Taser Gun Vs Pepper Hairspray Case

In our research study we hope to show that the goal to Tasers it to provide law enforcement with alternatives to deadly force in order to minimize harm to both community members and police. We also want to show that no use of devices or techniques may be safe to everyone, but that we can't look just

There are several different types of force. These types of force include verbal commands or persuasion, physical force (unarmed), force using weapons that are non lethal, force that involves using weapons such as the bean bag gun or taser, and lastly, deadly force. All officers have to give way to each force option before last resorting to the use of deadly force, unless of course if the officer is in a life or death situation. This may be the only way to use deadly force in the first and last resort. They have a couple of weapons that they carry in case the need to use them arises. They carry a baton, tasers, handcuffs, guns and they also have police dogs. Some police do follow the guidelines for using force. Others may abuse their authority and not use force properly. It is really only up to the officers to do the right thing. Some cops are great and live to protect our communities while others abuse their authority.

There were boycotts of the malls in Baton Rouge, people were marching even holding up traffic. This didn’t only occur in Baton Rouge, but across the U.S. people were standing up for this injustice. Alton Sterling was selling cd in front of a convenience store when two officers approached him, the situation escalated Mr. Sterling was shot several times resulting in his death. Baton Rouge police did not provide much information about what escalated the incident between the officers and Sterling or what prompted an officer to fire his weapon. A witness, however, described police as “aggressive” and said Sterling was armed but was not holding his gun or touching his pockets during the incident. The level of force an officer uses varies based on the situation. Because of this variation, guidelines for the use of force are based on many factors, including the officer’s level of training or experience.

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.

The use of unreasonable force is constitutionally excessive and violates the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-96 (1989). There is no per se rule in determining whether an officer’s actions are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Scott, 550 U.S. at 383. The courts typically balance “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8 (1985)). However, courts, considering the totality of circumstances, balance the following factors to determine if an officer used force is unreasonable: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Because force can be unreasonable even without physical blows or injuries, the analysis under Graham allows the court to determine objectively the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. MacPherson, 630 F.3d at 826.

In most cases the police is permitted to use any form of necessary force to suppress a suspected criminal with minimal consequences if they use excessive force (“Police Use Of Force”). According to the current law all law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to weaken an incident, make an arrest, and protect themselves and others from harm (“Police Use of Force”). Officers receive guidance from their individual agencies, but no universal set of rules that governs when officers should use force and how much (“Police Use Of Force”). Police use of excessive force against the unarmed public should be illegal because it lowers the amount of unnecessary deaths, reduces riots, and would decrease racism.

Police brutality is a topic that everybody confers to emphasize the burgeoning fear of the police. This comes in the form of excessive force which becomes a controversial topic for citizens and police alike. The nation has it’s own definition of what excessive force may be, as some believe using a Taser has the same intention as using a nightstick to apprehend scoundrels. Others may ascribe excessive force as a race crime; “In March 2015, the DOJ also issued a report detailing a pattern of clear racial disparities and discriminatory intent on the part of the Ferguson, Mo., police department”(Excessive or Reasonable Force by Police) resulting in uneasiness between the multiple groups regardless of their age; interestingly officers are also affected by the disparity of the community. The judgement they receive can actually affect how an officer decides to act because they

He could have waited for Billy to leave the liquor store and approach him differently than withdrawing his weapon. The Fourth Amendment is In the Garner decision and it says that in excessive force claims becomes the matter of seizure and the court must balance when seizure is needed against the nature and quality against seizure to figure out if the seizure was reasonable (Ross, 2015) Under the Garner decision, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of serious injury or death to officers or citizens, Lethal force may be warranted to prevent an escape or to protect a citizen, It may also be used only when a felony has been committed. The felon must be dangerous involving violence or a threat of violence, A suspect is only dangerous if he threatens the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed an offense which he inflicted or threatened to inflict serious physical injury. (Ross, 2015) The officer must also give warning before using lethal force. Billy could sue for punitive damages and compensation because the officer did not warn him before he fired the weapon. The officer was very

The intervention being evaluated is the TASER. Police agencies have increasingly relied on the TASER to incapacitate combative or violent suspects who may be resistant to lesser degrees of force. Despite their adoption by more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, there is little empirical research examining the use of these stun guns by police officers. Like many other innovations in policing, researchers have failed to keep pace with the diffusion of this rapidly spreading technology (p. 170). Advocates of the TASER contend that this technology has saved lives in situations where other less lethal methods are ineffective and lethal force may be justified and that their continued use is warranted (p. 171).

