In class today we discussed what we found as information toward police brutality. The class period was so short i didn't get to discuss my own information that i found(which i studies all night for 3 hours and 2 hours this morning so i was prepared to say what i had found. So, what i didn't want was to leave things unsaid. I mean, i did find information since i did study about 5 hours straight about this stuff.
What i wanted to figure out was if there is actually anything that they were tought in the academy or anything in the law that shows they cant just shoot a person for a small crime or something that says they're suppose to follow this or they were taught this. My mother joined the academy in San Jose to join the police force back when i was a lot younger, she was hired in Guadalupe when we moved to Santa Maria as a reserve officer. She still got paid for it but didn't want to let go working at Vandenberg tracking station. But anyway i came to her and told her my situation of trying to look for research, she gave me a book(the name was PC 832 concepts iv, peace officer required training) and said yes there is regulations and things the police must follow. I kept reading and reading and i found this,
Decision to use deadly force: many officers complete their entire careers without (fortunately) ever facing the need to use deadly force. However, one must be realistic and realize that such a need may arise at any time. Therefore, if for any reason you feel that you cannot apply deadly force when necessary in the course of your sworn duty, you should not enter a branch of armed law enforcement.
Moral and psychological aspects: in the consideration of the moral aspects of the force necessary to effect and arrest, one should consider the following quote," The goof of the people is the chief law"
Many officers do not resort to deadly force unless the suspected felon is dangerous and/or has committed a violent crime( grand theft, armed robbery). To keep things in perspective, one might properly equate the personal consequences of taking a human life against the punishment the suspect might otherwise receive when and if convicted.
Reasonable person rule: if, viewed from the standpoint of the ordinary reasonable and prudent person, such extreme fore was not reasonably necessary and the arrest could have been accomplished without it, the homicide is not justifiable.
Duty to public: peace officers owe a duty to the public not to violate anyone's civil rights by the use of excessive or imprudent force.
Basic Professional concepts:
Public approbation of police:the ability of the police to perform there duties is dependent upon the approval of police existence, action, behavior, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect
Minimum use of force: The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the excercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the reasonable amount of force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
It is also said they can only use deadly force when they do and 'eye search' see if he has a weapon or see if a person by them is in danger. It's just all i see in this book are reasonable force. which is pointed to words and opinions that anyone can really say. was it reasonable? That is just them trying to get your perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment