Thread: Increasing use of force?
03-23-2012, 09:53 PM #26
POLICY often states that you use the minimum amount of force to handle the situation"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon - no matter how good you are, the pigeon will still crap all over the board and strut around like it won anyway."
I don't know it all, I know a little about a lot and a lot about a little---slamdunc
I have discussed religion and politics over morning coffee with men who have killed people, you don't scare me.
03-23-2012, 10:58 PM #27
You are not required to use the minimum force necessary. My department specifically went over that at our last in-service. You are required to be REASONABLE in your use of force, but not use the minimum. Say someone refuses to get out of a car and they have a felony warrant. Forming a perimeter for two days and letting them pass out from dehydration requires no force at all, but is that reasonable to expect of law enforcement? Who even knows what the minimum force necessary was? You can't use hindsight and say, well, maybe I could have done that with two punches instead of three. You must use REASONABLE force, not minimum, force, based on what YOU knew at the time you used it. Now if that 3rd punch was after he was cuffed and compliant, that's not reasonable. Maybe he had enough at two and was about to give up but you weren't able to recognize that before the 3rd strike landed, then you realize he is surrendering and you cuffed him. That's not minimum, but its reasonable.
What you know at the time includes your prior knowledge of the suspect if he's been violent with officers before, how close your back up is, etc. etc.
Any department that tells you its part of your job to "take lumps" is...I can't think of an apt description that really encompasses how wrong that is.I miss you, Dave.
03-24-2012, 12:11 AM #28
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
Last edited by mister_murphy; 03-24-2012 at 12:27 AM.
03-24-2012, 07:13 AM #29
WTF is w/ all the deleted comments?
03-24-2012, 11:12 PM #30