Colorado Technical University Online
Prof. Blair D. Ettinger
January 14, 2013
Numerous authorized and program limitations control the use of force by law enforcement, starting with the 4th Amendment’s prevention against arbitrary searches and seizures and decentralizing downhill to state decrees and departmental guidelines that manage how and under what circumstances police officer may use force. In most police agencies at present, the use of force is closely regulated by guidelines, and more critical employments of force are evaluated and/or examined by directorial staffs or internal affairs sections. Whenever the law enforcement agency or a defendant uses force, there is a likelihood of harm. Until lately, a small amount was known concerning the incidence, reasons, or associates of force- linked damages. Over the previous few epochs, there have been progressions in preparation and knowledge with the purpose of decreasing the regularity and seriousness of injuries to the law enforcement agency and the community while sustaining the protected and real control over fighting accused.
Along with use of force continuum the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has continuously had a well-made procedure concerning the use of force; nevertheless, the situations encompassing the Rodney King event triggered a reappraisal of this guidelines, for not merely the CHP, but also countless other police organizations all through the nation. Seventy-five percent of attackers who confrontation Highway Patrol officers depend on hands and feet. The CHP answer is practically always something other than a sidearm, at the beginning - while use of a firearm is not prohibited if conditions command (California, 2013). Regrettably, the instructing simulants used by countless police departments introduce typical "shoot / don't shoot" circumstances that discount the more mainstream conflicts when a revolver is not a choice. The capability to neutralize or influence a condition before it achieves crisis is a vital ability needed for any police officer. The query for CHP's top administration was Can a preparation course be produced that exposes both an officer's perception of procedure, and the ability to make the best selections in any category of circumstances where force may be mandatory? The Missouri Highway Patrol on the other hand has a progression of use of force. The General Order further states that when the use of force is authorized, officers should consider a progressive range of options for which they have been trained or equipped. Officers are not restricted to these options, nor must they use them in a particular sequence. Available options include: 1. Professional presence of the officer or a Patrol canine 2. Tactical communication including verbal dialogue, requests, instructions, and commands 3. Tire deflation devices, to encourage the safe stopping of fleeing vehicles 4. Physical force, which causes little or no pain, such as using empty hands 5. OC aerosol
6. Level I of the lateral vascular neck restraint and the shoulder pin restraint 7. Physical force, which causes moderate or greater pain
8. Chemical irritants such as tear gas, CN, and CS
9. Immediate force, including physical strikes, Levels II, and III of the lateral vascular neck restraint and the shoulder pin restraint 10. Strikes using an approved baton, contact by a Patrol canine, SERT beanbag rounds, and similar force impact 11. Deadly force.
The General Order goes on to provide that the decision to use a firearm must be based on facts and the totality of circumstances known to the officer involved at the time (STATE CROWE v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, 2005). The similarities in these use of force policies is that both states stress the use of alternatives in their use of force continuum. Both policies stressed the use of alternatives such as officer presence, verbal...