We all know this isn’t true there are people that have weapons and people who don’t (Amaya, "Police Brutality in America.”). There were some historical things that lead to this problem in a way. One of them being the civil war and how our country was divided in a war about whether there should have been slavery. Another thing that could have lead to this from history was the civil rights act, it was trying to bring everyone together and accept eachothers race. Everything else wasn’t because of something from the past, it’s all happening itself. It all happens depending on the officer's decision in a split second.

Police officers are given a pistol and taser, which is rarely used. Police officers would have an enormous amount of power with a firearm in a weaponless country. The fact that they would need one given the circumstance of the rest of the country would be ridiculous. A taser is more than effective in neutralizing a criminal who is on the run or is being uncooperative. Recently in Pleasanton, California police shot an unarmed man who was caught breaking into a car dealership. He was most likely under some sort of drug as police assured that two shots from a stun gun was not enough to subdue the man. The man did end up beating and kicking a police officer in a fight he soon had as they were trying to apprehend him. Seven police officers were up against one man yet they shot him. Seven police officers is plenty when dealing with one person. The ease of having a firearm in your holster is too good of a temptation to use. Had the police officers been trained differently then to shoot to kill they may have handled the situation differently. Police officers in the U.K. are a good example of police without firearms. They carry a taser and the ability to neutralise a tense situation. Many police officers in the U.S., not all, are some what out of shape when they reach a certain age and rely on firearms to make up for it.Police officers men and women must be tough and trained very well so that they are the alpha when time comes to face a

From the video, it looks like things escalated quickly between the officers and Sterling. The Officers could have spent more time talking to Sterling, and the might have even been able to ask him if he had a weapon on him instead of finding it once they wrestled him to the ground. They could have also resorted to using the Taser gun on him again once he was on the ground instead of pulling out their guns. By doing this I feel as though the situation would have gone more calmly than it did. It would have prevented anyone from getting shot which would have allowed officers to fulfill their four goals which were stated before. Sterling would have never been killed, and everyone’s safety would have been protected. If this situation were looked at from a hypothetical standpoint things could have turned out differently. Sterling could have gained possession of his gun while they were wrestling and shot off a few rounds before the officers shot him, or Sterling might have just let the officers take the weapon from him before things escalated. The second hypothetical scenario would have been the best outcome because everyone would have been safe, the officers would have made their arrest and Sterling’s rights would not have been

When it comes down to the choice of which weapon to use, what comes to mind first? A gun? A baton? How about a much safer choice of weapon that won't have lasting consequences on a person. Tasers are a preferred choice over other non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray, making it the most effective choice.

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,

This proves that taser is an effective non-lethal weapon that can be used to subdue the criminals. Here are some possible advantages of taser guns, first, taser is a non-lethal weapon. As we may have already know, tasers are meant to take down the suspects without injuring or killing them. Also, it is safer to use in a situations where there are many bystanders in the scene, since tasers do not harm people around the intended suspects. This also leads to the second point of avoiding the usage of lethal weapons. So far, 1689 people have been killed by the police in a crime related actions (May, T. 2014). By promoting the usage of tasers, police officers around the world can lower the number of suspects being killed in the scene. Using the lethal weapon also dangers the suspects, police, and the bystanders, because firearms are a lethal weapon that can take away lives easily. Tasers also requires minimal training to use the functions, which also makes the officers and other security related people to easily use tasers in action. On the other hand, typical fire arms requires more training time to properly use them in order to avoid any accidents with it. Fourthly, by using taser, the injury rates dropped significantly. Taser have been used within law enforcement agencies from 1998, and from that time, according to the Taser International, taser helped lower injuries among officers and