The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the profession, such as police officers, should be further restricted so that the use of force for injuring or killing another person is reasonable and justified. Police departments should review how officers use force. There are specific circumstances in which police officers everywhere have been criticized for being too aggressive in their use of force more than once. For example, Eric Eckholm and Matt Appuzo, investigative reporters for The New York Times, state that police officer Darren Wilson killed the teenager Michael Brown on December 2014, while responding to a report of robbery at a gas station in Ferguson, Missouri. Even though, Brown was a suspect in a theft, the incident caused demonstrations since Officer Wilson used a handgun against an unarmed young adult. Legally, police officers have the obligation to keep and bear arms responsibly. However, Officer Wilson feared for his life and because of his profession, he carries and uses a handgun; therefore, the grand jury’s decision was not to indict him. Without a doubt, some police officers abuse the authority of their profession, violate police department policies and hurt others. The authority, referring to the reasonable use of excessive force or firearms, should be limited depending on the circumstances. Officer Wilson used excessive force against an unarmed teenager and rightfully, as a police officer, his profession allows him to use the necessary force in self-defense. Michael Brown’s case drew protests in New York and other cities condemning the way the police officers treat African-Americans, and how the police officers’ right to bear arms for self-defense is not always reasonable and justified.
Another example of a police officer using excessive force was Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old holding a pellet gun, shot by police officer Timothy Loehmann in Cleveland.
The young boy was playing with the gun outside a recreation center when Officer Loehmann, afraid for his life, shot the boy while the boy was drawing the pellet gun from his waistband. After fatally shooting the boy in self-defense, the jury decided not to indict Officer Loehmann. As addressed by the New York Times article, “since Tamir’s death, questions have been raised about Officer Loehmann’s qualifications and about the Cleveland police’s standards on the use of force” (Williams and Mitch). The article also indicates that Officer Loehmann resigned from another Ohio police department after he was not able to use self-control during a firearms training. However, the Cleveland police department had failed to review that department’s personnel file before offering Officer Loehmann a job. In fact, Cleveland police department’s negligence in hiring a competent person as a police officer caused the death of a young black teen. Officer Loehmann’s use of his right to keep and bear arms was not reasonable or justified.
Others are not police officers, but also carry a gun for self-defense. Nevertheless, not everyone is responsible while keeping or bearing arms on the act of self-defense. Hence, the right should be further restricted only in favor of competent individuals with no prior police record to have less criminals with the access to guns. As in the case of high school student Treyvon Martin, killed by George Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch coordinator
in