Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Law Enforcement and the Shout before Shoot Mentality


To Speak Or Not To Speak?

Levi J. Freeman

Contemporary Issues in Law Enforcement LET-5052-A

Professor Mark Prince

August 3, 2009

To Speak Or Not To Speak?

It is often in the crises of an emergency that a police officer would resort to using deadly force. While it is a tragic consequence to actions, and is a permanent seizure of ones life, there are cases when it must be used. There are several instances in which a police officer can use deadly force, and reasons to why a police officer may not vocalize their lethal offensive. Agree that clearly marked uniformed officers are not required to verbalize prior to using deadly force in justifiable situations.

To explain further when deadly force it justifiable, police agencies use a “use of force continuum” to counteract violence before arriving at just simply shooting.

“Action – Response Use Of Force Continuum.” Online Image. 5 Feb. 2001. Ohio Department of Natural Resources – Use of Force. 3 Aug. 2009 <>

It is through this action response continuum that officers conduct themselves. As seen above, officers are to only act with force appropriate to overcome resistance to affect an arrest and/or quell a violent situation. Any amount of deadly force that is to be used beyond that would be only due to a few factors in which police officers in the United States are legally allowed to use deadly force only in limited cases, such as these:

· An individual commits a felony and uses deadly force or threat of deadly force during the commission of a felony (i.e., the suspect has committed a felony and has threatening to use deadly force)

· The officer reasonably believes there is a substantial imminent risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another person in the vicinity.

· Such force must be used to prevent the escape of a prisoner from prison.

· They need to suppress a riot after sufficient warning has been given

(Grant and Terry, 2008, p 269).

Through these examples, it will be easier to understand my position.

“An individual commits a felony and uses deadly force or threat of deadly force during the commission of a felony” (Grant and Terry, 2008, p 269). With this scenario, a person has the intentions of knowingly killing or harming someone while in the commission of the crime. Per say that I am an officer, while the element of surprise is nice, time is of the essence to stop him or her, and arriving with a pulsating siren and bright emergency lights overall ruins the quiet and stealthy approach. In effort to quell this person, I do believe that I would announce my presence aloud in effort to show authority and make an attempt to verbally defuse the situation.

“The officer reasonably believes there is a substantial imminent risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another person in the vicinity” (Grant and Terry, 2008, p 269). This case has dual explanations on to how I would react as a police officer. (Forgive me if I am wrong as formal policing knowledge has not been introduced, these are merely statements of observation.) In my first explanation, if I have an active shooter call, from say, a preschool: I have no intentions of shouting “POLICE – DROP IT!,” but entering the building as soon as possible and neutralizing the societal threat. Another example is if I was to roll up on a traffic stop, and my partner is about to be killed execution style with his own service weapon. Rolling out of the cruiser with anything less than lethal force would be foolhardy. My second explanation would be that of arriving to someone who has the intentions to be killed by police. If that is the ultimate goal of the shooter, I would vocalize this as a department policy precautionary for them to understand my intentions. I would then only use deadly force in this regard providing that they want to take me with them to the afterlife.

“Such force must be used to prevent the escape of a prisoner from prison” (Grant and Terry, 2008, p 269). While this seems a little unruly, I believe that I would avoid enforcing this “golden rule:” while no, I don’t want a prisoner to escape and re-offend, taking ones life seems a bit harsh, seeing how they were sentenced to a prison sentence, not sentenced to death.

“They need to suppress a riot after sufficient warning has been given” (Grant and Terry, 2008, p 269). I would avoid this as well unless I am or have reason to believe that my life is under imminent threat of permanent injury or death. To what degree is sufficient warning is what comes to mind. Announcement aided by bullhorn and shouting government officials at a crowd that is not listening; the warning, however intensified, will not be measurably sufficient due to the mob mentality. Thus, this entire section of deadly force should be denied as a tool to law enforcement in my personal opinion.

Should at any point I need to use deadly force to protect the innocent or myself, or both, the preceding points are of my formed opinion thus far. To recap, in order for a law enforcement officer to take a life justifiably, an officer must believe that see a malicious attack in which deadly force or threat of deadly for has been applied, whenever the officer encounters deadly force used against him/her, or when an officer perceives that the subject in question posses an immediate and imminent threat to another person. Because the idea of taking a life is so daunting to all in law enforcement, the definition of properly taking a life will vary, as do officers and other criminal justice practitioners. While I personally do not look forward to the day that I may have to shoot someone, at the end of the day however, I am going home.

Works Cited:

“Action – Response Use Of Force Continuum.” Online Image. 5 Feb. 2001. Ohio

Department of Natural Resources – Use of Force. 3 Aug. 2009 <

http://www.ohiodnr.com/portals/0/hr/images/useofforcecontinuum.jpg>

Grant, Heath B. and Karen J. Terry. Law Enforcement in the 21st Century: Second

Edition. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2008.

Monday, May 10, 2010

History of the Police

Advancements in Technology and Styles of Policing
That Nurture American Justice


Levi J. Freeman
LET-5051-A Introduction to Law Enforcement
Commander Troy Fields
August 18, 2009


Abstract

Law Enforcement has grow throughout the ages from Roman Centurions using swords and other weapons that are seen now as primitive, up to now, with sophisticated technological breakthroughs helping the modern day patrol officer. In this paper, the history of policing in biblical ages, medieval, and modern day styles of policing will be reviewed, and the tools that they used. The origins of law enforcement positions and the duty gear they used will be reviewed. Also, this paper will look into at present qualifications of the modern day police officer and expectations of federal agency’s.


Advancements in Technology and Styles of Policing

That Nurture American Justice
From the earliest forms of law enforcement up to the law enforcement practitioners that we see presently, all agencies have had to change policies, procedures, and tools used to combat crime. Throughout the centuries, the main goal of all law enforcement agencies was to protect the government interests and maintain the peace. In order to do so, change that came about had to be embraced. As crime changed, tactics to fight crime had to change as well. In order for law enforcement to be effective against crime, advancements in technology and style of policing must be changed accordingly.
The earliest form of documented and well organized law enforcement would be that of the Roman centurion, which enforced the laws of what is now known as The Twelve Tables.

Prior to the Twelve Tables, the law of Rome was religious in character, and its interpretation rested with priests, who were members of the patrician class.
Agitation by the plebs, the common people, led to the reduction to writing of the existing legal customs and the addition of new principles unknown in the customary
law. The Law of the Twelve Tables thus drafted was accepted by the popular assembly. This code set forth simple rules suitable for an agricultural community; it
established equal law for patricians and plebs and was prized by the Romans as the source of all public and private law. The legal system established under this
code, and the body of rules that developed around it, applied exclusively to Roman citizens and was known as the jus civile. (ROMAN LAW, 2009)

Thus, the beginning of the need for law enforcement to be utilized began. Laws had been documented, and an empire needed to be controlled when laws were broken. In order to combat crime, the Emperor used that which he had an abundance of. The Roman Centurion. “The Roman centurion was a skilled professional who could be relied on to run a legion on campaign and in battle” (Roman Centurion, 2008). But in order for the centurion to be an effective crime-fighting machine, they had to be well equipped. To do so, the best technologies of the time were utilized.

Their armor, helmets, shields, siege weapons including the catapult and ballista, the chariots and facts about the different types of weapons and clothing used by soldiers
and gladiators. Facts and information about the Roman Siege Weapons including the Tormentum, Ballista, Testudo, Vinea (arbor-sheds), Helepolis, Turris, Battering Ram
and the Wild Ass (Onager) (Roman Colssuem, 2008).

With the best equipment and the best men to represent the Emperor in crime intervention, it is best to know that Rome had its bad parts of town, where crime was rampant.

