Do a discuss on Understanding Human Behaviour in Force Encounters……….

Police’s use of force has always been met by constant criticism from the media and across the nation as a whole.  The question that begs is when exactly is the right time for a police officer to use force to subdue an individual they consider as an aggressor? The answer to this question is not certain. Crimes do not occur in a systematic way. The psychology of a criminal is never uniform; therefore it becomes very hard for a police officer to clearly determine the exact situation when to use force to subdue an aggressor. Despite how the media may tend to exaggerate police brutality the occurrences are as sporadic as depicted by the media (Elicker, 2008). What should be understood especially by the media and those who are very quick to crit5icise the police for the use of force is that, the level of emotions that are present during such ‘logical’ situations are not predictable at all. I use the time ‘logical’ because i realize that there are situations where the police also do overreact. However, should the public and the media be quick to judge the police without understanding the situations they are always in? This paper will try to see if the use of force science is appropriate to address the situation effectively.
As a right a person when arrested has got the right to speak to his attorney as the first step. This way they are able to be advised on the information they should diverge to avoid incrimination. The police too should be advised to give their statements in the presence of an attorney because they are part of the crime being discussed as the arresting officer. They too should be given legal assistance as their statements can incriminate them too. Putting down information coherently about the occurrence of a crime is a sensitive issue as it may be open to misinterpretations. Therefore the officers should not be penalized for doing what they though was the best.

Furthermore it is really abhorrent for courts to support the idea that police officers are not accepted to hire or even allocated legal representation to explain his actions. Proper legal advice should be provided to the officers so that they are also aware of the legal requirements.
It has always been argued that the police being custodians of the law understand the applicability of the law. This is not always the case, for what would be the work of a legal officer then? The police are not well trained to understand the consequences of there actions when combating crime. What happens is quelling of the violence then protocol follows after. If fighting crime required protocol being followed always in the field, then dead policemen would always be reported.  The policemen are however quick to defend themselves by pointing out that they have clear guidelines that allow them to engage a hostile (Phillips, 2010).  That is why they have to be trained to understand the need of legal.
Police justify the use of force in certain instances and i think this is justified. A police man cannot have time to think about legal consequences in a situation where they have tried to subdue a rogue gunman. That is why i support the work being done by Dr. Lewinski on human behaviour in force encounters. When force is applied it means that the ‘barbaric’ nature of a human being as an animal is unleashed, within this confines regulations and legislations fail to exist. That is why i think understanding the human behaviour in force encounters becomes very

Reference

Elicker, M. K. (2008). UNLAWFUL JUSTICE: AN OPINION STUDY ON POLICE USE OF FORCE AND HOW VIEWS CHANGE BASED ON RACE AND OCCUPATION. Sociological Viewpoints, 2433-49.

Phillips, S. W. (2010). Police Officers’ Opinions of the use of Unnecessary Force by other Officers. Police Practice & Research, 11(3), 197-210.

Place your order now……………………….