Counter Arguments on Police Brutality

Defending police brutality?

Once,Donald Trump was asked by CBS News why African Americans still die at the hands of law enforcement in a recent interview. He said, “So are white folks.” Catherine Herridge then asked him about his disgust. He added that morewhite people were killed by police.

Get Your Custom Essay Written From Scratch
Are You Overwhelmed With Writing Assignments?
Give yourself a break and turn to our top writers. They’ll follow all the requirements to compose a premium-quality piece for you.
Order Now

According to many reports, police have been known to kill Black people and women at an disproportionate rate. They do so between 2.5-3 times more frequently than white Americans. Trump’s assertion does not undermine Black Lives Matter or arguments for police abolition in the same way that he and his rightwing comrades believe. He actually supported them.

Prominent Black Lives Matter protesters argue that Black people should be at the center of discussions about policing. This is because they are more likely to die from systemic injustices, white supremacy inherent within the police state and implicit anti Black bias among officers. These killings and their delayed consequences, if any, show that Black lives aren’t treated equally in this country.

The abolitionist argument advocates for the complete elimination of police forces. They are fundamentally responsible for controlling people and communities by using violence. Policing funds could be better allocated to social services, proven interventions that stop crime.

Trump did not respond to any of these arguments. He didn’t dispute the fact that Black people are killed by police. He basically said, “Even more people die than we talk about!” Gotcha! That’s it, Trump. It is possible that we can create peaceful and thriving communities where race and postcode don’t affect our life chances. Perhaps if “even” more white people understood how police repressions and incarceration harm us all, it would be easier to do so. Voici les autres arguments en faveur de police brutality:

  • If an officer encounters resistance from a suspect during an arrest, the officer can legally escalate the force used, depending on how the suspect reacts. “
  • “Police officers learn to manage their emotions during volatile confrontations, and to use force only when necessary. “
  • They are often in violent situations because of their role at the front-line. These dangerous situations require them to use instinct and self-defense to prevent situations from spiraling out of control. “
  • “Police would prefer to use as little force as possible to subdue criminals or crowds without putting themselves or others at risk, but it is not always easy to assess the dangers posed by an attacker in a split second. “
  • “Police officers find themselves in life-threatening situations with criminals. These situations require officers to take extreme measures to manage the situation. “
  • For the safety of officers’ lives, a strong >”…excessive force should not be used. “
  • “Many officers arrive at a scene without knowing what’s going on. They try to assess the danger level of a scene before they enter to call additional officers. Problems arise when officers cannot accurately measure the scene.

Based on crime data, law enforcement agencies pay attention to minorities. Due to the fact that crime data can be linked to certain crimes, racial profiling has been developed. Statistics prove that minorities pose a threat to the criminal justice system and the community. Officers should not be considered as threats. They are simply on higher alert for minorities, based on hard facts. Many will argue that police officers do not pose a threat to minorities, but minorities view them as a threat.

Media plays an important role in making police appear to be threatening minority communities. Police officers are often portrayed as threatening to minority communities by the media.

A police use of deadly force incident that appears to be justified on the surface is one of the most inflaming incidents. Law enforcement officers are often subject to a torrent of criticism about their policies and actions after such incidents. Sometimes, the public outcry can be loud enough to prompt changes in laws governing police use deadly force. This was the case with California AB931. (1) The Graham v. Connor standard use is being criticized. Here are some talking points and arguments.

The officer’s actions before the deadly force was used cannot be ignored if we focus only on the time. An officer might have created an environment where force was necessary, or at least seemed necessary.
This raises the question: What is “created situation”? This applies to how far back as the incident occurred. If an officer is called in to stop criminal activity, it can lead to the use of force. We rely on them to act.

This argument was actually addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States when it reaffirmed the 9th Circuit’s “provocation rules” in County of Los Angeles. Mendez. (2) The provocation rule stated that an officer’s lawful and reasonable use of force was unconstitutional if he or she provoked a violent reaction. This is a separate constitutional violation. The Supreme Court ruled against the provocation rule. It recognized its inherent conflict with Graham’s standard, and also recognized the potential problems that such a rule could cause.