As with society being made up of many different individuals, crime occurred as differing opinions clashed.
As with any city, Rome had its rich and poor areas. The poor could only afford to live in wooden houses which were a serious fire risk in a hot country like Italy. On a
number of occasions, Rome suffered severe damage as a result of fires starting in the city’s slums. The slums were also dangerous places to go to if you had any
money as crime was very common. The Emperor Augustus created a police force to patrol the city… (Ancient Rome, 2000).

To combat this crime, and to keep it from spreading, the Roman Emperor used the correct individuals, the centurions, to combat crime. They outfitted them with correct equipment, and they worked to keep the peace and protect government interests. Law enforcement was now established.

While the Roman Empire did fall due to political reasons, the lessons learned with law enforcement carried on for centuries, through the years of the enlightenment, until a new era of policing: the idea of the night watchman. With this style of policing, a sole person would roam the town. The French pioneered this system. “France established police including constables and night watchmen over a thousand years ago” (Policing – Early Policing, 2009). With it came a new function of policing: foot patrol. The watchman would do precisely as the name implies. Watch. The watchman would wonder the streets, looking for crime to occur. If and when it occurred, he would announce it and others would awake from their beds to help protect them selves from danger. Their main weapon would be merely to make noise. This form is primitive, but effective for the time being, but a new era of policing is dawning near.
Along with the watchmen, full time law enforcement practitioners were starting to arrive. While watchmen served the people, the shire reeve served the king. “The shire-reeve or King’s representative in each county became the Sheriff as the English
Language changed over the years” (Davis, 2009). With this, law enforcement was being introduced even further into the lives of citizens. “The Office of Sheriff dates back at least to the reign of Alfred the Great of England, and some scholars even argue that the Office of Sheriff was first created during the Roman occupation of England” (Davis, 2009). Even with the newer style of policing, the ability to fight crime still has strong ties to the early Roman Empire. However, while the watchman and shire reeve would serve will for the time being to enforce laws, change is still to come.
The next big move in law enforcement would be that of the famous Bow Street Runners. Grant it, while the watchman served the people, the shire reeves or sheriffs served the king, the Bow Street Runners served judges. “The first serious suggestions for overcoming the grave deficiencies of the system for apprehending criminals were made by Henry Fielding, the novelist and dramatist, after his appointment as magistrate for Westminster and Middlesex in 1749 “ (Bow Street Runners, 2009). Henry Fielding, a magistrate, noticed that there was a problem apprehending fugitives. Thus, one of the first fugitive task forces began to take shape.
In the initial stages, the special police force at Bow Street consisted of just six or seven ‘thief-takers’. They were recruited from the parish constables, after their year of office had expired, were paid one guinea a week and were also rewarded when they captured or broke up a gang of highway robbers, the money they claimed becoming known as ‘blood money’. At first, they wore no uniform but only carried the staff of a parish constable (Bow Street Runner, 2009).

Henry Fielding was smart about which persons he had work for him. He started his staffing by using former constables; an early form of a pre-employment prerequisite. Fielding was helping to put the wheels in motion. The idea of having people specifically to just arrest known unpunished persons was established. While their job was very basic, merely to just go and arrest violators, it was an important one. They were a pseudo form of detectives. While the crime that was committed meant little to them, they had the daunting task of finding the criminal. Fielding’s brother, Jon Fielding, also made advancements in the history of law enforcement with the creation of a highway patrol.

The ‘thief-takers’ who patrolled the streets were subsequently named the Bow Street Runners, and they were supported by increased government money. This enabled
John Fielding, in 1763, to establish an experimental nightly horse patrol of eight men to protect travellers on the roads around London against
highwaymen. The following year, the government withdrew this financial support and the horse patrols ceased (Bow Street Runner, 2009)

From the time that Henry Fielding set up the first round of primitive detectives, to the time his brother creating a highway patrol, the Bow Street Runners made several strives in policing. Though both were not advanced organizations, it is a clear reminder about where modern law enforcement came from.
From the first round of Bow Street Runners, magistrate Patrick Colquhoun did a few teaks to dramatically start the wheels in motion to change law enforcement forever. He did so by setting up one of the first unofficial structured police departments.

