Use Of Force Sources for your Essay

Use of Force by Police


The research questions in this study include those which ask the following questions: (1) What is being done to ethically address wrongful police use-of-force in their line of duty? (2) What more should be done to ethically address wrongful police use-of-force in their line of duty? Literature Review It is reported that ethical misconduct "taints the public perception of police" and that this is extremely "detrimental.to the profession." (Beech, nd, p

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


If Officer Jones had been a Dallas police officer he would have been brought before a grand jury to determine whether his actions amounted to excessive use of force (Owmby, 2008). If the grand jury believed there was sufficient evidence to support this claim Officer Jones would have likely been indicted for aggravated assault (Baldwin, 2014)

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


If the municipal government supported this policy, either officially or unofficially, then it could also be sued for civil damages under Monell. A lack of proper training in the use of force could also be the basis for a civil claim against the police agency or municipality, depending on the causes of inadequate training (Estate of Davis v. City of Richland Hills, 2005)

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


Excessive Force Liability The International Association for the Chiefs of Police (IACP) has maintained an updated model policy on the use of force for over two decades (Hough & Tatum, 2012)

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


Given these details, the shooting victim would likely have legal standing to bring a civil action against the officer under Section 1983. The police department where Officer Jones was employed and the responsible municipality could also be sued under Section 1983 (Loevy, 2004-05; Monell vs

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


Given the evidence presented in the case study, Officer Jones is probably guilty of excessive force and therefore legally liable for the injuries the shooting victim suffered. If Officer Jones had been a Dallas police officer he would have been brought before a grand jury to determine whether his actions amounted to excessive use of force (Owmby, 2008)

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


Excessive Force Liability The International Association for the Chiefs of Police (IACP) has maintained an updated model policy on the use of force for over two decades (Hough & Tatum, 2012). A number of 'use of force' policies implemented by policing agencies can be found online, but the basic tenets are the following: (1) use only the minimum amount of force necessary to bring a situation under control, (2) deadly force should only be used to prevent death or serious injury to the officer or bystanders (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985), and (3) the determination of an imminent threat of death or serious injury should be based on objective and reasonable evidence (IACP, 2006; Graham v

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


Officer Jones would not be liable for any harm that may have resulted from leaving the injured and bleeding woman behind to pursue a suspect. While Officer Jones had a duty to call emergency medical services on the woman's behalf after taking charge of the scene, he was not required to remain by her side until help arrived (Torres v. City of Chicago, 2004)

Section 1983 Claims for Police Excessive Use of Force


Garner, 1985). To successfully bring suit under this statute the plaintiff must show that the defendant was acting under color of law (Williams v. United States, 1951)

Use of Force


e. does the states military technology favour defense or offense" (Art, 2012)

Use of Force


It is also ineluctably about power: the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and the use of power to achieve political change. Terrorism is thus violence -- or, equally important, the threat of violence -- used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim" (Hoffman, 1998)

Use of Force


On a connected note, Robert Pape details the motivations and methodologies which thrive and exist behind terrorism, ultimately finding that suicide terrorism is rising all over the world, but the most common explanations do not really shed light on the motivations which allow this phenomenon to thrive. Answers like religious fanaticism are insufficient in understanding what motivates so many terrorists and psychological explanations have also frequently been contradicted by increasingly large ranges of socioeconomic backgrounds which does not help in advancing the understanding of suicide terrorists at all (Pape, 2003)

Use of Force


" One of the most memorable statements from this article is the following: "The diplomacy of violence is the art of coercion and intimidation" (1966). Schelling firmly believes that because modern weapons technology has dramatically changed the nature of war, making it more punitive than seeking to acquire land or people, it simply isn't accurate to view military strategy in the traditional science (Schelling, 1966)

Williams\' the Use of Force


This comment conceals the fact that the actual gaze the reader perceives is that of the child through the eyes of the doctor. "Fetishistic scopophilia," writes Mulvey, is perhaps the most pleasurable and least anxiety-provoking manifestation of the male, patriarchal gaze of culture because it is simply a gaze: the onlooker looks at the woman, rather than becomes uncomfortably a part of what is dangerously 'not-male' and 'not phallic' through intercourse (Mulvey 840) the doctor's fetishistic penetration of the child after meeting her gaze, and communicating with her by staring at her gaze thus manifests this cinematic, perverse pleasure of looking To liken "The use of force" to scopophilia, or pleasure of gazing in the cinema may initially seem odd, given that pain rather than pleasure is the reason that the doctor forces the girl's mouth open: the girl is in pain, he wishes to heal her suffering

Pre-Emptive Use of Force Against


is a valid customary international law norm and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter." (Champion, 2005) the use of force however, is noted by Champion to be authorized "only

Pre-Emptive Use of Force Against


Convincing proof of an imminent attack must be present in order to justify an anticipatory use of force." (Maxon, 1977; Franck, 2001; and Gardner, 2003 in: Thomas, 2004) II

Pre-Emptive Use of Force Against


anticipatory self-defense may be invoked only where the threat is imminent, proximate, and the use of force is necessary and proportional." (Ryan, 2009) The anticipatory right self-defense was further upheld in the Tokyo Military Tribunal in ruling that a declaration of war by the Netherlands against Japan in December 1941 in response to Japan's stated intent to seize Dutch territories was a lawful recourse to anticipatory self-defense despite the absence of an armed attack on Dutch territory

Pre-Emptive Use of Force Against


brings theorists to the murky issue of self-defense -- an ill-defined, ambiguous and controversial exception to the blanket prohibition on the use of force, set out in Article 51 of the Charter and interpreted with reference to customary international law." (Thomas, 2004) it has been evident in development of international law that self-defense in the realm of municipal criminal law has involved a great deal of debate in regards to the legitimacy of self-defense that is pre-emptive in nature and that is "in the absence of an actual attack" and specifically in regards to international law

Police Use of Force --


This theoretical estimation was exacerbated by the practical fact of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Reportedly, police officers were "told" that they were allowed to shoot looters in New Orleans in the aftermath of the Hurricane (Shankman et al

Civil Liability in Regards to Use of Force


Literature review There are two main concepts that are essential to understanding the basis of this study, "excessive use of force" and "civil liability. The excessive use of force is usually defined as any force that can result in serious bodily harm or death (Alpert and Smith 1994)