Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HillsideDesolate" data-source="post: 3911350" data-attributes="member: 51737"><p>this is a bit counterintuitive but the police DO have both extra rights and at the same time less rights to use violence.</p><p></p><p>If the police were not empowered by the state to use force the system simply doesn't work. For the civilian use of force is typically limited to neutralizing force, basically you can use just enough force to stop the behavior. This is often expressed as one level of force above what the offender is using, someone pushes you, you can punch them. They pull a knife you pull a gun etc. The police by the nature of their job can use "overwhelming force" or force several levels above what the offender is using. Someone pushes a cop and they will get pepper sprayed, beaten with a baton, cuffed and imprisoned.</p><p></p><p>Now that said legally speaking the police officer is also going to be held to a higher standing when he does use force. It is expected that the officer has had training on use of force and when it is justified as well as training on the specific type of forced used. Any force used must be justified in his report and should specifically address the officers training. Example: as a civilian you punch some that pushed you, you tell the police that you got pushed so you punched him in self defence. For the police officer it would be something like this " Suspect placed both hands on my chest and 'pushed" me backwards. Due to the suspects agitated and agressive state and having been assaulted, for my safety and the safety of my fellow officers and bystanders I delivered a right handed fist defence to the left side of the suspects face as taught to me in police combative training. </p><p></p><p>The court will hold the officers to a higher standard than the general public on use of force because it is expected that the officer has greater understanding and training on both the law and use of force. Many justified self defence shootings in the civilian world would not be justified if an officer took the same action.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HillsideDesolate, post: 3911350, member: 51737"] this is a bit counterintuitive but the police DO have both extra rights and at the same time less rights to use violence. If the police were not empowered by the state to use force the system simply doesn't work. For the civilian use of force is typically limited to neutralizing force, basically you can use just enough force to stop the behavior. This is often expressed as one level of force above what the offender is using, someone pushes you, you can punch them. They pull a knife you pull a gun etc. The police by the nature of their job can use "overwhelming force" or force several levels above what the offender is using. Someone pushes a cop and they will get pepper sprayed, beaten with a baton, cuffed and imprisoned. Now that said legally speaking the police officer is also going to be held to a higher standing when he does use force. It is expected that the officer has had training on use of force and when it is justified as well as training on the specific type of forced used. Any force used must be justified in his report and should specifically address the officers training. Example: as a civilian you punch some that pushed you, you tell the police that you got pushed so you punched him in self defence. For the police officer it would be something like this " Suspect placed both hands on my chest and 'pushed" me backwards. Due to the suspects agitated and agressive state and having been assaulted, for my safety and the safety of my fellow officers and bystanders I delivered a right handed fist defence to the left side of the suspects face as taught to me in police combative training. The court will hold the officers to a higher standard than the general public on use of force because it is expected that the officer has greater understanding and training on both the law and use of force. Many justified self defence shootings in the civilian world would not be justified if an officer took the same action. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom