Critically analyse police use of force and whether they are deemed excessive.
This essay is going to critically analyse police use of force and whether that force is seen as excessive, from both a public and academic perspective, but also to study the police and legal concerns that have to be taken into consideration before force is used, also whether they believe that the force they use is excessive. Firstly we need to look at what police use of force is, according to the College of Policing (2013) the law recognised that in particular situations, police officers are required to use force, the primary responsibility for using that force rests with the individual officers, who are answerable to the law. In relation to this The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) also states that the constable can use reasonable force. Flosi (2012) argues that to understand what use of force is we need to look at the word reasonable. The most relevant definitions are 1) being in accordance with reason, 2) not to be extreme or excessive. Flosi (2012) also states that an officer will make their force-option decision based upon the actions of the suspect; if the suspect is non-resistive and compliant then the officer will have no reason to use force. The author believes that the use of force is down to that individual police officer and the situation they are put into, to understand this further we need to look at the multitude of riots throughout Britain’s history, especially the 2011 London riots and how the police dealt with the rioters and the public, and see if the public looking at that situation would believe that the officers force is excessive. This is supported by Teresa May (2015) when she states that when such incidents such as riots, have the potential to undermine the relationship between the public and the police, which is where force could be seen as excessive.
To critically analyse police use of force, we have to look at what force they can use upon the public, particularly focusing upon police in a public order setting, for example; riots or disturbances. According to The College of Policing (2014) Shield Tactics can be used to protect officers, demonstrate that force is about to be/or may be used, assist with rapid disbursal of violent crowds and contain disorder. With these shield tactics in mind, the author points out that there are possible limitations with the use of a police shield, as they are heavy and bulky, which would make it hard for the officers to move from danger if needed, this is supported by Hunsicker (2011) by stating that they are made from polycarbonate which is 4-6mm thick, which makes the shields heavy. However Hunsicker (2011) argues that the riot shield is primarily a defence weapon, the only time it is used as an offensive weapon is when in close contact with rioters.
A key limitation according to Weiss (2008) is that there is a clear impact on society, with their confidence with the police and their perception of what the shield tactic is being used for. The author points out that each person in society will either see the tactics of a riot shield in a positive or negative way; this is portrayed mostly in the media. The Guardian (2015) followed a case going through court of where a shield was used as a weapon against a protestor. The judge Jeffrey Pegden (2015) stated that the police officer abused his power and used “gratuitous and unnecessary violence”. The author argues that we need to look at all the possible facts to the case, before we can assume that this was deliberate and the officer was using an unacceptable level of force. During the trial, it was also described that the police officers were pelted with missiles, including rocks and concrete blocks, and statues in Parliament Square were daubed with graffiti (The Guardian, 2015).
The author also states that it would surely heighten the police’s emotions and adrenaline, Bonifacio (1991) a psychologist that specialises in police tactics and psychology agrees with the author, and states that the police officers are human, just like the rioters/protestors. Bonifacio (1991) continues by stating that if the officers are being harmed by rioters/protestors they are going to take it personally and act accordingly to those emotions, like any member of the public would. Waterton and Sesay (2012) argue that from a rioter’s perspective the uniform, kit and reactions from the police towards the rioter’s causes tension and fear that isn’t needed to control a situation such as a riot. The author personally believes that the shield should be used purely to protect the police against harmful objects thrown at the police, but also to create a safe barricade between the rioters and the police for both of their safety.
One of the most common forces for the police use is batons (Green, 2013). The author agrees with Green, due to it being one the most recognisable pieces of police equipment, that are not only used for public order settings but on standard uniform of officers. Nottinghamshire Police (2014) supports this by stating that all operational officers and police staff must where their role indicates be in possession of a baton. According to the College of Policing (2014) batons are only used by appropriately trained officers in order to protect themselves, demonstrate that force is about to/or will be used and facilitate dispersal and/or arrest. The author points out that there are a lot of limitations and consideration’s that a police force needs to deliberate before using batons. An individual officer has the right to draw and use their baton in order to protect themselves, other colleagues and members of the public (College of Policing, 2014). The author points out that the baton is used against members of the public, so how can it also be used to protect the public? According to Trubitt (1967) the baton should be used purely as a forceful measure, and be used as a protective item for the police to use if needed, however with this in mind, the individual officer must be able to justify their actions to why they used the baton at that time.
The police should warn the rioters/protestors that a baton will be used against them; this should be recorded by the police for legal reasons and justification in court (May & Headley, 2008). However the author points out that the rioters may not hear the warning due to the noise of not only the shouting between the police and rioters, but also riots take place in public places where you have heavy background noise. This is supported by Hess and Orthmann (2009) when they state that the atmosphere of a riot is disorientating and deafening, the rioters wouldn’t hear police instructions unless at a close personal level. Another consideration the police face is whether the use of batons is necessary, and is there a less intrusive option that the police can use (College of Policing, 2014). The author believes that in the public order situation, the police would require all measures to be taken into consideration, with the risk of potential injury and violence then they should be used with the advantage of protection to the officer. This is reinforced by Beggs, Thomas and Rickard (2012) where they state that the police are likely to face disorder and aggression, so it is needed for protection.
We need to observe when the baton is used with excessive force by the police, during the G20 protests in 2009, a member of the public was struck with a police baton. The inquest was important for public confidence that this legal process ensures robust public scrutiny of police conduct and brings to light the full facts (Coles, 2011). During the trial, the Jury stated that both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable (INQUEST Charitable Trust, 2011). The author argues that to understand if the baton was used excessively we need to look at all the factors leading up the use of the baton. The police were asked by the Royal Bank of Scotland in London to help security protect the building to protect the employees and customers (BBC, 2009). The BBC (2009) also stated that the officers were situated to items being thrown at them, after the protestors had previously smashed windows of the RBS bank with missiles. The author suggests that this would be a level of risk to potential injury to the community, so the police would take necessary measures such as pushing back the protestors into a more manageable place where it can be contained to reduce risk, this is supported by Warner and McCarthy (2014) who also suggest that the police would have to use measures such as batons and charges, to push back the protestors, this could be successful or unsuccessful depending on the protestors cooperation. With this considered, the IPCC received 121 complaints due to the force used by the police during the G20 protests, 75 complaints related to police tactics (IPCC, 2009).
The author states that the limitation of complaints leads to who has complained and for what reasoning, according to IPCC (2009) the complaints came from witnesses as well alleged victims. The author also points out that the complaints from the witnesses could have been purely influenced through seeing the protests on the news, and not knowing the full considerations of what the police had to control, this is supported by Gorringe, et al., (2012) when they argue that people have overt opinions to how the media portray the police, and the public can be easily swayed to see a situation in a bad way. The author argues that the only data that is sufficient are the complaints that came from the victims from the police use of force, however according to Stott (2010) there is a limitation with the victims, due to the use of force being a range of forces from verbal commands, to pushing that person back out of harm, or out of the personal space of the officer, or using force against aggression.
The next level of force the author is going to look into is CS spray, also known as incapacitant spray. This spray is used in a multitude of situations, but mostly common in incidents of serious public order (The College of Policing, 2014). The College of Policing (2014) also state that CS spray can only be used with authorisation from chief constable or higher in rank. The author points out that the level of force must be greater than the baton or shield due to the need for authorisation. However Rivers (2014) argues that the level of force should not be based upon who gives authorisation but the force and harm that will be done to the individual. The police have to match the criteria before being able to distribute CS spray, for example: in serious public disorder as a last resort, where the loss of life, serious injury and wide spread damage is likely (The College of Policing, 2014).
The author points out that this would only be used in serious riots or disorders, Romando, et al.,(2008) disagrees with the author, stating that CS spray can be used to detain violent offenders and is commonly used within prisons and other detention centres. The author suggests that there a magnitude of possible limitations, due to this being a spray, when used in highly populated areas such as during a riot/protest, the risk of injuries would be wide spread, but there is also a risk of innocent persons being harmed. Bateman et al,. (2014) agrees with the author and states medical assistance and aftercare procedures need to be put in place including decontamination and monitoring after the riot/protest is under control.
