This isnt a quiz question from my criminal justice class homework thats due tomorrow or anything...Im just curious...Um could you answer before tomorrow though? Thanks...
2007-02-05 16:39:55 · 16 answers · asked by X-1 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
not as much as you want to use and not as little as the perpatrader wants a healthy balance and alls fine
2007-02-05 16:48:10 · answer #1 · answered by warr31 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here, I'll give you some examples. It'll probably be easier for you to grasp the concept. It did for me anyways.
1) A suspect engages in a physical, fisted (as in no weapons)confrontation. A police officer can use his body (as in general self-defense and martial arts, if educated in it), baton, or, if the officer is really underconfident, pepper spray. NO GUN. And the baton must be used to strike "green" areas like the perennial and, the always "oh-crap" if you miss, femoral artery (on the outside and inside of the thigh respectively). If the officer strikes the suspect on a "red" zone like the head or genitals (that's why the femoral is "oh-crap"), that would be excessive force.
2) Suspect is coming at an officer with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, WMD, take your pick). Officer MAY use his gun. I say "may" because the officer can always opt to disengage (in any scenario) and call for back up. Strength in numbers.
3) Suspect is unco-operative, and being just a general annoyance with his verbal jabs, you DON'T use any physical force. In this scenario, I'm just thinking that suspect is arrested so just bide your time; the suspect will talk.
Now, I don't know where you live, but these are Ontario's guidelines for use of force. They all vary place to place, but it's not all that much different. It's all common sense, like you don't hit someone on the head. Hope these helped.
2007-02-06 00:56:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if it ends up in court because the defendant pressed a lawsuit against the city and the officers that were involved because he got his *** kicked, (no matter what the reason or the offense), it would be the judge & jury to decide if it was in fact "excessive force", whereas if it were "reasonable" force, you'd never hear about it because this happens every day. With the media exposure today, only excessive force makes the headlines, unless an AMW fugitive was caught and apprehended. Basically, I'd say if it ends up on "breaking news", it's generally a case of excessive force, if you didn't make the headlines, you probably were arrested under the title "reasonable " force...
2007-02-06 00:58:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Reasonable Force" infer to measured minimal force in direct correlation to the threat at hand. It suggests agency of authority in power are capable of entering into some unknown potentially crisis. Being able to access the situation, diffuse and/or DE escalate any potential fatalies, being well trained, infomed and a code of conduct in the realm of a) calm all parties down.3)fIND common ground then dist out. The moral High Ground. Conflict resolution. NO OVERREACTING!
Uneasy Americans today far their gov.s upsurb of power as.
Unreasonable use of force is round all up shoot first
2007-02-06 01:41:01 · answer #4 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The decision to use force by an officer is based on his training and experience, and the the situation that he is presented with. lets take into consideration the officer getting punched.
would an officer shoot a person who punched him, but he wasent stunned or the person did not "hurt" the officer, most likely not. but lets say he is getting beat down. can he use his firearm to protect himself if he is going to be beat into uncounciousness and be unable to protect himself. of course he is.
150 pound officer is attempting to arrest a 350 pound football player. he tries to pepper spray him and he still fights him, the expandable baton doesnt work, the taser doesnt connect, and the person is still fighting the officer.
what does the officer do? what are the officers options.
ina perfect world run away and get backup. but what if he couldnt?
what would you do?
2007-02-06 18:04:34 · answer #5 · answered by vpsoomalley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reasonable Force: To use reasonable means within the law to subdue an actor or criminal offender who an officer has reasonable suspision to believe a crime has been committed by that person and that person is resisting arrest or detention.
2007-02-06 01:11:38 · answer #6 · answered by Chuck-the-Duck 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
John is 100 % right, you only use the necessary amount of force needed to complete a lawful arrest.
2007-02-06 01:27:21 · answer #7 · answered by abstractloki 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The least amount of force necessary in order to effect an arrest.
2007-02-06 01:47:07 · answer #8 · answered by bluelights 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The force necessary to affect an arrest given the officers mindset at the time of the incident.
This force must be consistent with local and state training protocol for Law Enforcement.
e.g.
California- P.O.S.T.
Wa- B.L.E.A.
etc
2007-02-06 00:44:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The force necessary to effect the arrest. It can be thought of as reciprocatory force. You mete out what is meted to you. If punched, you punch them; if deadly force is levied at you, you may in turn use deadly force against the agressor.
2007-02-06 06:59:04 · answer #10 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Force required to protect yourself wiyhout going too far e.g. if someone is verbally harrassing you shooting them is not "reasonable force" but if they were attacking you with a knife and your life was threatened shooting may be considered "reasonable force" if there is no other way to stop them
2007-02-06 00:46:31 · answer #11 · answered by homer28b 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