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.
No comments:
Post a Comment