The IPCC had a yearly review of deaths in police custody where they consider the use of CS spray as a level of force that can cause death (IPCC, 2015). According to data released by the IPCC (2015) four deaths in police custody we’re due to the police use of restraints and CS spray during 2014-2015. The author would like to draw to attention the possible limitations throughout the IPCC’s data, the IPCC only follow information that the police have released, this could suggest that the CS spray was use by not stated by the police in the report. This is supported by Gilmore and Waqas (2013) where they state that there could be possible conspiracy on how much the police would like to allow the IPCC to know in regards to how much force is used in these circustances.
Another limitation to the IPCC’s data is that they are split up into catagories, the key category being deaths due to restraints and CS spray, when the CS spray could not be the problem but down to how the police restrain the suspects (Tringle, 2014). The IPCC (2015) argues that the term restraint refers to a range of actions including physical holds and pressure compliance, this device is designed and used to restrict the movements of limbs. The author argees stating that the restraints are used as a precationary measure to protect not only the suspect but also the police staff who are trying to contain the behaviour. However in the IPCC’s recommendations, there is not a mension of the CS spray and the force that it uses against a suspect, which could suggest that it is not seen as excessive level of force (Porter & Prenzler, 2012).
The next level of force that police officers can use is the taser. The author has decided to include the taser, even though it is rarely seen during public order disputes, due to it being specifically targetted at one individual, however the author believes that the public perseption of the taser is that the taser is a high level of force and sometimes excessive. This is also agreed by Jauchem (2015), the public relate tasers to firearms because of their physical appearance and when seen in action it shocks the public more due to its force of temporary paralisis. The Metropolitian Police (2015) support this by stating that the taser is a hand-held weapon similar in shape and size to a pistol, but is bright yellow in colour. According to Smith (2015) who is the creator of the taser, the use of the taser helps protect lives, prevent injuries, reduce litigation, and save agencies money. The taser specifically target the motor nerves that control movement, which enhances the effectiveness of restraint while minimizing harm (Smith, 2015).
To look into this futher some of the key studies that Smith has completed around the taser allows us to understand how the taser can protect lives.With a study completed by Wake Forest University in 2009 concluded that 99.75% of suspects subjected to a taser weapon had no significant injuries, demonstrating that the taser device is the safest use-of-force option for police (Wake Forest University, 2009). The data continues to show that out of one thousand exposures to police use of force the lowest catagories for injury was two persons out of one thousand, with the highest being injury from a baton strike (Wake Forest University, 2009). The author suggests that there is possible limiations of this data, due to the study taking place in North Carolina, there could be a possible difference between the way and force that the police in the United Kingdom would use the taser in regards to situations. This is supported by Angelis and Brian (2013) when the state that the United Kingdom is subject to different levels of force and the situations and level of policing is different, the most recognised difference is the fact that in America the use of firearms is common practice. Another limitation to consider is the number of suspects that had received the force from the taser, with the study being over a three year period (Wake Forest Univeristy, 2009). Hibbons and Hodge (2012) state that the use of a small sample size equates to multiple limations including the autheticity of the results over a period of time. Smith (2015) also states that the tasers are equipt with the use of event logs, which record trigger event duration with times, dates, and the use of pulses distributed which could be used efficently for police and IPCC data, compaints and used within court. The author agrees with Smith that the taser should have recording devices within the product to record the use of force and when it is used, however it data recorded does not show what situation the police we’re in to use the taser at the time. This is supported by Todak et al., (2015) when they state that the use of the taser is down to the individual who is trained to do so, which means that officer would be held responsible for their actions in relation to the use of the taser at the time, the use of the taser is not particually excessive but it’s the look and perceptions from society that implede these views.