The Bow Street Runners wore red waistcoats on duty and thus became known as the ‘Robin Redbreasts’. When patrolling the streets, they carried, as badge of office, a
wooden tipstaff, in the form of a short mace, on top of which was a metal receptacle containing the rolled-up warrant of arrest. They also carried thirteen-inch-long
truncheons, bearing the name Bow Street and gilded with the monarch’s cipher, a lion and a crown (Bow Street Runner, 2009).

These Bow Street Runners were a far outcry from the basic runners that Henry Fielding started in years earlier. With these innovations came another noticeable point. The uniform. All other previously known forms of non-military law enforcement, such as the watchman, the shire reeve or sheriff, and the first generation Bow Street Runner, did not wear a uniform. They were now easily identifiable, and were feared. Police presence was established as tool to combat crime.
Still, another forward step was founded by the Bow Street Runners; the definition of jurisdiction and cooperation. While all law enforcement agencies, past and present, enjoy the satisfaction of handling everything independently, new management within the Bow Street Runners would not let pride step in the way of job performance.

The Bow Street Runners’ horse patrol was not re-established until 1805, when Sir Richard Fox set up a force of fifty to sixty men at the Bow Street police headquarters.
The Bow Street Runners then became official and a uniformed horse patrol was formed to protect the principal roads within a twenty-mile radius of London. The main
objective was to clear notorious spots, such as Hounslow Heath, of highwaymen so that travellers could undertake journeys with less trepidation. The police action met
with huge success. On occasions, when short of men, the Bow Street Runners persuaded the military to help them tackle large groups of highwaymen (Bow Street
Runners, 2009).

The Bow Street Runners now had a permanent purpose, not only to serve papers of arrest, but also to patrol the highways and places of travel within a twenty-five mile circle around the City of London. This was a tall order, but the Bow Street Runners had evolved, and they were up to the task. They had men of experience, utilizing former constables of the shire reeve’s or sheriff’s office, they had the weapons that they need to combat crime with. They had structure within the management to be able to work effectively within the agency to complete assignments of serving papers or protecting the highways. With the improvements that were made to the Bow Street Runners, from the time that they started in the early nineteenth century, they became more effective at fighting crime. The Bow Street Runners had combined the old styles of the Roman paramilitary with the newer ideas of the watchman, pseudo detectives, and a primitive highway patrol. While they did protect the outer ring of London, the metropolitan areas remained un-patrolled. But the success of the Bow Street Runners would be used to create a first official police department.
Outside of London, the Bow Street Runners had men the patrolled the miles of highways and commercial routes around London, but within the city, they were out numbered, and could not stop crime. But another man pioneered a new path in law enforcement, barrowing the success of the evolved from the Bow Street Runners.

The success of the Bow Street Runners in suppressing the menace of the highwaymen encouraged Sir Robert Peel, when Home Secretary, to recruit greater numbers of
uniformed policemen. In London, in 1822, they became known as ‘bobbies’, after his first name, while those he formed in Ireland in 1814 were called ‘peelers’. In 1829,
the Metropolitan Police Act was passed which brought all the separate London forces under a central control and the result was the establishment of the Metropolitan
Police Force (Bow Street Runners, 2009).

The success of the London Metropolitan Police lied within its structure, and its power lied within the law. Previous forms of law enforcement had been run by politics, which would change periodically. Sir Robert Peel noticed that, and with in the legislation, he brought the Bow Street Runners in to the London Metropolitan Police and hired more officers, and they began to work with the Shire Reeve to work towards greater good law enforcement. Along with the lessons learned from the Bow Street Runners, Sir Robert Peel introduced his own characteristics of what a Police agency should have.

