The Use of Physical Force - Case Study Example

Weapons and the Use of Force Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State Date Weapons and the Use of Force Law enforcement agencies and officers around the world are required to use force ad well as weapons in their line of duty. The use of force and weapons has been a controversial debate based on the rights of victims as well as the duty of police officers. Currently, electronic stun devices and other ‘less-lethal’ weapons are marketed as offering unmitigated benefits to both police and public safety (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270).. The main benefit of electronic stun devices and less-lethal weapons is reducing injuries that may stem from using force. Nevertheless, the use of such devices and less-lethal weapons may be fatal if used on the wrong people or for malicious purposes. The following paper aims at discussing the validity of using electronic stun devices and other less-lethal weapons as well as describing the problems associated with the use of these devices. The use of less-lethal weapons and electronic stun devices has been adopted almost internationally (Downs 2007, p. 358). Law enforcement organizations have adopted these technologies based on their justified and perceived benefits. The main intention of less-lethal weapons is to restrain or incapacitate a threatening or dangerous offender or individual. To begin, it is important to understand the numerous types of non-lethal weapons. Most non-lethal weapons are mostly used by the police who are faced with situations that require restraining or incapacitating offenders (Downs 2007, p. 358). The main type of non-lethal weapons used is the electronic stun devices. These devices are also known as electroshock weapons that are designed to deliver high voltage electricity to a person leading to loss of muscular control therefore rendering the victim incapacitated for some time. Some of the common electronic stun devices include the Taser and stun gun. Law enforcement officials also use chemical weapons including pepper spray (oleoresin capsicum OC) and tear gas (Downs 2007, p. 358). These weapons are also used to incapacitate or immobilize a threat before they cause harm or create a threatening situation. All these technologies and less-lethal weapons are developed with the idea of reducing injuries for both law enforcement and the public. Numerous facts can be used to illustrate the validity of using electronic stun devices and less-lethal weapons. One of the main challenges law enforcement face in combating crime or disorder is the need to restrain or incapacitate individuals without causing death or injury (Annati 2010, p. 54). Before the use of less-lethal weapons, police used firearms, which led to long-term injuries or fatal deaths. Nonetheless, the use of less-lethal weapons has been found to reduce injuries on law enforcers as well as victims. During most confrontations, law enforcement results in the use of force either physical force or use of weapons. Physical confrontation involves increased risk of physical injuries than the use of less lethal weapons or electronic stun devices (Annati 2010, p. 54). When using physical force, law enforcement officers have to struggle with threatening individuals, which can cause harm. Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and less-lethal weapons reduces the risk of injury or need to struggle. Most injuries associated with physical struggles include minor or serious abrasions, bruises, or head and brain injuries (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270). Use of physical force not only affects law enforcement officers, but also victims or suspected individuals (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270). The use of physical force or other lethal weapons can lead to fatal injuries for victims or individuals. The serious harms evidenced by use of physical force include punctures, bone fractures, internal injuries, do bites, as well as gunshot wounds. In the U.S, before the use of less-lethal weapons, civilian injury rates due to police confrontations were as high as 64% (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270). Moreover, it is estimated that about 15% to 20% of arrests made involve use of force (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270). Before the adoption or less lethal weapons police officers only used soft control using their hands. This increased the risk of injury on both law enforcement and victims or offenders. Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and other less-lethal weapons reduces the risk of harm as well as injury. Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the use of electronic stun devices and their ability to reduce harm or injuries. In a study conducted in the U.S, law enforcement officers using pepper spray to incapacitate or restrain a person illustrated reduction in harm by about 70%. In the same study, use of canine officers posed increased risk of injury to offender resisting arrest. In another study, police officers from two departments used conductive energy devices to restrain suspects leading to decline in monthly injuries by about 25% to 65% (Contargyris & Peytel 2012, p. 469). Again, Contargyris & Peytel (2012, p. 477) found that the use conductive energy devices and pepper spray by police officers reduced the probability of officer and offender injury by about 21% (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270).. The greatest reduction in harm or injury has been found to benefit law enforcers by far than suspects or criminals. Overall, research conducted in numerous countries illustrates the reduced risk of harm when officers use electronic stun devices and other less lethal weapons. Electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons are a necessity when it comes to law enforcement. Policing is a major challenge for any country, community, or city. Police use of less lethal weapons or force is based on the need to bring order in the community. Based on the broken windows theory, controlling a neighborhood requires the use of force at a certain extent. Police officers are faced with numerous challenges including breaking up crowds in case of riots, immobilizing people to prevent damage to property, and mostly to deter crime or harm from occurring. The use of physical force or lethal force has been found to be ineffective handling threatening situations. Using lethal weapons and physical force such as guns, kicks, and blows can be detrimental to the health of civilians. The risk of harm does not only cover health issues, but also puts the reputation of police officers at risk. Most cases where law enforcement use force leads to reduced trust in the police or aggravated violence and hatred towards the police. Moreover, most cases where lethal force has been used to control a crowd or restore order leads to police officers being charged in court. Overall, the need to maintain law and order calls for increased use of force (Williams 2008, p. 66). Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons has its advantages in reducing issues such as law suits, fatal injuries, as well as law enforcement reputation. Less lethal weapons have the ability to deter violence or restore order without having to cause harm or fatal deaths (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270).. Effective less-lethal weapons for controlling crowds or restoring order during kayos can include tear gas, rubber bullets, and wooden bullets. Despite the illustrated advantages of using electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons by law enforcement, controversy still surrounds their effectiveness. According to Williams (2008, p. 66) the use of stun guns or Tasers may cause unintended or intended harm. In numerous cases reported around the world, several people have died after less lethal weapons were used on them. This includes people who died in the Middle East protest after inhaling too much tear gas. Additionally, about 100 people in the U.S have died after electronic stun devices were used on them by law enforcement officers. The use of less lethal weapons does not automatically eliminate the risk of injury, but rather reduces the likelihood or serious harm. According to Payne-James, et al. (2014, p. 50) the use of electronic stun devices can lead to serious harm especially when the victim or suspect is immobilized and has to fall down. This means that if a suspect is shot with an electronic stun device, they may fall and get serious injuries. Another challenge associated with using electronic stun devices and other less lethal weapons is based on pre-existing health conditions on suspects or criminals. Using less lethal weapons on victims who may have pre-existing health conditions can cause fatal death or serious harm. According to a report published by Amnesty International, it was found that victims who died after being shocked went into cardiac arrest (Amnesty Australia, 2015). People or offenders with cardiovascular conditions can easily die or get serious injuries if subjected to less lethal weapons (Contargyris & Peytel 2012, p. 77). Moreover, suspects who may be under the influence of drugs or participated in substance abuse may also result in serious harm or death. These challenges further go to illustrate the controversy and role of less lethal weapons in law enforcement. Additionally, several cases indicated that victims died from shock even without pre-existing health conditions or being under the influence of drugs. Another challenge associated with using less lethal weapons is the manner police or law enforcement officials use the devices to restrain or incapacitate a suspect. According to Amnesty International, most stun-gun victims are subjected prolonged or multiple shocks, often more than the regular five-second cycle (Amnesty Australia, 2015). This has been going on despite the standard warnings on the potential of such devices and weapons to cause serious health risks or harm. Most law enforcement officers require training prior to using less lethal weapons such as stun guns (Amnesty Australia, 2015). Nonetheless, different situations can cause officers to use excessive force from such devices leading to fatal injuries or serious health problems. The need to over-use these devices varies with law enforcement judgments and intentions. Law enforcement officers such as correctional officers may use less lethal weapons or stun guns in good faith or for malicious purposes (Wahl, Schreyer & Yersin 2006, p.326). In the case of good faith, law enforcement officers have witnessed their effectiveness in restraining offenders. However, when used for malicious purposes, these devices can lead to fatal injuries and harm. The debate on the effectiveness of less lethal weapons is based on how effectively they are used. Overusing most of these weapons can be detrimental to civilian safety and health (Wahl, Schreyer & Yersin 2006, p.326). One of the main challenges law enforcement face in combating crime or disorder is the need to restrain or incapacitate individuals without causing death or injury. Before the use of less-lethal weapons, police used firearms, which led to long-term injuries or fatal deaths. Nonetheless, the use of less-lethal weapons has been found to reduce injuries on law enforcers as well as victims. During most confrontations, law enforcement results in the use of force either physical force or use of weapons. Physical confrontation involves increased risk of physical injuries than the use of less lethal weapons or electronic stun devices. When using physical force, law enforcement officers have to struggle with threatening individuals, which can cause harm (Wahl, Schreyer & Yersin 2006, p.326). Most cases where law enforcement use force leads to reduced trust in the police or aggravated violence and hatred towards the police. Moreover, most cases where lethal force has been used to control a crowd or restore order leads to police officers being charged in court. Overall, the need to maintain law and order calls for increased use of force (PETERMAN 2014, p. 67). Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons has its advantages in reducing issues such as law suits, fatal injuries, as well as law enforcement reputation. Less lethal weapons have the ability to deter violence or restore order without having to cause harm or fatal deaths. Effective less-lethal weapons for controlling crowds or restoring order during kayos can include tear gas, rubber bullets, and wooden bullets. Electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons are a necessity when it comes to law enforcement. Policing is a major challenge for any country, community, or city. Police use of less lethal weapons or force is based on the need to bring order in the community. Based on the broken windows theory, controlling a neighborhood requires the use of force at a certain extent. Police officers are faced with numerous challenges including breaking up crowds in case of riots, immobilizing people to prevent damage to property, and mostly to deter crime or harm from occurring. The use of physical force or lethal force has been found to be ineffective handling threatening situations. Using lethal weapons and physical force such as guns, kicks, and blows can be detrimental to the health of civilians. The risk of harm does not only cover health issues, but also puts the reputation of police officers at risk. References Amnesty Australia, 2015, Are stun-guns as non-lethal as they are claimed to be?. [online] Available at: http://www.amnesty.org.au/features/comments/28179/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2015]. Annati, M 2010, 'Less-lethal weapons stretching among law enforcement, peacekeeping and warfighting', Military Technology, no. 10, p. 54. 'BRIEF: Police use 'less lethal' weapon to arrest man', 2013, Gazette (Colorado Springs, CO). Contargyris, C, & Peytel, E 2012, '[Sudden death caused by a less lethal weapon chest-wall injury (Commotio cordis)]', Annales Françaises D'anesthèsie Et De Rèanimation, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 469-471. Downs, RL 2007, 'Less Lethal Weapons: A Technologist's Perspective [article]', Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, no. 3, p. 358. MacDonald, JM, Kaminski, RJ, & Smith, MR 2009, 'The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events', American Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 2268-2274. Payne-James, JJ, Rivers, E, Green, P, & Johnston, A 2014, 'Trends in less-lethal use of force techniques by police services within England and Wales: 2007--2011', Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, no. 1, p. 50. PETERMAN, AJ 2014, 'SECOND AMENDMENT DECISION RULES, NON-LETHAL WEAPONS, AND SELFDEFENSE', Marquette Law Review, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 853-901. Police use of force, tasers and other less-lethal weapons [electronic resource], 2011, Washington, DC : U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, [2011]. Shah, S 2012, 'Injuries Due to Electronic Control Devices', McGraw-Hill. Wahl, P, Schreyer, N, & Yersin, B 2006, 'Violence: Recognition, management and prevention: Injury pattern of the Flash-Ball®, a less-lethal weapon used for law enforcement: Report of two cases and review of the literature', Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 31, pp. 325-330. Williams, HE 2008, Taser Electronic Control Devices and Sudden In-custody Death : Separating Evidence From Conjecture, Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD, Springfield. Read More

