The Intentional Use of Equipment - Essay Example

The paper discussed the DRNC Scenario and it has been d that there are various legal and ethical issues cited from the case. It has been d that the intentional use of equipment that can be harmful to members of the public is unethical and it is likely to result in lawsuits filed against the coordinators involved. It has also been observed that demonstrating in a legalized place is lawful since it constitutes the rights of human beings. Therefore, it has been recommended that the organizing committee should allow Amnesty International to stage a protest at the Torch of Friendship which has been identified as the second First Amendment Zone. On the other hand, it has been recommended that the committee should not offer the same green light to Greenpeace to conduct a protest at the shopping mall since this can lead to public disorder. Introduction The paper seeks to discuss the ethical and legal ramifications based on the DRNC Scenario. The paper will outline the issues, their implications and the measures that can be taken in order to resolve the issue at hand. The paper will also discuss the recommendations that can be implemented to address the issues raised. 1. Based on the fictional account story of planning and preparation leading up to the mythical Democratic-Republican National Convention (DRNC) event in Miami, Florida, it can be noted that there are potential legal claims that are likely to be raised by private citizen seriously injured by the use of the LRADs if the decision is made by the Sub-Committee to purchase them after relying solely on the manufacturers claims and instructions as to their use. It can be seen that LRAD’s can cause considerable pain and discomfort to people standing within their range though the manufacturers deny this claim. This has been revealed by Hayes who states that: “yes, in a way it is, but the company that sells them does not consider them to be a less-lethal weapon… it doesn’t rise to that level… at least according to them.” In the event that there was insufficient time to test the device and train officers in their use before the Convention and it has also been assumed that the Sub-Committee concluded that the value of the LRADs use in crowd control outweighed any risk of harm caused by their use, it can be noted that the potential liability of the individual officer using the device is negligence which falls under tort law. Basically, negligence is described as a civil wrong which results in the breach of duty care owed to the neighbour by another person (Donoghue V. Stevenson, 1932). It is essential that the plaintiff should prove that the defendant owed duty care and has been breached which may have resulted in subsequent injury of the neighbour. The following conditions should exist to establish duty care. In the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), the following conditions should exist: foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. These conditions are likely to exist since the LRAD is likely to be used in crowd with full knowledge of its impacts. In this case, the LRD would be used with full knowledge of their likely impacts on the crowd. Altogether, such a move can be seen that it is unethical since the manufacturers of the LRD purposely choose to misrepresent the truth. On the other hand, the potential liability of the officers supervisor (in this case, Duncan) and the potential liability of Chairperson Selerno is also negligent but commonly known as vicarious liability. Professionals in supervisory or managerial positions can be held liable for the actions of their employees if they cause harm to other people during the dispensation of their duties and this is commonly known as vicarious liability (McBride and Bagshaw, 2008). Whether present or not, supervisors and managers are responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Therefore, it is recommended to Salemo to first conduct research in order to establish the degree of harm likely to be caused by the use of LRAD since they will be liable for negligence. 2. The legal claims that might be triggered if the Sub-Committee decides to deny permission to Amnesty International to stage a protest at the Torch of Friendship which has been identified as the second First Amendment Zone are related to breach of freedom of expression. In this case, freedom of expression will be implicitly defined under freedom of association where people have a right to assemble for peaceful and lawful purposes. For instance, The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Ammendments (First Ammendment, ND). Amnesty international is just seeking to hold a lawful demonstration in a legal environment and the organization should be given the green light since it is not intending to embark on illegal activities or unlawful action. According to the First Amendment (ND), “The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individuals current or past membership in a particular group.” The individual groups that may be interested in expressing themselves through demonstrations have the right to do so. The law as promulgated by the US Constitution states that each individual has a right to express him/herself. Freedom of association is also guaranteed which gives people the right to associate with any group of their choice as long as they are not engaging in illegal activities that may otherwise destabilize peace and security or cause any form of threat to other people. In order for the chairperson of the Sub-Committee to avoid lawsuits, he should not deny permission to Amnesty International to stage a protest at the Torch of Friendship which has been identified as the second First Amendment Zone. This zone is declared a legal place for such activities as long as they are legal. Every human being has a right to express himself and this can be done through demonstrations. As long as these demonstrations are not in violation of the law, they must be sanctioned. Therefore, it is recommended for Salemo to give a permit to this group to hold their peaceful demonstration. 3. The legal claims that might arise if the Committee grants a permit to Greenpeace to conduct a protest at the shopping mall are related to breach of public disorder. According to the United States Institute of Peace (ND), “Public order is a condition characterized by the absence of widespread criminal and political violence, such as kidnapping, murder, riots, arson, and intimidation against targeted groups or individuals”. On the other hand, public disorder can be profoundly destabilizing for societies since it instils constant fear in the local population, and jeopardize the success of the peace process. As such, there is likely to be public disorder if a demonstration is sanctioned to take place in a public shopping mall. The members of the public have the right to shop freely in all public places. Allowing a demonstration to take place in such a place is tantamount to violation of the rights of other people. If the permit is granted, the police may not lawfully conduct pat-downs and search bags of anyone in the area. People shopping in public malls are not criminals and they may not be entitled to public and routine searches by the police. This also jeopardises their securities since other criminals under the guise of protestors may take advantage of the demonstration to engage in other criminal activities. However, the main problem is that the police may not be able to distinguish between the protestors and the members of the public conducting their own businesses. Searching people in a public shopping mall will be violation of their rights to move freely without interference. As a result of the above analysis, it is recommended to the Chairperson Salerno regarding this permit request that safety considerations and interests of the members of the public should be given priority especially in public places. It is recommended that the protestors should be given a permit to protest in other areas apart from this one. It is better to put measures in place that will help to avoid violation of other people’s rights than to sanction action that will be roundly condemned at the end of the day. Conclusion Over and above, it can be observed that the DRNC Scenario presents various legal and ethical ramifications that ought to be taken into consideration by the responsible authorities. Ethically, businesses should not compromise their values for financial gains as illustrated in the case. On the other hand, it can be observed that each individual has a legal duty to ensure that their actions are not harmful to the neighbours. Negligent behaviour that may cause injuries to other people should be avoided since it can attract lawsuits. Any person found guilty of breaching the duty care of the neighbour is liable to pay the claims by the defendant. It has also been observed that the organisers of the event ought to take into consideration various steps to ensure that the rights of the members of the public are not violated. References Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords. Viewed from: . First Ammendment: An overview. (N.D). Viewed from: . Gibson, J.T.R. (1988). Mercantile and Company law. 6th Edition. CT: Juta. Jones, L. (2011). Introduction to Business Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McBride, N. and Bagshaw, R.. (2008). Tort law. London: Longmans. Terry, A. & Giugni, D. (2009). Business and the law, 5th Edition. Sydney: Cengage Learning. United States Institute of Peace (ND). “Public order”. Viewed from: . Read More