Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many times I read on this site about police use of deadly force. So, I am asking ALL, what govern's their use of force? What gives them the authority to use force?
Many times I read on this site about police use of deadly force. So, I am asking ALL, what govern's their use of force? What gives them the authority to use force?
Doesn't it depend on the department's policies? I'm sure every jurisdiction is a little different.
Here in the valley, NLV will give you an ass-whuppin' but are unlikely to shoot you. You look at Metro the wrong way and you might get a bullet. Henderson PD likes to kick a guy having a diabetic shock issue in the head after he's been handcuffed and is on the ground.
I don't know what it does come down to, but it should come down to common sense. I do not think our police should die over a frickin job, but I don't condone some of the things that have happened in my neck of the woods the last few years.
Did you get a chance to look at that "Deadly Force" link I posted in another thread, Phil? I'd be interested in your insights.
Doesn't it depend on the department's policies? I'm sure every jurisdiction is a little different.
Here in the valley, NLV will give you an ass-whuppin' but are unlikely to shoot you. You look at Metro the wrong way and you might get a bullet. Henderson PD likes to kick a guy having a diabetic shock issue in the head after he's been handcuffed and is on the ground.
I don't know what it does come down to, but it should come down to common sense. I do not think our police should die over a frickin job, but I don't condone some of the things that have happened in my neck of the woods the last few years.
Did you get a chance to look at that "Deadly Force" link I posted in another thread, Phil? I'd be interested in your insights.
Very good points. Departmental policy does effect use of force a great deal. However, departmental policy can vary from city to city, county to county and, moreover, state to state. I guess I was being a little more broad, in the sense of: The police cannot just use force whenever they want. Of course, it looks that way, however, it truly is not the case.
In general, and I am being very general here, police use of force comes down to the 4th Amendment. When a police officer uses force to effect an arrest and/or detention, it is considered a "seizure" under the 4th Amendment. Therefore, that "seizure" must be reasonable. The keyword in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable."
In so far as what you outlined, its impossible for me to talk about something which I do not know, and/or have first hand knowledge of what occurred. Not to put you down, nor question your information, etc. You say Henderson PD "kicked a guy on the ground, in a diabetic shock." Maybe true. May not be true. That is probably what was reported in the newspapers, AFTER the fact and, moreover, AFTER more information then the police had when obscene.
When they arrived, they had a person who appeared drunk, acted drunk, was probably combative, et al. See, diabetic shock looks like a drunk person. They exhibit all the signs, symptoms, etc of a person highly intoxicated. Right down to the strong alcohol smell on there breath. How is the police supposed to know the difference, at the TIME of the occurrence? There is no real way at all. NONE.
The guy was on the ground. Handcuffed? Not handcuffed? You do realize, just because someone is handcuffed, does not mean they are no longer a threat? Do you realize how many police officers have been shot and killed, by handcuffed prisoners? Do you know how easy it is for a person on the ground to still initiate an assault against an officer?
I URGE you to watch, fully, the following two videos:
It a series, so you'll want to pick a time to read it when you have more than a few minutes.
I will watch your videos and no, I don't think a handcuffed man is necessarily not a threat. Cops have to deal with people who are on PCP and the like, so I give a great deal of latitude. Especially since they are probably pumped on adrenaline if you make them chase you. Oh and on a second watch, the Henderson diabetic was not handcuffed when the officer kicked him in the head about five times, but it was still a bit much if you ask me. The video is linked in the story.
I watched the first video Phil, the second would not load on my browser correctly. Would you mind moving to Vegas and running for Sheriff? I like your scientific approach rather than the stuff that goes on out here. Cops have a tough job and I'm glad someone wants to do it. I just think some departments are a bit corrupt, incompetent, or both.
The use of deadly force is justified if your life or someones else is in jeopardy of great bodily harm or death.
Now put yourself in the cops shoes.
I bet you want to go home to your family, not to the morgue.
"What gives them the authority to use force?"
We all do and everyone in the US has the same "authority" to protect themselves.
It starts with the constitution.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ok, I have watched and read the comments, etc. So, again, I hate to be nasty, etc however, and? What you posted is the EXACT reason of my thread. Now, can you please explain to me and others, what gives the police their authority to take a human life? I think IF you can. And/or others, it MAY explain things better.
Because I can guarantee you, you really have no clue what authority police have to use deadly force. And, I am meaning what the United States Supreme Court has ruled as what is justifiable force.
We can ALL complain what we think, what we feel, and what you may "think" is common sense," regarding use of force. However, the facts are this: It is MOOT. Your thoughts, complaints, my thoughts, complaints are worthless. What matters, and what ONLY matters, is the US Supreme Court decision on police use of deadly force. That particular case decision and its components, is the ONLY thing relevant (until and/or if, things change). However, as of now, the case decision has with stood the tests of time.
The case decision outlines, puts out there, WHAT a police officer must and must not do, in a case of deadly fore. It outlines what a police officer needs, etc in a case of deadly force. When you read it, you will find it is very broadly defined and is very much "on the side of" the police. It is broad. It is open. It is extreme, for most of you and, moreover, it covers many officers, who shoot unarmed persons (based upon the circumstances). It is why I am not quick to judge, bad mouth, and/or put down persons who use deadly force. And, until YOU get things changed, NOTHING will change. In fact, it will only make things worse.
I would think a professional such as yourself would be appalled by that case.
As far as deadly force goes, not only do I not expect my police officers to die in the line of duty, I don't think they should get beat up either. It's a frickin job. If someone started beating my ass at work and I was armed, guess what would happen next? That's just one reason I'm not a cop.
I was hoping for some insights into Metro's abuses by professional police officers, but I guess the thin blue line is still there. I'm glad "Officer" Pease is a bartender now and not in a position to slash a couple people's throats with impunity.
As I mentioned earlier, the North Las Vegas Police Dept. has my respect for the toughness and professionalism of it's officers. They use deadly force when they "have" to. When the officer or someone else is at serious risk in their professional opinion(s). Metro and Henderson-- not so much.
You may have watched the Henderson video Phil, but I doubt you read the series I posted a link to. If you read about Pease and Yant and have nothing to offer, then have a nice day.
Many times I read on this site about police use of deadly force. So, I am asking ALL, what govern's their use of force? What gives them the authority to use force?
In any situation where other innocent bystanders are in danger as a direct result of their actions.
In NYC a police officer can use deadly force if he determines that his life is in danger. This has been the growns for many controversies becauses of its vague implications, as to when a life threatening situation exist. Since the officer has many other alternatives to combat life threatening situations when he uses deadly force it is always questionable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