Physical confrontation involves increased risk of physical injuries than the use of less lethal weapons or electronic stun devices (Annati 2010, p. 54). When using physical force, law enforcement officers have to struggle with threatening individuals, which can cause harm. Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and less-lethal weapons reduces the risk of injury or need to struggle. Most injuries associated with physical struggles include minor or serious abrasions, bruises, or head and brain injuries (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270).

Use of physical force not only affects law enforcement officers, but also victims or suspected individuals (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270). The use of physical force or other lethal weapons can lead to fatal injuries for victims or individuals. The serious harms evidenced by use of physical force include punctures, bone fractures, internal injuries, do bites, as well as gunshot wounds. In the U.S, before the use of less-lethal weapons, civilian injury rates due to police confrontations were as high as 64% (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270).

Moreover, it is estimated that about 15% to 20% of arrests made involve use of force (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270). Before the adoption or less lethal weapons police officers only used soft control using their hands. This increased the risk of injury on both law enforcement and victims or offenders. Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and other less-lethal weapons reduces the risk of harm as well as injury. Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the use of electronic stun devices and their ability to reduce harm or injuries.

In a study conducted in the U.S, law enforcement officers using pepper spray to incapacitate or restrain a person illustrated reduction in harm by about 70%. In the same study, use of canine officers posed increased risk of injury to offender resisting arrest. In another study, police officers from two departments used conductive energy devices to restrain suspects leading to decline in monthly injuries by about 25% to 65% (Contargyris & Peytel 2012, p. 469). Again, Contargyris & Peytel (2012, p. 477) found that the use conductive energy devices and pepper spray by police officers reduced the probability of officer and offender injury by about 21% (MacDonald, et al. 2009, p.2270).. The greatest reduction in harm or injury has been found to benefit law enforcers by far than suspects or criminals.

Overall, research conducted in numerous countries illustrates the reduced risk of harm when officers use electronic stun devices and other less lethal weapons. Electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons are a necessity when it comes to law enforcement. Policing is a major challenge for any country, community, or city. Police use of less lethal weapons or force is based on the need to bring order in the community. Based on the broken windows theory, controlling a neighborhood requires the use of force at a certain extent.

Police officers are faced with numerous challenges including breaking up crowds in case of riots, immobilizing people to prevent damage to property, and mostly to deter crime or harm from occurring. The use of physical force or lethal force has been found to be ineffective handling threatening situations. Using lethal weapons and physical force such as guns, kicks, and blows can be detrimental to the health of civilians. The risk of harm does not only cover health issues, but also puts the reputation of police officers at risk.

Most cases where law enforcement use force leads to reduced trust in the police or aggravated violence and hatred towards the police. Moreover, most cases where lethal force has been used to control a crowd or restore order leads to police officers being charged in court. Overall, the need to maintain law and order calls for increased use of force (Williams 2008, p. 66). Nonetheless, the use of electronic stun devices and less lethal weapons has its advantages in reducing issues such as law suits, fatal injuries, as well as law enforcement reputation.

Read More