In every law enforcement in any country, police officers have the right to use force in the course of their work. However, the use of force is not limitless to them. The use of force should be exceptional, that is, acceptable in some cases. The use of force by law enforcement officers is strictly regulated by the law. The laws may differ from one country to another, and one should always be familiar with them. The international community has worked towards establishing a code of conduct that should be followed by all law enforcement officers in all countries. The codes are written in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. The standards stipulate that the use of force by law enforcement should not be a norm but instead should be and exception.
Law enforcement officers are only allowed to use force only when:
It is necessary.
When it is required for the performance of their duty such as preventing crime and the lawful arrest of suspects.
When all the non-violent methods have been exhausted and have remained ineffective.
Any use of force beyond the limits mentioned above is considered an excessive use. “strictly necessary” is when it would be considered to assume that the police had no other choice apart from using excessive force.
The term "excessive" is used when the officers take action that goes beyond the principles mentioned. An action could be classified as excessive if the objectives of the law officers were not according to the law. The force may also be considered excessive if the offence committed was not serious enough to mandate the use of force by the law officer. For instance, the use of force would be considered excessive if the person arrested did not show signs of resistance. If the law officers did not attempt any other means of arrest, that is those that do not require force, then the use of force would be considered excessive. If the law officer did not abide by the rules and regulations or undertook an action illegally, it would also be considered excessive use of force. In some cases, superior officials that are supposed to set the rules and regulation may encourage the use of force. It would be considered excessive in cases where it is not reasonable for them to do so (Amnesty International and CODESRIA, 2000).
The use of Firearms
The use of firearms is one of the most dangerous forms of force that a law officer can use. The international community has again developed codes of conducting regarding the use of fire arms by law enforcement officers. The principles include:
Using firearms is an extreme measure and law officers should make every effort to exclude their use.
Firearms should only be a last resort. That is they should be used after other less extreme measures have been taken.
Fire should only be used in self-defence or defence of others facing imminent threat; prevent a serious crime that may lead to loss of life of others; a person who poses a great threat to life and attempts to escape.
Firearms should not be used in lethal means. Law officers should only use firearms in a manner that causes minimal injury. Firearms should only be used lethally if the goal is to prevent the loss of life.
The use of firearms beyond the principles stated above should be considered excessive (Amnesty International and CODESRIA, 2000).
When authorities are investigating the use of fire arms and whether or not it was excessive, there are various factors to look at. Firstly, the investigators should find out what happened before the incident happened. They should also check whether there were less lethal means used to handle the situation. Secondly, they should check the type of weapon that was used. Finally, they should check how the weapon was used such as the aim of the weapon.
In cases of demonstrations, the law officers should consider the overall principle that every person has the right to assembly and peaceful demonstrations. Whether the assembly is lawful or not depends on the regulations of the country. Law officers may decide to deny citizens the right to assembly if the demonstrations are bound to cause harm or damage. In the case of displacement of unlawful demonstrations, law officers should use the least lethal means. If the demonstrators are aggressive, then the law officers can only use firearms of all other means have proven to be impracticable.
If there is an alleged case of excessive use of force, the state or the government has an obligation to conduct a full investigation on the issue, clarify the events of the incident and identify those that are responsible. If those suspected are found guilty, they should be brought to justice and the victims compensated. Finally, the government should make sure their results are public record.
Liability to the police department
Liability is always a concern when law officer breaks the law. It is important that the department has good policies and regulations that follow legal mandates and facilitate the improvement in performance. This protects them from damaging lawsuits. If a police officer violates any of the laws, the police department, in some cases may be held liable (Kinnaird, 2007).
Example of excessive police force
It has been legal in the United States to stop, questions and frisk people since 1966. A police officer does not need to have probable cause. They can just stop anyone they suspect to commit a crime. There was concern that the stop and frisk would be race based over time, and the prediction was accurate. There were approximately 684,000 stops made in 2011 in New York City. There were no arrests or even summons in 88 percent of the cases. 84 percent of those stopped were African American or Latinos. It is worth to note that the African American and the Latinos constitute 23 percent and 29 percent of the New York City population. Once the issue came to a head, the stops dropped by 30 percent. There is also bias noted when it comes to the use of physical force against the African American population, which were 76,483 cases and 9,765 among the Caucasians. Despite the evidence in the biased practice, the policy is strongly supported by the police department and the mayor. Their argument is that it helps to get guns off the street. The goal of the policy seems reasonable. However, the means used to achieve it are in question (Kleinig, 2014).
Out of the stop and frisk totals, only in 0.02 percent of the cases that guns were found. Secondly, there is seemingly no correlation between the stop and frisk and keeping people since once there is a mapping of the stop-and-frisk. Finally, there was public pressure regarding the stop-and-frisk policy that led to a 25 percent reduction in 12 months (Kleinig, 2014). However, despite the argument that the practice kept the public safe, there was a reduction in the number of deaths at the same time.
Conclusion
The statistics show that the police judgments are sometimes motivated by race. There may be the underlying assumption that certain people are more involved in crime and have a tendency to resistance. It is the duty of a police officer to know when there is probable cause in any use of force. It is important to realize that crime is not necessarily constituted along racial lines. They may be correlated along particular socio-economic classes, ethnicities, or religious groups (Schauer, 2003). Policemen are trained to act according to the rules and regulations, and therefore, any prejudice that determines their actions is against the rules since it is discrimination. It is, therefore, a form of excessive use of force.
Reference List
Amnesty International and CODESRIA. (2000). Monitoring and Investigating Excessive Use of Force. Basford: Russell Press Ltd,
Kinnaird, B. (2007). Exploring liability profiles: A proximate cause analysis of police misconduct. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 201-213.
Kleinig, J. (2014). Legitimate and Illegitimate Uses of Police Force. Criminal Justice Ethics, 33: 83-103.
Otu, N. (2006). The police service and liability insurance: Responsible policing. International Journal of Police Science, 8: 294-314.
Schauer, F. (2003). Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes. M.A.: Havard University Press.
