2007-03-31 07:47:58 · 12 answers · asked by jimpoplay 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
As much as I or any other "reasonable" person feels is necessary to detain or subdue you should you be resisting.
2007-03-31 07:55:22 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If someone is handcuffed, they still are able to kick, strike, headbutt, or even pull out a concealed weapon from their waist, leg, etc...resonable force all depends on how much force the detainee is using. If someone is kicking, hitting, or approaching in a threatening manner, you can use a baton or mace to stop the threat. If someone is yelling or screaming, reasonable force would be putting them on the ground, because they are obstructing police or can be insuing a riot. If someone refuses to place their hands behind their back, you can use a control hold or put them on the ground, but cannot strike, or mace them, unless they have a history of violent behavior.
An officer has to stop using force when the individual stops their attack. If someone was violent or put other's lives in danger, an officer can continue using force if that person does not comply with ALL of the officer's demands.
An officer can use deadly force if he/she is in fear of their life or someone else's life. Examples:
Someone is told to put their hands up and they reach in their waist or pocket.
If they attempt to take an officer's gun.
Use a vehicle as a deadly weapon
Attack with a knife
Of course, pointing a gun at anyone
In those situations, an officer cannot fire his/her weapon if the suspect is in a crowd or running away.
2007-03-31 16:31:56 · answer #2 · answered by lovemytc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reasonable force is relevant to how much force the person is using. Let me give you an example. If the offender is threatening to use a weapon on someone then this would permit a quite high level of force. Basically we are taught reasonable officer responses that would match with offender behaviour. So if for example a person is showing certain resistance then we would consider use of PAVA, if they became aggressive and tried to assault people/police then we would apply defense tactics such as using our baton or take-downs. This would be put to us in court to justify our actions.
Hope this answers your question.
2007-03-31 18:32:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The term is Necessary, and Reasonable force. This refers to controlling the situation, and individual(s) involved. It is for the safety of everyone. It could be as simple as separating two people who are arguing, or as serious as taking someones life.
2007-03-31 15:50:47 · answer #4 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much the least amount of force reasonably necessary to get the subject to comply. So if you're complying, it's the bare minimum. If you're trying to stab them, it's probably going to be a bit more.
2007-03-31 20:02:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The police can use as much force as reasonably necessary to prevent your escape, and prevent you from hurting anyone.
What is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances, where you are, what you are doing, relative size and build, whether you have weapons, who else is around, and dozens of other factors.
2007-03-31 14:55:15 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Honestly any means necessary to detain you is reasonable force. It is necessary for an officers safety and for your safety to be complient to any orders an officer gives you.
2007-03-31 15:05:56 · answer #7 · answered by pmbrundle74 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to gain compliance.
2007-03-31 14:56:42 · answer #8 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Force only necessary to get control of the individual, no more.
2007-03-31 15:19:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If resisting--as much force as necessary to protect--you--themselves and the public!!
2007-03-31 15:03:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