts that end in loss of liberty for an individual (United States Department of Justice, n.d.). The police misconduct provision is another practice that helps keep police officers’ actions controlled. This provision (42 U.S.C. Section 14141) declares that it is illegal for law enforcement officers to practice behavior that withholds a person’s rights, such as excessive force, false arrest, unlawful stops and seizures, discriminatory harassment, and coercive sexual conduct (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Department policies have minor differences but most follow similar guidelines and policies. One of the most current policies that have become active is the policy of seeing the threat before shooting. This policy requires officers to see and know what they are shooting at before shooting at the target (Stanley, 2013). The see before shooting policy holds officers liable for excessive force even if the officer responds to a shooting and fires without seeing the actual threat (Stanley, 2013). A policy that departments are also now following through with is a policy of independent monitoring teams. This policy allows officer

Police officers at some point is time were considered to be peace keepers. Those times have seemed to change, now days police officers can cause fear to the people especially those of color. This problem is not just in one branch of law but rather in all from local, state, and federal government. Racial profiling has become a mayor issue in the United States in the last few years, for example the death of several young black men. There are many unfortunate occasions where racial profiling have been the cause of death, and it is more unfortunate that this happens to certain races more than others. The most infamous being the Ferguson fatal shooting of a young unarmed African American male fatal shot by a white police officer searching for a

As a member of the United States military, there are times that the very freedoms that are being defended are not extended to those sailors and soldiers that are in charge of that task. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech. As a veteran of the United States Navy, I find the limitation of speech for a member of the military to be contradictory at best. The very fact that members of the armed forces cannot speak freely about government officials, as well as government issues that affect their lives, seems to be controversial because it limits one of the freedoms these sailors and soldiers have vowed to protect. To oppose the right of free speech of any member of the military takes away from the importance of the job they do. It has been argued that a member of the military should be mindful of whom they work for and the chain of command that orders come from, and that any display of dissatisfaction can be seen as disobedience or even treason.

Having read both articles, each of which represents a side of the argument about free speech, I must argue that one is complete lunacy while the other makes complete sense. The lunatic article has to be the one from CNN. It effectively blames the speakers for the violence caused on university campuses. Why should a single speaker be blamed for the acts of snowflakes hiding behind black masks? Yes, the speakers are provocative as the article says, but that does not give anyone the right to destroy property and hinder the liberty of people who want to hear what the speaker wants to say. Antifa is violating the God-given rights of people who choose to hear someone's point of view on an issue in our society today.

One of the effects of free speech is to against police officer. People use fighting words to provoke and against him. In fact, when he is doing his job, he has the right to punish them by giving them a ticket. If people think they are not guilty, they can set up an appointment with the judge and prove their case. Therefore, people can’t use their free speech to against police officer. It is unaccepted.

NOTE: This is NOT A JUSTIFICATION for police behavior. It is merely a partial EXPLANATION.

No matter where law enforcement officers are they should maintain their professionalism. For instance, it does not make a good impression on the public if an officer is off duty and out with his buddies at a bar getting drunk and belligerent. If other patrons know he?s a police officer, it damages his reputation and public image as well as the department he works for. Police should also always be careful of what they say. You never know who could be listening. Perhaps a co-worker?s wife stopped in at the department store for something and another officer made crude comments that were over- heard by the wife. Not only is an incident like that downright rude and unprofessional, it could also be interpreted as harassment. Police officers must realize that they are expected by the community to maintain a level of integrity that others are not held to. This off-duty behavior could be misread as the officer being insincere about his job when on duty.

Freedom of speech had a link of positive impacts to the world. One positive impact would be the citizens questioning the government about their personal interests and opinion on free speech. This means that before freedom of speech was questioned, many citizens did not have a voice. The government was not concerned with increasing individual’s voices based on personal opinions and beliefs. When citizens began to question the government, the government had not one motive behind not giving individuals the opportunity to speak freely. This arouse more questioning and thoughts amongst citizens and government officials. The United States implemented the first amendment which is applied to all state and local governments. No one is restricted or