Private Security Force

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.

The use of force is inevitable in police work. In many situations the lives of officers or civilians can be taken by not using force when necessary or using it improperly. Many factors come into play when an officer decides to use force. This includes is the use of force justified, has the officer been properly trained to use force, and will the department be held liable if the force is used improperly?

Other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at one's side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to criminal attack is the criminal's fear that the prospective victim is armed and prepared to defend themselves (Nisbet 14). Courts have ruled that there is no constitutional fight to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen, which means that police have no duty to protect the individual citizen (Long 55).

Under federal law if a suspect poses a threat to a law enforcement officer or the public the officer has permission to use deadly force. The Supreme Court says there are two factors that are involved to use deadly force, dangerousness and necessity (Hall, 2004). An example of

The safety and well-being of United States citizens continues to grow more important with each passing day. Events such as the Newtown massacre, and several other active shooter situations have led to a greater need for private security. Chris Hertig and Charles Thibodeau say, “The use of force against violent, aggressive or resistant persons is a necessity in the protection of people, property and image.” So exactly what amount of force can a private security officer use in a given situation? First one must look to when force is required, and what levels of force are granted under “Continuum of Force” (Hertig & Thibodeau).

There is much controversy regarding police work and the use of deadly force, as there are great deals of individuals who feel that officers need to be limited and that this would have a positive effect on the rate of divisive police killings. Police authority to use both psychological and physical force in situations where criminals need to be apprehended is perfectly normal. Furthermore, officers have the right to use deadly force in conditions when individuals targeted pose a direct threat to people around them.

As a police officer, the major objectives are to maintain order, enforce the law, protect one’s property, and to save lives. In addition, police are divided into two roles based on how they perform their duties. The two roles of a police officer are a public servant and a crime fighter. A police officer whose role as a public servant is to serve all types of people, as well as criminals. Public servants regularly provide advice and make judgments as to the degree of risk they should take with the public. Many decisions involving risk are relatively easy to make, but others are complex and significant consequences (Kernaghan and Langford, 2016). These risks may involve using force and the consequences could be media backlash or a potential termination. Public servants abide by the oath and uphold the integrity and honor of the organization as an officer. Also, public servant officers like to play it safe because they like to be known as ordinary citizens who like to go home to their

Leaders and people who serve directly under the law are also subject to such treatment, but because they have attained such status within their own ranks, the rules seem slackened in comparison to the general audience. Because they were those uniforms and carry those badges, regulations are not nearly as strict for them as they are for the common citizen. When there is less of a threat of personal injury, some of these individuals find the time to create ideas that violates the more vulnerable citizen of his or her rights. There is no way for them to know of the conversations held behind closed doors, but multiple news headlines have proved that not every member of the security team has good

Police encounter different situations in their daily activities. The diverse nature of the circumstances implies that the members of the police also have to adopt different strategies of handling them. In some circumstances, the police have to use force as a way of addressing the situations. Unfortunately, when the police apply their own discretion in the use of force, the outcomes of this approach may end in fatalities or serious injuries. In recent times, diverse opinions have emerged in relation to the use of discretionary force. In some quarters, the use of discretionary force has been hailed as beneficial while in other case such as the 2008 Shooting of Tyler Cassidy, concerns have been applied concerning the appropriateness of the strategy. Against this backdrop, this essay examines whether the police use of force is a necessary component of the job and describes the benefits and limitations connected to the discretionary use of force by the police.

America, being founded on doctrine such as The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, shows how we as a nation hold justice and freedom forefront in our belief system. Having a police force in our country to help the citizens of the United States of America uphold these values, that have been passed down over the generations, the values that our forefathers created for us, is one of the main reasons America is the great nation that it is today. However, in recent news, the measures that our police force have been taking to ensure our civilian safety, and the safety of our values as Americans, has been put under scrutiny. Many people

Whenever a law enforcement officer places an individual under arrest or is involved in a deadly force scenario the officer has used some degree of force. The incidents where an office has to make a split second decision and use physical force to control a situation is known as “Use of Force.” The use of force varies as situations present themselves to the officer and they must decide what level of force is necessary to control the situation. Often the use of force is subject to much debate and not a year goes by without some media coverage of some law enforcement officer accused of using excessive force. In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single,

The theory used in this study will center on if law enforcement agencies regularly train and practice non-lethal means will have lower cases of excessive force within their organization. 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.

This journal article discusses data on various types of less then lethal use of force weapon systems and the effect they have on the suspect and the officer who was forced to use it. It examines the future of police action and new advances in suspect restraint systems (Albert, 1999).

Armed police are required to become skilled at responding to events that demand the use of firearms (Fyfe, 1981). Arguments arise from the public's failure to recognise the police’s difficulty in making a straightforward judgment as to whether coercive force or the use of guns is required in events (Dick, 2005). When police do use guns, there is a risk that police may misfire and consequently cause more victims as a result (McCulloch, 1989). Furthermore, in circumstances that require force, natural biological impulses kick in; informally known as the fight or

Police use of force policies are used by all types of law enforcement officers. There is a concern for a balance of ethical decisions. There are mutual concerns for the rights and lives of civilians and the wellbeing and lives of officers. Upholding excessive stress-free standards for employed law enforcement is detrimental to police use of force mandates. Police organizations can reduce some of the scenarios that cause use of force outcomes. There is a need to find what process can identify potential issues prior to events or actions that cause criminal misconduct by law enforcement. Police training and development needs reassessment. There needs to be an administration of logic and reasoning prior to the use of any force, especially deadly force. Most of the police operations that incite these negative outcomes are avoidable with the implementation of proper training.