Police Use of Deadly Force - Research Paper Example

?Police Use of Deadly Force Deadly force is used by a person to cause serious bodily harm knowingly. In a vast majority of cases, deadly force is used in extreme conditions as a last resort when the objective cannot be achieved by any means of lesser severity. Weapons whose use is classified as deadly force include but are not limited to bladed weapons, vehicles, explosives, and firearms. Sometimes, aggressive use of non-weapons like a baseball bat is also deemed as deadly force. Police forces are granted the right to use the deadly force when the subject in question serves as an immediate danger to others. Deadly force may also be used when a law enforcement officer is significantly threatened by a person particularly when the officer may be caused serious bodily harm to. This is governed in the US by Tennessee v. Garner according to which, “deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others” (“TENNESSEE, Appellant”). The exception of the Fleeing felon rule to the deadly force’s use was established with this case. In spite of the legal authorization to use the deadly force, thousands of officers prefer to adopt alternative approaches even when they have deadly force encounters. The attitude of police officers toward the use of deadly force is partly shaped by their work environment. Officers respond accordingly when their beat has a dangerous reputation by being ready to use the deadly force. Use of deadly force is an issue that attracts a lot of controversy particularly when the firearm is discharged by a police officer. The reason for that is that on one hand, the police officers are given the right to use deadly force and on the other hand, police officers are questioned for the appropriateness of their action when they use this right. Another reason that makes it controversial is the subjectivity associated with the term “excessive” use of force since the criteria of measuring or evaluating the excess varies from one person to another depending upon his qualification, skills, and experience. “The term “excessive” is problematic, and defining it involves value judgments. Various criteria could be applied to an instance of use of force depending upon who is making this judgment” (Belur 3). According to the statistics noted by (Dwyer), police annually shot and killed 283 individuals by average between 1949 and 1976. There was a variation in the yearly range from 184 in the year 1962 to 409 in the year 1971. The yearly variation up to the year 1976 was 250 to 300. The yearly average number of justifiable homicides between 1977 and 1990 was 358 with the high occurring in the year 1980 at 457. The average number of justifiable homicides from 1991 to 2008 was 358 each year with the high of 386 in the year 2006 and another high of 398 in the year 2007. The study carried out by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that 55 per cent of the deaths related to arrest between 2003 and 2005 happened because of homicide by the law enforcement officers (“Study Examines Police”). Over a period of three years, the number of criminal suspects that lost their lives in police custody is over 2000 and almost half of them were assassinated by officers while they were attempting to flee. The author of the report, Christopher J. Mumola said, “Keep in mind we have 2,000 deaths out of almost 40 million arrests over three years, so that tells you by their nature they are very unusual cases… Still, they do need to be looked at to determine whether police training can be better or practices can be better” (Mumola cited in “Study Examines Police”). The unusually high percentage of men i.e. 96 per cent compared to women who died in the custody according to this research’s findings is suggestive of the excessively high vulnerability of men for being the cause and victim of use of deadly force by policy compared to women. The police officers take proper training to enhance their tendency and skills to make right use of the right to use deadly force. In this training, police officers are made part of scenarios that are just like the real-life situations where they have to play their role as actors of a drama. After they have performed, the coach or guide tells them how they performed, what they did right or wrong, and what lessons they can draw from the experience. At the Chicago Police Academy, the recruits are given training for 900 to 1000 hours over a period of six months before they are allowed to actually play their role as probationary police officers on the streets (“Training Drill”). The fundamental purpose behind organizing the training scenarios as imitations of real-life situations is to expose the police officers to as many and as complicated real-life scenarios as possible so that when the real moment arrives, they are able to make informed decision. A tactics instructor, Officer Joseph Hancin from the Chicago Police Academy said, “It helps them and inoculates them to stress…When you have people that are in front of you yelling or they have a weapon in their hand it’s a different kind of stress” (Hancin cited in “Training Drill”). The restrictive policies of firearms minimize the shootings without subjecting the police officers to risk. There are certain advantages and disadvantages associated with arming of the police officers that are off-duty. This practice is likely to continue because of the responsibility of round the clock enforcement of law all day by the police officers. Research suggests that the number of killings by the use of deadly force by police has dropped down in the recent years (Blumberg). The tendency to use deadly force is witnessed more often in the less-experienced