An overview with the use of force continuum

Use Of Force, Deadly Force, Excessive Push, Correctional Officers

Excerpt via Essay:

Force by simply Police and Correctional Officers in the United States Today

Beginning with the high-profile case of Rodney King in March 1991, the expansion of cellular telephones furnished with cameras offers resulted in progressively more video accounts by Americans concerning the use of force against criminal potential foods who will be in many cases users of fraction groups (Winright, 2007). Obviously, this trend has also motivated calls for a review of current utilization of force methods employed by police force agencies around the world. To determine the specifics, this daily news reviews the relevant literature to recognize the various strategies used by authorities or correctional officers in overcoming resistance in arrest or control situations, with the use-of pressure continuum, and also to identify potential responses to “expected” or perhaps “unexpected” consequences from the pubic or judicial system as a result of employing these kinds of tactics. Finally, a summary of the investigation and important findings regarding the use of push by law enforcement or correctional officers will be presented in the conclusion.

Assessment and Examination

Use of Power Methods Utilized by Police and Correctional Officers

The use of force methods which have historically been employed by police and correctional officers span the use-of-force continuum (discussed further below), however in far too many instances, critics fee that these regulators tend to resort to the most forcible methods from the beginning when confronted with criminal potential foods, particularly those from group groups. For example, Elicker (2008) advises that, “The unacceptable use of pressure by police officers has received a significant discussion in the media and across the nation for some time” (p. 33). Indeed, Winright emphasizes that the widely published beating of Rodney Full is the guideline across the country instead of being the exception. On this factor, Winright records that, “That beating has not been unique inside the history of policing. It most likely has family member in every condition in the Union, in every country, and indeed in every significant police force as far back as we are able to trace law enforcement function” (2007, p. 38).

Use-of-force proponents counter that these law enforcement authorities are on the front line of the battle against crime and need to have the power to exercise no matter what amount of force it deems necessary in their professional view to protect themselves and American society (Elicker, 2008). Furthermore, notwithstanding the increasing online video accounts of excessive utilization of force by police officers, the actual of the scenario is far different and these video accounts represent isolated happenings rather than an actual statistical pattern. For example , according to Elicker, “Despite just how mass media presents the subject of law enforcement brutality, the occurrences of police make use of force cases are not all of that common” (2008, p. 34).

In fact , these kinds of assertions are backed up by simply solid record evidence. A study performed by the United States Doj analyzed the facts in several, 512 arrest cases coming from six downtown law enforcement companies concerning the utilization of force simply by and against police officers. The results of this study revealed that there have been just 52 cases (representing 0. 07%) in which cops employed weaponry as part of the arrest procedure (Elicker, 2008). The kinds of weapons utilized by police officers during these 52 circumstances included stays, knives, handguns, chemical providers, rifles/shotguns, automobiles, canine products, and others (Elicker, 2008).

The results of the Department of Justice study also decided that in 1, 184 (representing 15. 8%) of the arrests, police officers employed one or more tactics that did not entail any weaponry at all. These tactics included (a) snagging, (b) adjustable rate mortgage twisting, (c) wrestling, (d) pushing/shoving, (e) hitting, (f) kicking, (g) biting/scratching, (h) use of pressure hold, (i) carotid hold, (j) control hold, and (k) different tactics (Elicker, 2008). Of the weaponless methods, grabbing was used the most typically (954 instances or 12. 7%), with arm rotating (281 instances or three or more. 7%) and wresting (233 cases or perhaps 3. 1%) representing the distant second and third most often used weaponless techniques (Elicker, 2008).

Police officers who have encounter legal suspects in the line of work who has to be presumed innocent until tested guilty within a court of competent legislation are up against a much different circumstance than correctional officers who also are incurred with keeping order in the nation’s prison system. Correctional officers happen to be routinely faced with individuals who have long been convicted and sentenced for his or her offenses, and in many cases these were violent crimes (Kedir, 2006). Reacting to the need to provide correctional officers with some type of effective nonlethal use-of-force tactic, more than 8, 1000 correctional agencies in the U. S. have been evaluating the efficacy of Tasers (Kedir, 2006). Regarding this, Kedir reports that, “Marketed as one of the safest and most successful use-of-force options available, Tasers reduce injury rates to officers and potential foods, lower legal responsibility risk, and improve community security by giving a nonlethal alternative to the application of impact weaponry or firearms” (p. 358)..

