Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The use of a taser
The use of a taser
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The use of a taser
The purpose is to explain the necessity and the alternatives to deadly force. Necessity of deadly force will include laws that have been passed by the United States Supreme Court, training methods and policies of Federal, State and Local agencies Alternatives to deadly force are less-lethal weapons that are used by law enforcement today, TASERS, pepper spray, bean bag guns and batons. Does deadly force need to be used against violent suspects?
Federal Law
Under federal law if a suspect poses a threat to a law enforcement officer or the public the officer has permission to use deadly force. The Supreme Court says there are two factors that are involved to use deadly force, dangerousness and necessity (Hall, 2004). An example of dangerousness is a suspect threatening an officer with a weapon. Necessity on the other hand is hard to prove and there has been legal issues surrounding the necessity of deadly force.
Legal Issues
The first legal issue is that deadly force was not necessary because there was a less lethal way of handling the situation meaning an officer would have to consider other options before he chooses to use deadly force. The second legal issue is that the officer’s actions made it necessary to use deadly force meaning the officer would have to know what the suspect is going to do and prevent the suspect from making the officer use deadly force. The starting point to these legal issues is Graham v. Connor a Supreme Court case in 1989.
Reasonableness Standard. The Supreme Court established a standard to the Fourth Amendment called objective reasonableness. Objective reasonableness assesses an officer’s use of force when making an arrest or any other seizure of a person. Since this case the Supreme Court has hel...
... middle of paper ...
...s should be aware of legal issues that are concerned with the TASER as well.
Fernandez, Elizabeth. (December 5th, 2006). “The Use of Force/SFPD has a ‘Beanbag Gun’ Officers Can Use to Subdue Suspects Who May be Mentally Ill”. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
The beanbag gun is an efficient less lethal weapon used by law enforcement because it can be used from a further distance when dealing with a violent suspect. Since September 2002 the beanbag gun has been used by the San Francisco Police Department 25 times to help subdue a suspect. According to Sgt. Rod Nakanishi it looks intimidating, so people just give up rather than be shot by a bean bag round. In the 25 incidents officers used the gun to resolve deadly encounters. The gun and ammunition seems safer for the officer and for the suspect due to the fact people do not die unless the officer aims in the wrong spot.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Seals, E. (2007). The 'Sealing of the 'Sealing of the Police use of tasers: The truth is “shocking”. Golden Gate University Law Review, 38(1), 38-109. Sullivan, L. (2007, February 27). Taser implicated in delirium syndrome.
...is novel with an outstanding salute to those who serve in law enforcement saying, “And so I tip my hat to all the good cops throughout our nation who risk their lives and strive to do the right thing when facing split-second decisions about life and death every day in the kill zone” (Klinger, 2004, page 274). Pulling the trigger of a gun can cause a variety of issues both within and outside of a police officer’s life, but it could also potentially save another human being from harm and keep the safety of our society intact.
This essay will aim to explore the controversial issue in regards to whether more police officers should be armed with Tasers. This essay will argue that more officers should not be equipped with Tasers, also known as “Conducted Energy Weapons” (CEWs), and that the issuing of Tasers by police services should be limited to supervisors and specialized tactical units until further research has been conducted on the effects that Tasers have on the human body. Furthermore, the abuse of Tasers by police officers will also be argued as another reason why officers should not be armed with Tasers. This essay will focus on two main points that will support the argument that more Tasers should not be given to more officers. First off, there has not been enough research completed to deem Tasers as a safe alternative weapon that officers can use to gain compliance from violent individuals that they may deal with on a day-to-day basis.
Over the years, our nation has witnessed countless cases of police brutality. It has developed into a controversial topic between communities. For instance, deindustrialization is the removal or reduction of manufacturing capability or activity can lead to more crimes when people are laid off. Police officers are faced with many threatening situations day-to-day gripping them to make split second decisions; either to expect the worst or hope for the best. The police are given the authority to take any citizen away for their action that can ruin their lives. With that kind of power comes great responsibility, which is one main concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force might or
Smith, M. R., Petrocelli, M., & Scheer, C. (2007). Excessive force, civil liability, and the taser in
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Everyday law enforcement personal have the possibility to face dangerous events in their daily duties. In performing such duties a police officer could come by a seemingly ordinary task, and in a blink of an eye the event can turn threatening and possible deadly. When or if this happens to an officer they won’t have
Law enforcement officers have searched for an effective non-lethal technique to control unruly teenagers and criminals that are noncompliant with the law; as a result, police officers resorted to the use of non-lethal force--Tasers. Tasers and stun guns are very similar to one another. Tasers are thought to be a non-lethal alternative to firearms, but in actuality, it has caused more deaths in teenagers than the use of batons and pepper spray which are also another non-lethal alternative to firearms. Law enforcement officers often use Tasers on troubled teenagers when teenagers often pose a threat to themselves or to others around them. Police officers believe that Tasers will control these unruly teenagers causing no harm to the human body. Tasers were invented in 1969 by an Apollo Moon landing scientist named John Cover. Taser International is the only manufacturer of Taser guns. Tasers are hand-held devices that law enforcement officers began to use in the 1990s. Tasers discharge two thin wires with probes attached to it (Plouffe Jr., 2009). Once the probes are in contact with the person’s clothing or body, it penetrates electricity, debilitating the human body by minimizing muscular activity (Nanthakumar, 2008). The Taser delivers an electrical impulse of 50,000 volts through the discharged wires. Once the probes are darted in the human body, it results in immediate loss of the individual’s neuromuscular control and ability to perform coordinated movements for the duration of five seconds of electrical shock (“United States of,” 2004). As of 2007, Amnesty International USA, states that there has been an estimate of 250 deaths due to the fact that law enforcement officers are resorting to the use of Tasers (Plouffe...
Does it help the problem in hand? If it does how does this help? It may scare the rioter and when they get scared they will back away from the police. (content.time.com) At what point do the officers need to use these non-lethal weapons? Well they use them if they see an act of violence that they can’t stop by resolving the situation, or they fill threatened.
Most law enforcement agencies have policies that determine the use of force needed. The policies describe the escalating series of actions an officer can take to resolve a situation, first level is officer presence which means no force is used, and just the mere presence can reduce
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
As a result of the recent rise of the use of excessive force cases against police and law enforcement, I have chosen to research the definition of that excessive force. When is it considered justifiable? What training do officers receive? What liability issues are there? In an ABC news article, Sascha Segan states there is no specific definition of excessive force. A part of everyday police work is to subdue criminal and suspects. Another everyday task of police officers is personal discretion - making the right decision based on the specific situation. It has been documented in multiple viral videos that law enforcement officer’s discretion is not always favorable in the public eye and is quick to be judged. Yet shouldn’t we be asking if the officer’s actions were justifiable within the court system and if
Mr. Rodriguez called 911 to report loud music from his neighbor’s house. He then walked to his neighbor’s house with his firearm and a video camera. After the confrontation with his neighbor, he called law enforcement once more to tell them he felt threatened and that he was standing his ground. While Paul Rodriguez waited for law enforcement to arrive at the scene, he used deadly force against Kelly Danaher. In this case, Mr. Rodriguez initiated the confrontation and there was no proven evidence that he was in danger (Flatow,