Misconstrued: The Use Of Police Force And Force
Alpert & Smith (1994) state that one of the biggest gray areas when it comes to government officials and the use of their power and force. These areas can easily be misconstrued and misunderstood. Police officers are put in situations where they are sanctioned to use mental and physical force to catch criminals with the goal of solving a crime. (p481).
When it comes to police force, some have a good understanding of its purpose and feel that it is needed. Others believe that with training and self-control, police force could be minimized. We live in a society that is unpredictable and crafty. Police are put in a very difficult and delicate situations that seem to be a “lose – Lose” no matter how they go about handling it.
Anderson (1999) talks
about how we as a society look at police officers like we do super heroes. He blames this depiction on movies and television. The author’s relays that despite knowing the reality that movie and Television is all acting and stage, we look at these situations as if they are real. Some situations require officers to fight for their lives and other require less restrictive methods. Anderson called police officers a “walking liability” due to the 30,000 + cases against them each year. Each case could potentially mean expenses paid out that can do more harm to official and their budget then good. (P83-84). I believe what Anderson is referring to is the way we need to look at police officers. We can’t expect them to save us and then also tell them “How” to save us as well. He believes we are asking for too much and the impossible. We should accept that every case where force is needed is not going to be easy going and clean. Some will get ugly and raise questions, but that should not deter police officer from the goal of protecting and serving the citizens.
Other articles, like the one by Garner, Schade, Hepburn, & Buchanan (1995) explain some of the issues surround the use of police force. They tell us that the issue is partly the use of force but would not be as big of an issue had so many cases not resulted in deadly force. The use of deadly force is the focus of their article as they believe that no situation should call for an officer to take the life of another human being under no circumstances. They call these actions, illegal, immoral and believe that justifying it does not fall under the constitution designed to protect our rights. (P 146-148). The authors make a great point in the use of lethal force and its justification. Though many officers’ lives are being threatened, they must be able to protect everyone as the constitution is designed as well. That includes the victim and the offender. Sometimes we look at offenders with the ‘they deserved it” mentality, but in fact there could be issues much deeper than we are aware. Each situation that police officers encounter should be treated as if the alleged offender was one of their own family members which in most cases would prompt the officers to use the least restrictive method.
When it comes to police force, some have a good understanding of its purpose and feel that it is needed. Others believe that with training and self-control, police force could be minimized. We live in a society that is unpredictable and crafty. Police are put in a very difficult and delicate situations that seem to be a “lose – Lose” no matter how they go about handling it.
Anderson (1999) talks
about how we as a society look at police officers like we do super heroes. He blames this depiction on movies and television. The author’s relays that despite knowing the reality that movie and Television is all acting and stage, we look at these situations as if they are real. Some situations require officers to fight for their lives and other require less restrictive methods. Anderson called police officers a “walking liability” due to the 30,000 + cases against them each year. Each case could potentially mean expenses paid out that can do more harm to official and their budget then good. (P83-84). I believe what Anderson is referring to is the way we need to look at police officers. We can’t expect them to save us and then also tell them “How” to save us as well. He believes we are asking for too much and the impossible. We should accept that every case where force is needed is not going to be easy going and clean. Some will get ugly and raise questions, but that should not deter police officer from the goal of protecting and serving the citizens.
Other articles, like the one by Garner, Schade, Hepburn, & Buchanan (1995) explain some of the issues surround the use of police force. They tell us that the issue is partly the use of force but would not be as big of an issue had so many cases not resulted in deadly force. The use of deadly force is the focus of their article as they believe that no situation should call for an officer to take the life of another human being under no circumstances. They call these actions, illegal, immoral and believe that justifying it does not fall under the constitution designed to protect our rights. (P 146-148). The authors make a great point in the use of lethal force and its justification. Though many officers’ lives are being threatened, they must be able to protect everyone as the constitution is designed as well. That includes the victim and the offender. Sometimes we look at offenders with the ‘they deserved it” mentality, but in fact there could be issues much deeper than we are aware. Each situation that police officers encounter should be treated as if the alleged offender was one of their own family members which in most cases would prompt the officers to use the least restrictive method.