Police Force Off Duty

In his article The Paranoid Style of American Policing, Ta-Nehisi Coates suggests that police officers in the United States are too quick to use lethal force as a resolution to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. He believes they should be held accountable for their actions, the same way every day civilians are.

Sometimes, it really depends on the officer’s mood and mentality toward his or her job. Some officers may never have to use deadly force, while others use it daily.

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.

There are two types of force in police work. One is non deadly force and the other is deadly force. Non deadly force is force that, when used, is not likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. Now just because it is not deadly does not mean you can run around and be using non deadly force because you feel like it.

The use of deadly force by police officers is a very important subject in today’s society. Many consider the use of deadly force excessive in most cases. However, there are many aspects to look at when considering this topic, such as: Why was deadly force required? When did the officer feel it necessary to apply deadly force? What will be the implications for the officer after the fact? How does the use of deadly force affect society as a whole?

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.

Because offecers are given the ability to use deadly force on the job, whether it is necessary or even right to do so, they are always able to make that claim. They can always say that this force was necessary, and frequently in this country no matter the evidence the judicial system has sided with this right. This made police officers almost untouchable in the criminal courts, at least when it came to the use of deadly force, however this all changed with the death of Freddie

The use of deadly force in extreme situations goes back several hundred years when it was first admitted as a right during the early nineteenth century as sheriffs realized that they needed to kill certain threatening individuals in order to protect others. Thousands of police officers were killed during the recent decades and this raises an alarm regarding the authority to use deadly force. Individuals criticizing this right have to acknowledge that police officers fight with the purpose of preserving a peaceful world and are constantly exposed to criminals who are unhesitant about

Police officers are often viewed as oppressors and unjust by the community, when in reality they are just doing their jobs. The job of a police officer is to apprehend criminals and detect crime, and the maintenance of public order and to the extend and complication of this duty police officers often need to make split second decision that is not often view by the public as what we call “self-defense” which is a right we all have as human beings and stated in the Universal Declaration of

The disadvantages of police discretion mostly lie in the abuse of the privileges they have in regard to exercising the discretion power. Discretion has been seen as inviting partiality in dealing with the citizens as well as creating an opportunity for corruption. Others have debated that during discretion, the police don’t have the slightest idea about what could be the consequences of their actions (Peak, 2009). Police discretion is a potential tool for abuse that could possibly result into potential needless death and/or injury. A police officers choice may be influenced by personal factors that may determine an irrational decision. For example; In the 2005 shooting, that occurred on 126th Street between Fifth and Lenox Avenues, the suspect, Richard Gooding, ignored officers’ orders to drop his gun and began shooting. Five officers returned fire, fatally injuring Mr. Gooding and wounding Ms. Johnson in the right elbow. Garnold M. King was shot in the lower back; he has settled his lawsuit with the city.

The National Institute of Justice states that “Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force, and lethal force” (2015 para. 7). In the book “How Police Justify the use of Deadly Force” states three different circumstances that gives a police officer the right to use their gun for lethal force. When in danger to protect his own life, when in need to protect other lives, and to stop a violent felony or prevent a prisoner from escaping. It also states the officer can only result to the gun after all other techniques have been used (1984 pg.144).

Within the past decade there have been several accounts of fatal police shootings. Law enforcement deems deadly force as a justifiable homicide. Not all cases are investigated in its entirety. Stricter laws on police officers should be forced to prevent riots, senseless killings and promote equality.

use of force is always a heavily debated topic for law enforcement. Every action an officer takes during an altercation when use of force is present, will be reviewed by chief’s, lieutenant’s captain’s etc. With the recent rise in officer involved shootings, the demand for less lethal force measures has begun to rise. The eighth amendment of the United States Constitution was made for protection against cruel and unusual punishment; if an officer uses lethal force in an altercation they have deprived that person of their rights. Also the fourteenth amendment gives us the right to due process; lethal force deprives us of that right. There is a saying that has come to light recently that law enforcement officers are the judge the jury and the executioner.

Protecting and serving is the promise guaranteed by police officers, who put their lives in potential danger daily. Police officer’s right to use lethal force is being questioned due to a current bad reputation. A few negative cases should not triumph the countless positive things that police officers do for their community. A police officer who cannot use lethal force cannot easily protect the public and themselves in a dangerous situation. Police officers deserve the right to use lethal force to protect themselves, maintain public safety, and for an intimidation effect.

Police officers are given a significant amount of discretion simply due to the nature of the job. Officers are faced with many threatening situations forcing them to react quickly, yet appropriately. They have the power to infringe upon any citizen’s rights to freedom and therefore they must use this power effectively. One major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is their power to decide when to use force or when to use lethal force. Manning (1997) argues that it is generally accepted that police should be allowed to use force. He also explains that there are an uncertain amount people who agree on as to what constitutes excessive force. The line