“First, the rule contains a vague causal standard. It is applicable when a prior constitutional violation “created the situation that led to” the use force. This rule does not include the familiar proximate causal standard. It is unclear what causal standard is being used. Second, although reasonableness of a search and seizure almost always depends on objective factors (Whren v. United States 517 U. S. 806 (814), 1996), the provocation rule considers the subjective intent of officers who conducted the seizure.”

Let’s take a look at an unlikely but plausible situation. An officer responds to a 911 call about a domestic violence at a home. Officers arrive at the scene to hear noises inside but no one opens the door. Based on the exemption to warrant requirement, the officers decide to enter.

The officers arrive and discover that the male had assaulted a woman. The male is furious that the officers are at his home. He grabs a fireplace poker and refuses to give up his command. The officers then fire their service guns at him as defense.

Officers’ use of force could be argued to have been objectively reasonable. This would preclude a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Now the question is, were the officers responsible for creating the situation? If so, should they be civilly or criminally liable. What happens if a court later determines that the officers didn’t have enough facts at the time they entered to meet the emergency aid doctrine, and their entry was illegal. Is this a way for the court to make sure that the officers are not subject to any “created situation” rules?

Provocation rule advocates would likely say, “That isn’t what we meant. The officers may have saved the woman’s life through their actions!” “Besides, the suspect was breaking the law!” This is a reality that many officers who were involved in high-profile cases were actually violating the law. However, this is often ignored or just accepted by the media and the general public. What criminal behavior is acceptable? There would be many questions that could arise. This can lead to confusion and indecision for police officers. This is what happens when rules are changed based on the results of only a few cases with questionable underlying facts.

The Graham standard is effective and ensures a proper outcome for most cases involving deadly force police use. Many of these cases don’t go to court, because the rules were followed and the officers acted reasonable. Or, they may be brought but the courts use the correct standard and find that the officers’ actions were reasonable. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Douglas, like the district judge, should have thanked the officers rather than sue them.

It is important to focus on the reasonableness and reasonableness of officer’s actions, rather than their beliefs. It is too easy for them say that their life was in peril.
The core argument ignores the reality of human performance factors. Officers will suffer the full brunt from hindsight bias if they focus on the reasonableness and propriety of their actions.

We as a society accept multiple officials and instant replay in almost every professional sport. Multiple angles are a great way to ensure that officials make the right call. Why is this system needed? Because even in ideal circumstances, human attention is limited and can be further impeded by stress and environmental factors like lighting and weather.

But wait! The police can take a person’s life. How can you compare that with sports? You need to look at the process, not just the result. The analysis of the process is similar for both police officers and sports officials. Police officers should also be aware that an individual can act faster than an officer and this can cause delays in the decision-making process.

Although the outcomes in both cases are clearly different, the causational causes are the same. It is wrong to place officers under criminal and/or civil responsibility for their actions, even if they believe that they were reasonable.

Although they may not be criminally charged in most cases involving the use of force, officers involved in these cases are often fired. Although they are not often convicted, those who are prosecuted may be fired. This doesn’t mean that our legal standards for force use are not in line with the expectations placed on officers.
This argument can only be effectively answered if we establish the basic principles of police work and liability, both civil and criminal.

Three areas of liability are available to officers:

Criminality, which usually requires the highest degree of culpability

Civil has different standards, rules, and venues (federal or state), depending on the type and nature a claim.

Administrative can lead to termination at the departmental level.

An incident review of the use of force may result in liability in any one, two, or all three areas. Each area has its own review standards.

Next, you need to understand that police policies are often very broad and can be separated by topic. The use of force policy covers one moment in time during an incident. In determining whether force was used, all information and beliefs that the officer has at the time is considered.

However, policies may cover pre-force actions. Imagine an officer running into a house and finding a suicidal person inside. The officer shoots the subject with a knife. Since the officer was at immediate risk of serious bodily injury or death, this will likely be deemed reasonable force under the Fourth Amendment. New York law provides that officers have Article 35 protection to avoid criminal prosecution. However, it is possible that the officer has violated another Policy during pre-force actions. This could result in administrative punishment that can lead to termination.

In recent high-profile cases involving the use of force, this is exactly what happened. There are many avenues for citizens who have been harmed by police actions. The termination of officers involved in such cases shows that the system is performing as it should. These cases could also lead to civil settlements and judgments. However, these may be for constitutional violations or state tort claims that are not related to the use of force claim.

Officers are sometimes charged but are not acquitted in court. This could be because the jury has access to the facts, which is something that the general public does not have. Expert testimony can help officers see the truth and can be used to inform jurors.

Our standards for force use are not out of control, but they are part of a multilayered system that addresses the complexity of police-citizen encounters.

Officers must use de-escalation before using force.
De-escalation techniques must be used when possible. Many people who criticize police use of deadly force believe that officers can deescalate all situations. This is false. This is not true. A person in severe emotional distress or in severe agitation might not be capable of understanding or hearing any attempts to de-escalate. This is especially true for people in crisis situations that are not high-risk.

When crisis communications are not appropriate, de-escalation is the act of effectively communicating with someone. However, conflict communication is better suited for dealing with criminal suspects that refuse to cooperate with officers. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss, each situation will have its own unique set of techniques. Communication skills are vital in any crisis or conflict situation. However, it is important to realize that some people will not listen or cooperate with police officers regardless of what they say or do. The police cannot force the person to comply, but they can try.

It is easy to see the anger and dismay of members of public when they watch body-cam footage of officers involved in shooting that, with the benefit o hindsight, wasn’t exactly how the officer saw the situation. However, anger and dismay are not grounds for changing police force use. These feelings stem from a lack of knowledge about the law, the realities and human performance factors of police work, as well as a limited understanding of the law. A thorough, transparent investigation is the best way to respond to public outcry after a use force incident. It’s important not to rush to amend laws or policies that are based on foundational legal concepts and policing principles. These investigations must be used by police agencies to improve their policies, training, and procedures.

These ideas can be difficult to sell when it comes down to traditional police culture.

Mike Severance says, “I believe an officer will eventually be killed.” After 46 years of service, he just retired from Seattle Police Department. However, he was still working when the new Justice Department-approved policy on use-of force came out. It is “ridiculous,” he says.

He claims that officers will lose precious seconds when trying to decide how to act because of its complexity. He dismisses sections telling officers to consider whether the suspect is mentally ill or speaks English.

“What should we be considering? This guy is nuts and he has a gun. Does that mean he is not a threat to anyone or less? Severance states that he’s likely to be more dangerous.

Severance was among about 100 Seattle police officers who filed a federal suit against the policy before he retired. They claimed it violated their right to self-defense. Lisa Battalia is a lawyer who assisted in the writing of their lawsuit. She says that the policy makes de-escalation a non-priority.

Battalia states, “Actually that’s not always more,” as these officers would tell you. In many cases, this allows for a situation to spiral out of control. This allows the suspect to gain an advantage, which can make it more dangerous for everyone.

Seattle police officers who are active in the city’s East Precinct are forbidden from speaking with the media. Last week, an East Precinct watch commander sent out an email to warn that some officers were hesitant about using force when it was clearly necessary. He wrote that some officers were hesitant to use force in situations where it was clearly necessary. This is partly due to the policy’s requirements to report their use.

Fear Of Disrespect?

Russ Hicks knows the arguments of police officers against the “go slowly” philosophy. Hicks is a veteran cop with 23 years of experience. Most of his time was spent on patrol. However, he also teaches at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state’s police academy. He believes police are prone to a “machismo culture” that makes it difficult for them not to confront.

“It takes more discipline,” he says. He recalls his time as a patrolman. He says, “I’ve had people run from me and run into their houses for minor violations.” “I could run and boot in their doors, but is that really worth it?”

There is an educated public who asks ‘Why?’ Wait a minute, tell me more about this place before you do that. Officers are very challenged by that.

Hicks was once shocked when his young partner saw a woman escape into her home this way. My new guy is like, “Let’s get her! This is a hot pursuit!” Hicks instead got a warrant to arrest her, knowing that she would eventually have to appear in court.

“And who is like a professional?” Who was able to maintain a level head and not react too much to the circumstances? He asks. “She was in prison for 80 days when we arrived at court.”

Hicks claims that this kind of willingness is not typical of American police culture. He says that a major reason is the fear of disrespect by police officers.

“We have an informed public who are asking questions. He adds, “Hold on, please, tell me about this, before you do that,” and officers are very challenged by it.

The situation is a “perfect storm”, because while the American police are trying to maintain an aggressive, militarized stance and the public losing their sense of deference, he says it’s a “perfect storm”. People often push back with a camera phone in their hands, ready to see what the officer will do.