Decision Making Case Study
Date
Name
Institution
Central Issues of this case
The central issues in this case involve the excessive use of force by the police and their engagement in violent pursuit of a suspect. The officer on the spotlight is Officer Ripley who is patrolling the industrial park as an extra job. There has been a report that the industrial park is affected by vandalism and theft of materials used for building. After being confronted by a suspicious vehicle, Officer Ripley approaches it with the spotlight on, and upon seeing the car starting towards him, he releases his unapproved dog in this mission and fires a warning shot into the ground. He also strikes the suspect’s car with a Taser which is unauthorized. The Pineville County Sheriff's Department has been under heavy scrutiny following excessive use of force by the police during their pursuit which led to the death of a 14-year-old juvenile. The department has instigated severe rules to curb such behavior. Officer Ripley’s behavior in investigating the suspect comes at the time when compliance with the rules set to limit excessive use of force during police pursuits is under strict investigation.
Use-of-Force Policy
Deputy Raymond Ripley's behavior was in compliance with the use of force policy. According to the new rules set by the Pineville County Sheriff’s Department, ‘a police pursuit may be cancelled by a supervisor if the pursuit does not involve a violent felony crime or other reasonable circumstances warranting the danger and potential liability’. In this case, Officer Ripley called Dispatch for backup when he suspected that the suspect he had could be involved in theft or vandalism in the area but the commander lieutenant on patrol did no...
... middle of paper ...
....
Justification of using excessive force; the officers are not justified to use force for facts unknown to him. No matter how compelling the facts unknown to the officer are, his actions of using excessive force especially the Taser are not justified. Ripley used excessive force on the suspect based on his unknown facts which renders him at fault.
Additional policies needed include education of the public on policing. This will reduce the tendency of the public declining arrest. If the public complies with the police, the police will have no justifiable reasons to use excessive force when arresting or examine a suspect.
References
Kenneth J. Peak, (2009), Justice Administration: Police, Courts, and Corrections Management (6th Edition), Prentice Hall.
Samuel Walker, (2001), Police Accountability: The Role of Citizen Oversight, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 141.
All agencies that equip their officers with Tasers properly train their personnel as well as have it in their use of force continuum. Mr. Bryan was stopped for a seatbelt violation and although he was being vulgar and acting irate, he was not directing it towards Officer McPherson. Even though Bryan exited his vehicle, Officer McPherson could have gave him commands to just stay at the vehicle and do not approach him unless directed to. I have been on traffic stops when the driver abruptly exited the vehicle without being directed to do so. My thought on this is even though they exited their vehicle, I do not want them to get back into their vehicle because they may have a weapon in the vehicle that they cannot now reach or drive off, and I can keep a better eye on their actions out of the vehicle. I believe that Officer McPherson could have handled this situation a lot better with more verbal judo and professionalism. Even though it is taught that a reactionary gap of 21 feet is recommended when dealing with an unknown suspect, Officer McPherson could tell that Bryan had nothing in his hands and did not pose a threat. I am not a fan of Taser guns for the simple fact that there have been too many lawsuits and injuries that stem from the usage of them. My department’s view on them is that they are not necessary and as long as the trooper is properly trained in
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
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).
At around 3:14 pm. Santa Rosa Police officer Erick Gelhaus and his partner, a trainee, were patrolling Moorland Avenue located just before the outskirts of Santa Rosa. Gelhaus who was sitting in the passenger side of the police vehicle, then spotted an individual (now known to be Andy Lopez) with his back facing towards them walking down the street holding what appeared to be an AK-47 assault rifle (Johnson). The trainee officer then stopped the vehicle just a mere 20 to 30 feet away, allowing for Gelhaus to quickly step out and order Lopez to drop the weapon (Chea). Many community members argue that the trainee officer should have gone out of the police vehicle with Gelhaus if Lopez was indeed a threat to the community. The trainee officer however did not exit the vehicle since “at that point Deputy Gelhaus had already engaged the subject, with the commands and with the weapon. The threat was essentially over” (Johnson). This explains why the trainee officer remained in the police vehicle during the confrontation.
Seals, E. (2007). Police use of tasers: The truth is “shocking”. Golden Gate University Law Review, 38(1), 38-109
Deputy Strange conducted a residential patrol at Strom Park Drive and Lake Andrew Drive, without instruction and using his own initiative to look for criminal activity and to maintain visual deterrence. Deputy Strange utilized his radio to conduct this residential patrol. During the patrol, Deputy Strange noticed two parking violations and written parking warnings for the violations. See Section three and four. Deputy Strange cleared the call with CAD comments without assistances. No officer safety issues were observed during this case.
Happening in today’s society, there have been countless number of citizens being killed by law enforcement. Some situations may not cause for force and others may. This case can be a reference in regards to making sure that the force you use is appropriate for the situation. As for the justice system, it is all about being fair and listening to both sides and issuing out the right punishment if there is any. Many people in today’s time needs to get educated when it comes to the reason behind why law enforcement uses force to handle the situations they have to deal with. But in the end it all comes down to right and
Smith, M. R., Petrocelli, M., & Scheer, C. (2007). Excessive force, civil liability, and the taser in
Hult, J. (2013, 10 09). taser use on 8-year-old justified, police in s.d. say. USA Today. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.
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.
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.
Police use discretion through weighing the costs and benefits of each situation (Wilson, 1968). The helpfulness of their choice is much more important than obeying their duty or moral. Thus, when normal force is explained it is done under the pretense of justifiably. To recap, normal force is simply the force used under police discretion that is neither legally taught nor brutal (Hunt, 1985). Normal force is justified by taking responsibility for their actions, yet denying they were wrong because of situational or abstract events. At other times officers use excuses for normal force and recognize their use of force as inappropriate. They will recall emotional or psychological states as a reason for such inappropriate actions.
On 3/18/17 at approximately 2034 hours, my partner, Officer Thebeau #8402, and I, Officer Harrell #3441 were working patrol assigned as unit 3A22. We were in full police uniform and operating a black and white marked police vehicle. We received a radio call of numerous subjects fighting near the intersection of Villa Ave and Lake St. The comments of the call stated one of the subjects involved possibly had a knife. We responded code-3 from Marengo Ave and Orange Grove Blvd.
Correcting police misconduct and police officers using professional discretion and crossing ethical boundaries is a colossal challenge that every police department in America has at one time taken on. In order to correct the problem police departments should maintain a written policy regarding the guidelines pertaining to the use of officer discretion and the result of incorrectly using their discretion. Also, training in police ethics and past examples of officer misconduct must be incorporated from the first day at the academy, in addition to annual ethics training. This will lay the foundation for a police department’s success. Reward an officer’s ethical behavior. Rewarding ethical behavior and disciplining officers for unethical
The police officers sometimes applies excess force beyond what is necessary to arrest a suspect which sometimes result into physical injury of the suspect. This is a common unethical practice by the police that has caused the suspects physical injuries and sometimes even result to death. Under the law, if the excessive force was unreasonable, then the officer should be held accountable for causing physical injury to the