Overview of the Use-of-Force Continuum

As the term connotes, the use-of-force procession begins together with the least forcible tactics and extends to even more forcible strategies that entail physical force. For instance, Isted (2006) report that police force authorities typically apply the next escalating ways of force when in contact with a criminal think:

1 . Verbal commands

2 . Handcuffing the suspect

a few. Searching the suspect

4. Use of a wrist or arm fasten

5. Documenting the suspect

6. Block, punch or perhaps kick the suspect

several. Strike the suspect

eight. Wrestle the suspect

9. Using pepper spray

15. Using a pioche

11. Utilizing their firearm

doze. Other techniques, and

13. Using multiple tactics (p. 115).

In the same way, the confrontational force continuum is made up of seven increasing levels of pressure that are used to teach police officers about the most appropriate level of force to use in any given circumstance. The confrontational force continuum begins with nondeadly power tactics apply physical initiatives intended that will control, inhibit, or overcome the level of resistance of an person and closing with deadly force which will refers to any method which can be reasonably expected to result in the death of the suspect. (McCauley, 2005). The seven levels of the confrontational force procession are established in Stand 1 below.

Table 1

Confrontational power continuum

Category

Description

Police officer presence

Law enforcement assume charge of the think through their particular announced or perhaps uniformed existence.

Verbal control

Presence has failed; officers now begin verbal persuasion and, if necessary, issue instructions or warnings.

Open palm

Where functional, police place their hands on suspects and advise these people that they are beneath arrest. Officials counter virtually any resistance beyond this point. Frequently , wrestling, grabbing, or pushing occurs.

Discomfort compliance:

Police employ pressure-point control or perhaps pepper apply (which they sometimes may possibly deem suitable at level 3). This kind of greater force could be justified when the official encounters weapons, a larger suspect, multiple people, combative behavior, or persons under the influence of alcohol or perhaps other prescription drugs.

Mechanical complying:

These methods usually involve physical tactics that make use of counterjoint challenges and leverage, such as wrist locks, adjustable rate mortgage bars, or other “come along” techniques. Officers might apply these people using handcuffs or the law enforcement baton.

Effects:

Police make use of impact weaponry only when mechanical control strategies prove ineffective or inappropriate. When useful, officers should certainly direct produces to the soft-tissue areas, including the backs with the legs or perhaps buttocks, prior to striking a joint or bone.

Fatal force:

Law enforcement resort to this kind of ultimate stage only to protect themselves or others via death or serious harm or to digest a forcible felon (after exhausting other reasonable means) who reveals an imminent risk for the community in the event that not immediately detained.

Source: McCauley, 2005, p. 12

In addition , law enforcement officials authorities often use their very own patrol car lights or perhaps high-powered hand held and gun-mounted flashlights to temporarily sightless criminal potential foods at night (McCauley, 2005). Possibly these presumably harmless use-of-force tactics, even though, have been belittled for preventing suspects coming from identifying the authorities officers whom are wielding them (“anyone can carry a flashlight”) and then for causing long term damage to the suspects’ retinas (McCauley, 2005). Taken collectively, it is very clear that authorities and correctional officers have a large range of use-of-force methods available, but deciding the most appropriate procedure in a moment where lives may be at stake remains a highly challenging enterprise (McCauley, 2006).

Potential Responses to “Expected” or “Unexpected” Consequences towards the Use of Power

It is also noteworthy that the Department of Justice study decided that legal suspects fled on foot in 354 situations or in a car in 128 cases. In respect to Elicker, “Police employ weaponless techniques or no pressure at all in the majority of situations, as well as using the less dangerous tactics often than those that can cause even more serious community outcry” (p. 35). Even so, even when authorities and correctional officers do employ strategies that use nonlethal methods, there can be some serious unexpected implications that are included. For example , Kedir (2006) paperwork that, “The recent common use of Tasers, however , has not been without controversy. There remain concerns more than health risks, the possibility of abuse