Peelian Principle 1 - “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”

Peelian Principle 2 - “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

Peelian Principle 3 - “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the
public.”

Peelian Principle 4 - “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”

Peelian Principle 5 - “Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

Peelian Principle 6 - “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice
and warning is found to be insufficient.”

Peelian Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and
the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the
interests of community welfare and existence.”

Peelian Principle 8 - “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”

Peelian Principle 9 - “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.” (Sir Robert Peel’s
Nine Principles, 2009).

These principles of policing are the guiding light of law enforcement agencies worldwide. The London Metropolitan Police emblemized the best way to approach law enforcement. Using the tools of the time, the best in technology, the London Metropolitan Police secured London and the surrounding areas. The model that Peel set up included that police officers work for the public, not against them; that the police be uniformed and easily recognized. All these principles were an effort to insure that police departments are organized, and levels of authority existed with supervisors above the supervised. The lesson learned from the time of the Romans, through the ages of watchmen, shire reeves or sheriffs, Bow Street Runners, and Officers of the London Metropolitan Police Force all created the backdrop for American Law Enforcement.
Within the early-formed independent United States, styles of policing were with European influence in America. While in the countryside’s the use of the watchman and sheriff still existed, the lessons learned from the centuries of law enforcement in Europe were to be put to good use. The first city to implement this knowledge would be that of grand New York City. “ In 1844, the governor of New York State gave the mayor permission to establish a police department. In July 1845, a police force of about 800 men began patrolling the streets. George Matsell was the first Chief of Police” (History - Early Years, 2005). With the formation of the New York City Police Department given gubernatorial executive permission, a crime fighting began. Not only did the gubernatorial charter specifically covere not just law enforcement, but an investigative service as well. Detectives were now in the United States.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD), the largest police department in the United States, has primary responsibility for law enforcement and investigation
within the five boroughs of New York City. It is considered to be the first "modern" style police department in the United States; when it was created in the 19th
century, it was modeled after London's Metropolitan Police (History – Early Years, 2005).

As its creation was similar to the London Metropolitan Police, the weapons used were similar. As with both the Bow Street Runners and Officers of the London Metropolitan Police, Officers from the New York City Police Department carried small clubs, and were easily identified by wearing uniforms. They used foot patrols, and some were mounted on horses, the remnants can still be seen today. While the New York City Police Department was the biggest, the variety of law enforcement within the United States was just as varied, as is the location of crime that was committed. To combat this crime, law enforcement had to adapt. The greatest example of these would be that of the notorious Texas Rangers,

While the London Metropolitan Police and the New York City Police Departments secured areas of proven infrastructure, the Texas Rangers Service helped tame the wild frontiers of the American west.

In December 1836, the Congress of the Texas Republic (1836-1845) passed a law providing that President Sam Houston raise a battalion of 280 mounted riflemen to
protect the frontier. The term of service was to be six months. The following January a law was passed providing for a company of 56 Rangers for the frontier of \
Gonzales County, and a few days later other companies were provided for Bastrop, Robertson, and Milam Counties. A little later, a law was signed for two more
companies for the protection of San Patricio, Goliad, and Refugio Counties. It was during this period that the Texas Rangers began to make a name for themselves that
spread far beyond the borders of the state (Roman Centurion, 2008)

While starting out as a national police for the small republic, after rejoining the United States following the Civil War, the Rangers continued to uphold the laws and protect the innocent. Making arrests for people wanted for crimes, the Texas Rangers proved their success in many ways. Even though the terrain was much different to that of London and America’s eastern seaboard, the diversity of service was still used.

The Rangers, much like the London Metropolitan Police and New York Police Department used the paramilitary style of organization that was birthed by the Romans to insure supervisory rolls.

