Over time, our faith in the criminal justice system has become everything but progressive. One of the many issues we are facing, and have been facing for quite some time, around the world today is police brutality and corruption. The days when police officers were seen as peacekeepers are long gone. It is agreed upon that there is no single, universal definition of “use of force.” According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, use of force can be defined as, “the amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject.”(Pg #) Use of force is permitted when attempting to defend yourself or an individual/group. Officers receive guidance from their hiring agency regarding their use of force, but,
…show more content…
As I previously stated, one of the two reasons officers may shoot is in self-defense or at the defense of others. For example, if someone is pointing something that the officer may mistake for a gun, he can legally shoot the person. The second reason is to prevent escape when the suspect serves as a significant threat to the community. An example of this would be the 1985 court case between Tennessee and Garner which concluded to be a violation of the 4th Amendment for an officer to fire at an unarmed suspect from behind or while they are running away. Garner was shot dead by two police officers after fleeing the scene of a house burglary. Found in his possession was a purse with $10 inside. He was fifteen. Serving as a threat to the community is a factor, but serving as a threat to the officer is the key point. The officer has to have an “objectively reasonable” cause that there was a threat even if there wasn’t. Although an officer is trained to use his/her gun as a last resort, they are also trained to hit one area of the body. Many people wonder why cops don’t just shoot an arm or a leg to prevent actually killing a suspect, but they are trained to shoot directly in the chest. This almost always results in …show more content…
Solving this issue is definitely going to take a lot of cooperation and understanding; not only by law enforcement, but by us citizens as well. Former President Barack Obama has attempted to reduce civil rights violations by introducing police-worn body cameras. In 2013, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) conducted a survey and found that 75% of police departments did not use body-worn cameras. The survey found both pros and cons. Pros include increased accountability and transparency as well as better evidence documentation. Cons seem to be outweighing the pros with factors that executives must consider such as officer and community concerns, data retention, privacy issues, and financial consideration. The cost of implementing this technology not only requires cost of the camera itself, but also the maintenance with training, administration, training, and disclosure. Little research is provided today to law enforcement executives in aiding them in their decision to how and whether or not they should use body-worn cameras in their departments. However, the NIJ is currently funding two studies: a CNA Corporation study of the impact of body-worn cameras in the Las Vegas Metro Police Department as well as a Los Angeles Police Foundation evaluation of body-worn video technology in the
As I previously stated, one of the two reasons officers may shoot is in self-defense or at the defense of others. For example, if someone is pointing something that the officer may mistake for a gun, he can legally shoot the person. The second reason is to prevent escape when the suspect serves as a significant threat to the community. An example of this would be the 1985 court case between Tennessee and Garner which concluded to be a violation of the 4th Amendment for an officer to fire at an unarmed suspect from behind or while they are running away. Garner was shot dead by two police officers after fleeing the scene of a house burglary. Found in his possession was a purse with $10 inside. He was fifteen. Serving as a threat to the community is a factor, but serving as a threat to the officer is the key point. The officer has to have an “objectively reasonable” cause that there was a threat even if there wasn’t. Although an officer is trained to use his/her gun as a last resort, they are also trained to hit one area of the body. Many people wonder why cops don’t just shoot an arm or a leg to prevent actually killing a suspect, but they are trained to shoot directly in the chest. This almost always results in …show more content…
Solving this issue is definitely going to take a lot of cooperation and understanding; not only by law enforcement, but by us citizens as well. Former President Barack Obama has attempted to reduce civil rights violations by introducing police-worn body cameras. In 2013, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) conducted a survey and found that 75% of police departments did not use body-worn cameras. The survey found both pros and cons. Pros include increased accountability and transparency as well as better evidence documentation. Cons seem to be outweighing the pros with factors that executives must consider such as officer and community concerns, data retention, privacy issues, and financial consideration. The cost of implementing this technology not only requires cost of the camera itself, but also the maintenance with training, administration, training, and disclosure. Little research is provided today to law enforcement executives in aiding them in their decision to how and whether or not they should use body-worn cameras in their departments. However, the NIJ is currently funding two studies: a CNA Corporation study of the impact of body-worn cameras in the Las Vegas Metro Police Department as well as a Los Angeles Police Foundation evaluation of body-worn video technology in the