Glee in Loss of Reasonableness of Deadly Force?

Witnessing the use of lethal force on a fellow human being by officers of the law, can affect many people with different and varying reactions. It can cause post traumatic stress disorder in varying degree’s for the ordinary citizen. Why does one have to witness an act of death committed by the police?

A part of the training involved in Canadian law enforcement is learning about the use of force upon criminals. The intention of the philosophy by Sir Robert Peel states a police officer was to use force upon the citizenry ‘only when absolutely necessary’. There are steps that can be taken prior to acting upon ‘absolutely necessary’ and especially use of lethal force. Much value is placed upon following the principle 'to minimize the use of force as much as possible' therefore ensuring officers respect Constitutional rights of every Canadian citizen and maintain positive relations between officers and the public.

The ‘National Use of Force Framework’ (NUFF) was developed for officers to follow when confronted with a situation. They are trained to ‘assess, plan and act’ and control risk, prevent harm to self and the public, and resolve the situation. There are choices for a officer to use and levels of force that is available to them. An officer is expected to use a reasonable amount of force to subdue a criminal who is resisting arrest. So, why do we hear reports of police brutality? Police are NOT required to opt for the 'minimum' use of force during an arrest.

The model shows the officer(s) the available ‘responses’ available to him/her, as follows;

● presence
● communication
● use of intermediate arms (baton, etc.)
● lethal force

The officer must first ‘evaluate’ (risk assessment) the following areaas;

● environment
● number of suspects
● perceive suspect abilities
● knowledge of suspect
● time and distance, allows for delayed response aka ‘disengagement’**
● potential signs and/or risk of attack

One stage provides the opportunity for the Police to act on rules of ‘disengagement’. It consists of using 'time and distance' to re-evaluate their situation. A second opportunity to reconsider the situation, review their available options and resources- to reassess the amount of force that may be necessary.

Three reasons exist for officers to NOT use disengagement rules, are as follows ;

● barriers or limited movement
● imminent risk to nearby bystanders
● in physical attack by suspect

The evaluation process may have to happen within fractions of seconds dependant upon the situation. It would resemble our own response to facing loss of control over our vehicle. Courts are aware of the time constraints facing the police therefore may allow for errors during the crisis situation.

A justified death ruling by the court depends entirely upon their use of ‘reasonable objectiveness’ which follow the statutes of the Supreme Court of Canada. The use of lethal force can be acted upon, if:

● innocent civilians may be harmed
● a prolonged arrest endangers life of self or public
● criminal committed act of deadly force

A police officer is part of the public and can be charged as equally as the ordinary citizen. Using lethal force upon a criminal fleeing, is non-violent or unarmed can result in one or multiple charges of manslaughter, grievious injury with intent, negligence in use of f. arm, murder. Using the excuse of following the ‘framework model’ is not acceptable, as it is not the law.

The use of drugs and/or alcohol alters a normal person's state of mind and over all situation facing the police. Law enforcement is required to use the necessary force to subdue a person resisting arrest. Lethal force is usually the choice in such a situation especially if the suspect is armed and threat, to life of others or the police. The officers put their lives at risk to uphold their oath to 'protect and serve' the public.

Why does one have to witness an act of death committed by the police? We now have some answers to the question but it doesn’t resolve the psychological aftermath of such a scene for nearby citizens, family, friends and/or community.

Reports, videos and witnessed accounts of excessive and/or lethal force used by police shocks the public. Loss of trust, faith and belief in law enforcement and government is replaced with anger, fear and sense of shameful acts as a society. So what does make for a better alternative rather than use of lethal force?

A few idea’s that have been suggested , are as follows;

● disable hand
● blanket net to temporarily blind suspect
● use tranquilizers (as used in psychiatric facilities)
● use form of bolas on legs or ankles to prevent fleeing
● amend definition of ‘criminal committed act of deadly force’ to, is committing
● redefine ‘Justified death’ for returning equal force situations only
● addictions is a mental disorder therefore protect mental health
● amend laws to reflect injuries sustained during arrests prevail only if acts of attempted ‘disengagement’ conducted were ignored
● improve comprehension and practice of ‘disengagement’ procedures
● stricter disciplinary measures for poor conduct to the public, especially racism
● inform or negotiate with suspect a opportunity to ‘disengage’ and comply to arrest

A simple review of history can and has provided idea’s for improving or inventing new techniques. Communication is important between people and should be a priority. Canada's criminal code allows for a 'justified death, if the arrest cannot be effected with lesser amount of force' yet police are not required to use the minimum amount of force. Strange?

A nurse can get compliance with a combative client in the healthcare facility by communicating each duty s/he must perform with a client, unable to speak. This act promotes respect and dignity of the client.

Is it possible this lack of communication escalates or may provide opportunity to diffuse a situation? Is it possible that open acts of disrespect to the public, specific groups, youths, etc., escalates aggression between the public and police? A question most likely better answered by somebody who faced conflict with or works within, the law enforcing agency. What are your thoughts? Do you have other idea's to prevent use of lethal force?

Read related –> here and there. Shopping –> here.

I hope you found this article informative. Please feel free to leave your comments and share your own observations plus give your Vote. Send me a email if you have a request on a topic of interest, join my Fan club, subscribe by Email or my RSS Feed or join me on Hubpages.

Article(C)2012 Dame Scribe, all rights reserved. Dame Scribe creates articles and posts online. She is passionate about creating articles on business skills and development, home business ideas, health, science, technology and society.