The Rangers were organized into companies, but not regiments or brigades. The company was in the charge of a captain or a lieutenant and sometimes a sergeant. The
headquarters was in Austin where the captains reported to the headquarters officer. Under the Republic of Texas this officer was the Secretary of War. Under the state,
until 1935, he was the Adjutant General; since then, the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (Historical Development, 2000)

With a backbone in management, the Rangers also embraced weapons that it where need to complete the job. Common knowledge concludes that Texas was full of Native Americans that opposed the settling in the area, and the Texans that lived there fought for independence from Spanish and Mexican forces throughout their history. Another interestin- to point out is the jurisdictional limits of the Rangers. “[t]he Texas Rangers, the oldest law enforcement agency in North America with statewide jurisdiction” (Silver Stars and Sixguns: The Texas Ranger, 2000).

Policing in America has advanced even more since the beginning days of the most recent London Metropolitan Police, New York City Police Department, and the Texas Rangers. With the background of paramilitary style policing from the Romans, proactive habits from the style of watchman, the investigative properties of the Bow Street Runners, the principles behind the London Metropolitan Police and the New York City Police Department, and finally the service diversity of the Texas Rangers, American Policing would forever be pioneered. As the years passed, technology has overwhelmingly changed from the days of carrying a sword and riding in a chariot.

In modern day policing, the basic police officer has a demanding job. The requirements to become a police officer are strict to ensure that the qualified people become police officers. "[d]epartments require applicants to be U.S. citizens and have a valid drivers license. Applicants must have no criminal records. They must meet certain vision, weight, and height requirements. Age, residency, and other specific qualifications vary from department and organization" (Echaore-McDavid, 2000).
Law Enforcement at all levels in modern day America has varying requirements. Respectively, the higher the agency, the higher the requirements and expectations that come with the job. But with the past knowledge of policing, law enforcement practitioners are ready for the task.

From the earliest form of organized policing in ancient Rome, up to modern day policing that is seen on the streets of everyday America, lessons were learned and advancements were made to allow police to become effective at fighting crime. With different variations of policing being used, such that of foot patrol birthed by the watchman, and horse back from the latter years of the Bow Street Runners, to modern day equipment, law enforcement practitioners have embraced technology to keep up with criminals. While the mission of protecting the innocent and saving government interests has not changed over the centuries, it has been apparent that had law enforcement not adapted with the ever-changing world, that law enforcement would not effective.



Works Cited
Ancient Rome.. (2000). Ancient Rome. Retrieved Aug 14, 2009 from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ancient_rome.htm

Bow Street Runners.. (2009). Famous Outlaws. Retrieved Aug 10, 2009 from http://www.criminals.lt/page.php?al=bow_street_runners

Davies, Y. History of Sheriffs. [PDF document]. Retrieved from Online Web site: www.lynchburgsheriff.org/overview/sheriffs-history.pdf

Echaore-McDavid, S. (2000). Career Opportunities In Law Enforcement, Security, and Protective Services. New York, NY: Facts on File Inc.

Historical Development.. (2000). Texas Department of Pubic Safety. Retrieved Aug 17, 2009 from http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/texas_rangers/

History – Early Years.. (2005). New York City Police Department. Retrieved Aug 17, 2009 from http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/new-york-city-police- department/history.html

Roman Centurion.. (2008). Roman Centurion. Retrieved Aug 13, 2009, from http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-army/roman-centurion.htm

Roman Colosseum – Roman Weapons.. (2008). Roman Empire and Colosseum. Retrieved Aug 13, 2009 from http://www.roman-colosseum.info/index.htm

ROMAN LAW,. (2009). History.com. Retrieved Aug 18, 2009, from http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=220894.

Silver Stars and Sixguns: The Texas Rangers.. (2000). Texas Department of Public Safety. Retrieved Aug 17, 2009 from http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/texas_rangers/silverstars.htm

Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles. (2009). Sir Robert Peel 1788-1850. Retrieved Aug 19, 2009 from http://www.nwpolice.org/peel.html