younger police officers compared to others. It has also been noticed that officers belonging to the middle-class backgrounds and females are less likely to use their weapons to make the deadly attack compared to others (Blumberg). The advantage of use of deadly force by police is that it enables them to take immediate measures to ensure their own safety as well as the safety of the people. Another advantage of this is that the offenders know that if they do not give up, the police is authorized to even kill them instantly without having to consult anyone. This limits the offenders’ tendency to be out of the police’s control. The disadvantage of granting this authority to the police is that the police officers get distinguished from other organizations or agencies because of this power. This authority enables the police officers to become the jury, judge, and the executioner themselves. Another disadvantage of the use of deadly force is the traumatic experiences that the innocent bystanders go through. Yet another disadvantage is the tendency of the police officers to shoot innocent people with guns because of misunderstandings, though this is rare to happen. An example of a misunderstanding can be murder of a man by a police officer who suspected the man was holding a gun while it was actually a cell phone. Negative consequences with the use of deadly force by police often result from the way the incident is handled by the involved agency rather than the law enforcement shooting itself since the agency involved can feed misperceptions. A police officer, Santa Monica from California said, “No one knows about the hundreds of instances when a police officer decides not to shoot. Perhaps, no one cares. After all, people say we’re trained to handle such things, as if training somehow removes or dilutes our humanity” (Monica cited in Bohrer and Chaney). Police officers can be made more responsible in their approach toward the right use of the right to use deadly force by improving the quality of investigation and good leadership. Officers march to their chief’s drum’s beat to apply the deadly force. The shootings of police per capita in a large department in the Southwest were among the nation’s highest (Frazier). The new chief of the agency altered the policy after the assessment of the situation. He also changed the integrity, quality, and speed of the investigations related to the use of deadly force. The new chief held the supervisors accountable for the actions of their officers. Within just one year, a 25 per cent drop occurred in the number of police shootings while by his second year’s end, a drop of 70 per cent had occurred (Frazier). This suggests that leadership is the most important factor governing the right use of deadly force at the top as well as among the first line supervisors. In spite of all the disadvantages associated with the practice, police officers are rightly granted the authority to use deadly force for their protection. The nature of their work frequently exposes the police officers to deadly encounters with some of the most dangerous people of the society; the criminals. In order to provide the people with protection and safety, it is imperative that the police officers are fully confident with respect to their own safety and security. The right to use deadly force in critical circumstances lends the police officers this confidence that helps them optimize on their potential to successfully achieve their goals. Often, if they do not use deadly force in the first place, they may not get a chance to live any longer to use this right later. Nevertheless, in order to make the police officers more responsible in the use of this right, a comprehensive investigation report must be required in the aftermath of the use of deadly force with the application of the rules of law. While there is no doubt that police officers are granted a higher standard in the society, what essentially matters is the rule of law and the extent to which the actions of an officer comply with the established standards of law. An effective process can be established by having appropriate investigators in the first place and by fostering positing working relationship between the police and the media. Appropriate investigators lay the basis of a thorough investigation and the foundations of public understanding are built through a cooperative relationship with the media. With mutual cooperation and effort, police and media can share information to successfully deal with the shootings involving officers. Works Cited: Belur, Jyoti. Permission to Shoot?: Police Use of Deadly Force In Democracies. UK: University College London. Blumberg, M. Police Use of Deadly Force: Exploring Some Key Issues. USA: Anderson Publishing Co., 1991. Bohrer, Shannon, and Chaney, Robert. “Police Investigations of the Use of Deadly Force Can Influence Perceptions and Outcomes.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Jan. 2010. Web. 24 June 2013. . Dwyer, Terrence P. “Reviewing and analyzing police use of deadly force.” 7 May 2010. Web. 24 June 2013. . Frazier, Thomas C. “Deadly Force: Issues, Risks, Dilemmas, and Solutions.” Public Entity Risk Institute. 2013. Web. 24 June 2013. . “Study Examines Police Use Of Deadly Force.” CBS News. 27 April 2010. Web. 24 June 2013. . “TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Cleamtee GARNER, etc., et al. MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Petitioners, v. Cleamtee GARNER, etc., et al.” Legal Information Institute. N.d. Web. 23 June 2013. . “Training Drill: Officers Learn When To Use Deadly Force, When To Hold Back.” CBS Chicago. 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 June 2013. . Read More