The Importance Of Balancing Safety

By the late 1800s, police officers were issued firearms to counteract the better equipped criminal. In recent years, there have been resurgences in the importance of non-lethal and less-than-lethal weapons for law enforcement use. However, the devices in use today are worlds away from in terms of technology compared to what their police forefathers used. Generally, the use of force by law enforcement officers is permitted and often necessary under certain circumstances, such as in self-defense or in the defense of another individual or group.

I agree that officer safety is tremendously important, unfortunately in today's society it has become more of an issue. Due to the overwhelming media coverage on the use of deadly physical force by police officers, officer safety has decreased. Law enforcement is constantly scrutinized by the media anytime an incident occurs, no mater how severe. Overall the public has to demonstrate more respect towards law enforcement, and law enforcement officers have to do the same toward the public.

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.

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.

As of September 1, 2015, in the United States police officers have killed 776 people and 161 of those people were unarmed at the time of their death (MintPress). There have been too many incidents where police officers have injured or killed someone that could have been prevented. Using maximum force with a suspect has become a routine in many confrontations. Officers have not been given the proper training to deal with individuals and how to handle them without using a weapon. If they were given more training on how to deal with situations resulting in using a weapon to stop an individual during certain scenarios police brutality situations would decrease, lives would be saved, and police would get their good reputation back. However, police departments would have to spend more money on re-training. Some people agree with police brutality and think that a civilian deserved their punishment, which is not right because no one deserves to be beaten or killed. Situations involving police brutality have been increasing throughout the years, which is a problem that must to be solved.

Police Officers worldwide are becoming way too powerful, to be “protecting” and “looking out” for we the peoples best interests. First, let 's start out with a word for word definition of Police Power and their responsibilities. “In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.” But yet the cops are the ones killing unarmed, or no imminent threat to them or others. Now, I’m not a genius but I know that isn 't, part of protecting our health, safety, and to be shot by the ones who are suppose to protect us. In 2015 a shocking number of 1140 people were shot and KILLED by our police force according to The Counted. The police are suppose to be looking after us, protecting us

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.

There is a life preservation policy that has been ignored more and more lately. Officers are told to do everything possible to refrain from taking life. Unfortunately, however, some decide to take the easy way out. What many people do not know is that other officers are supposed to stop the use of excessive force. In these instances, the officer who is using too much force needs to be turned in to the supervisor to prevent this from being a constant occurrence. Officers are not allowed to choke or strangle, however, videos show some officers doing far worse than that. Things could be handled in a number of different ways such as talking calmly to the civilian, keeping distance, and trying to refrain from being viewed as a threat ("Police Use of Force Project").

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.

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 faced with a wide variety of threatening situations on the job every day, they go through an intensive training at the academy to prepare them for the safety keeping job they have. The use of force may or may not be a significant predicament but it should be viewed by the community as well as the police. Often police officers find

In a matter of 630ms an officer is confronted with the decision to open fire on a suspect or proceed with caution. Police officers are trained to deal with a broad range of circumstances, including minor traffic violations to hostile shoot outs. Additionally, they are trained to deal with a wide range of people from compliant to aggressive and to act accordingly in each condition. The decision to use lethal force is supposed to be restricted to situations in which an officer feels threatened. However, in light of recent officer involved shootings, civilians have begun to think

In 2015, the Washington Post reported 987 fatal shootings by on-duty officers in their database (Lowery, 2016). These high numbers along with the role of media, have caused officers to be scrutinized more than ever. Many of the largest police departments were asked to implement new training and implement new policies that would decrease the number of fatal shootings (Lowery, 2016). The reform goals were to decrease the number of shootings that were not a crime, but sparked an outrage in communities (Lowery, 2016). If you look at these goals of reform, it does make sense to try to find ways to decrease deadly shootings that are not necessary. It just does not make sense to me to limit officers so much that they are not effective in stopping crime and we are ultimately ruled by

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).

The use of force, with regards to law enforcements use of it, is a complex topic that should be looked at in all perspectives. There is tension between the police and the community they work for, on whether this is a power that the officers should have or not. There are ambiguous laws that do not give law enforcement offices much guidelines on what is exactly permissible when it comes to force, and all the different situations it could occur. The line that the use of force leis on is often a fine one. It is teetering between excessive force and never being able to enforce the laws. The use of forces is a conversation that is worth having with all the pros and cons that it brings to the discussion board.