The main topic question for this discussion is whether police departments use appropriate force when dealing with the public?

You no doubt have heard much in the news the past year about confrontations between citizens and police in various states and cities around the country, most of them sparked by the use of deadly force by police against unarmed citizens. Many of these incidents of police abuse, or alleged abuse, involve questions about whether the police are routinely violating the constititutional rights of citizens against unwarranted stops, searches, and seizures, particularly in minority communities. The United States, unlike many other countries, does not have a national police force. The Constitution leaves policing of citizens up to the individual states (recall the powers given to the states by the 10th Amendment, which are also sometimes referred to as "police" powers). State governments, in turn, leave it to cities and counties to establish local police forces. When allegations of police misconduct or abuse arise, it is the responsibility of locally elected leaders, such as mayors and city councils, to investigate these incidents and take corrective action where necessary to prevent them from recurring. In extreme cases, if state and local governments don't take sufficient corrective action, the federal government may launch an investigation of the local police departments and take action to force change at the local level. This occurred recently when the U. S. Department of Justice investigated the Ferguson, Missouri police department and issued a report describing widespread abuse by that city's police department of the town's minority population. As a result, a number of Ferguson city officials were fired and the police chief was forced to resign. This was a significant event because it involved the federal government taking very aggressive action in an area of administration that is usually exclusively controlled by state and local governments. Since you are currently studying the executive branch and federal bureaucracy, I want you to


0|0
2|3

Most Helpful Guy

  • People are quick to judge, sure excessive force has been used but it's often only recognised because of how it played out in the end. In the moment most people would probably use it themselves, they actually did a police training test with some of the public and each time the public acted incorrectly based upon the situation. It's a hard thing to actually get correct, some people are aggressive but really pose no specific threat, others act docile but give no second thought to killing someone. I mean I was in the military and was told legally I cannot fire upon someone unless they shoot at me, yeah that's great legally but how would you feel if that was happening in real time? It can be different sometimes though, some American pilots got in trouble with drones because they shot someone to disarm them and while the guy then posed no threat to anyone they then killed him in cold blood.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 2

  • they do what they can to try and keep the peace and keep themselves alive, sometimes that means the suspect gets killed and just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are not a threat. and when the media and the government automatically assumes that they are being abusive just because they only see half of the story doesn't help matters. when they all have body cameras it should help by showing their side of the issue.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Here's some cell phone video that looks to show yet another cop murdering a subdued citizen.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 2

  • I work as a cop, but not in the US. When I see the news I think "the world is fucked up..." I believe it happens because most people do not know the real meaning of power, nor have idea of the limits they have. When you ask them about a law, not all will be able to tell.

    0|0
    0|0
  • sometimes they take it too far and not have enough safety precautions with the civilians

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...