Use of Force

Use of Force

Name

Institution

Use of force

Law enforcement officers have a sole responsibility of maintaining law and order in society, as their main role. This means that they are also responsible for security, both of persons and property, from harm, theft and destruction. They have the authority to deal with persons who engage in activities that are a breach of the peace. Breach of the peace refers to the creation of public disturbance through disorderly and unlawful actions. They also carry out the task of arresting criminals and charging them for crimes committed through the court system. Arresting, on the other hand refers to the act of seizing and holding criminals or crime suspects or people that have committed offenses under, he authority of the law, as spelled out by the constitution.

In their line of duty, police officers are allowed to use force, where need be, in the arrest of suspects. The magnitude and severity of the force used varies and there is no universal scale that has been agreed upon and that can be used to gauge the amount that can be used. According Jenkins (2011) police officers are allowed by law to use reasonable force in taking a person into custody. Reasonable force in this case means that the officer uses minimal force in trying to subdue the suspect and put him under control and maybe put handcuffs on the suspect if need be (Jenkins, 2011).

This mostly occurs when the suspect is unarmed and, therefore, poses no threat to the arresting officers and also in cases where there is minimal resistance from the person being arrested. Likewise, minimal reasonable force may be encountered when suspects attempt to escape and hence prompt the officers to run after them. At the time of arrest, the officers are at liberty to decide how much of force to use on a suspect so as to protect themselves and the public especially if the suspect poses a threat to those two.

The officers’ decision to use force can be termed as reasonable or unreasonable based on two issues. First, in attempting to arrest suspects of petty crimes, it has been seen than little force has been used, for felony and serious crimes that can harm a large population, and then any amount of force is used in the arrest. Secondly, attempts to flee are met with force regardless of how serious the crimes are (May, 2008). Also, possession of dangerous arms may prompt the officers to use force especially if there is risk of harming other people.

As the go about their business, police officers are required to respect and uphold the constitutional rights of the citizens they encounter even though they may be suspects of crimes. On the other hand, the status of a policeman is not a constitutional right and some incidences in their work may cause conflict with the public. This is in the case of the use of deadly force (May, 2008).

Deadly force, otherwise termed as unreasonable use of force can be defined as the act of going overboard in attempts to subdue the suspect. This is maybe because the police are protected from being sued for using force as a provision of quality immunity (May, 2008). This ensures that fear of being sued for use of force does not affect their work. Excessive force results in severe injury and in some cases have caused death of suspect and also, cases of suing by victims’ family.

In the scenario given, the use of excessive force by the officer on the two teenagers was not warranted. It was unnecessary to beat both of them since, according to the officer’s convictions; only one was involved with the recent burglaries. In addition, since there is no evidence of the teenagers being armed, it was not essential for the officer to use excessive force on the suspects.

In our situation, the families of the two teenagers have the right to sue the police department for use of excessive force during arrest. Excessive force claims in legal settings are based on Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Acts of 1871, which is a federal law simply known as Section 1983. On the basis of this statute, it is illegal for any individual acting under the clout of the law, say police officers, to deprive another person his or her civil rights as provided for by U. S constitution.

In putting forward an Excessive Use of Force claim, the first step for two families ought to be preserving and documenting the evidence soonest after the incidence (Ridgeway, 2009). This should be in connection instruction that may be gives by civil rights attorney that the families may use. This includes recording statements from the teenagers and also those of witness who may have seen the incident. Also, photos may be taken too and kept for presentation in court (Ridgeway, 2009).

The families must also act within a stipulated time frame so as not to miss the deadline and hence be barred from suing. With all the evidence collected, the families then should file a complaint with the concerned police department and also make a police misconduct report with the US Department of Justice as well as the US office of the Attorney General (Ridgeway, 2009). With that, the case ought to be assessed by the parties involved and if found to be a worthy case, it will go to court.

Ours being one of them, the presentation of evidence gathered as well as testimonies of witnesses, then there should to be payment of damages for the two families as that is proof that the misconduct did occur. In the event that the teenagers’ families win the claim, there is compensation for inflicted suffering as well as violation of rights. Such civil rights claims are an essential part of the legal system as they provide equilibrium between the role of law enforcement to maintain the law and the protection of rights of individuals from police misconduct.

References

Ridgeway, G. (2009). Police-community relations in Cincinnati. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Jenkins, J. A. (2011). The American courts: A procedural approach. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers LLC.

May, D. A. (2008). Reasonable use of force by police: Seizures, firearms, and high-speed chases. New York: P. Lang.