In conclusion, after reasearching all the levels of force that have been seen reported through media and society aswell as ones that the author has witnesses, the author believes that the different levels of force are acceptable as they are all used in a different way for a range of situations, where they would need to be used. The author also states that with the public’s perception of these use of forces, the one that is going to be answered as the most use of force according to a mutlitude of studies, this is due to it’s appearance with it being similar to a pistol, when after looking at all the levels of forces considered the most with the highest death level and complaints from witnesses and victims is the use of batons against the public. The only explaintaion that this essay has found is that it could be down to the situation of when the baton is used, as it is a common part of uniform for an officer, however a taser is not, in argument to this the taser stops police from potentially being harmed in the process of detaining and restraining, however with the use of a baton, that individual is still able to fight against the police’s physical strength. After looking into mutliple limiations of the different forces, it appears that it is down to the public’s understanding of the force that can be used against them, and whether the police are using that force nessisarily or excessively, this has been a common question throughout history and difficult on how to measure if that force is used inappropriately. Atherley & Hickman (2014) state that academics and police practitioner’s alike struggle to quantify the use of force. A study by academics Jeffries, Butcher and Hanley (2011) was based upon measuring perceptions of police use of force with influence from Albert and Dunham’s 1997 ‘Force Factor’ study, where they state that there are three main influences that can change perceptions. These are, firstly, individual and contextual factors, secondly, media effect and finally, police use of force incidents. Worden (1995) agrees that the police are only communicating; their aim is not to create tension, but resolve the problem and protect. The author states that the opinion of force is down to the individual who is viewing that force, if the police are able to justify the level of force used and the situation and reasons for that force, then it should be accepted, the only time the use of force could look excessive is during a situation where the level of risk is high and could include injuries or fatalities. With measures in place to stop any police excessively using force it appears that the opinion lies solely on the viewer of that force, and the police are going to constantly under scrutiny for the force they decide to use.
Reference List
Albert, G. & Dunham, R., 1997. The Force Factor: measuring police use of force relative to suspects resistance. Police executive research forum, 2(2), pp. 53-67.
Angelis, J. & Wolf, B., 2013. Tasers and Community Contraversy. The Qualilitatie Report, 1(1), pp. 89-109.
Atherley, L. T. & Hickman, M. J., 2014. Controlling Use of Force: Identifying Police Use of Excessive Force through Analysis of Administrative Records.. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 8(2), pp. 123-134.
Bateman, N., Jefferson, R., Thomas, S. & Vale, A., 2014. Oxford Desk Reference: Toxicology. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BBC, 2009. France demands tougher G20 rules. [Online]
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7975597.stm
[Accessed 30 November 2015].
Bonificio, P., 1991. The Psychological Effects of Police Work: A Psychodynamic Approach. 1 ed. New York: Plenum Press.
Cameron, D., 2011. PM promises ‘tough love’ for Britain’s rioters. [Online]
Available at: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/09/02/pm-promises-tough-love-for-britain-s-rioters
[Accessed 30 November 2015].
Coles, D., 2011. INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON TO START. [Online]
Available at: http://inquest.org.uk/media/pr/inquest-into-the-death-of-ian-tomlinson-to-start
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
College of Policing, 2014. Public Order. [Online]
Available at: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/public-order/planning-and-deployment/tactical-options/
[Accessed 26 November 2015].
Ed Flosi, 2012. Use of force: Defining ‘objectively-reasonable’ force. [Online]
Available at: http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/5017882-Use-of-force-Defining-objectively-reasonable-force/
[Accessed 13 November 2015].
Eric Jefferis, F. B. &. D. H., 2011. Measuring perceptions of police use of force. Police Practice and Research, 12(1), pp. 81-96.
Gilmore, J. & Waqas, T., 2013. Police corruption and Community ressistance. Criminal Justice Matters, 2(1), pp. 8-9.
Gorringe, H., Stott, C. & Rosie, M., 2012. Dialogue Police, Decision Making, and the Management of Public Order During Protest Crowd Events. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(1), pp. 111-125.
Green, P., 2014. Trends in less-lethal use of force techniques by police services. Forensic Sci Med Pathol, 10(12), pp. 50-55.
Hess, K. & Orthmann, C., 2009. Criminal Investigation. 9th ed. New York: Cenegate Publishing.
Hibbons, R. & Hodge, D., 2012. The limitations of small outcome studies.. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 19(2), pp. 230-232.
Hickman, L. T. A. a. M. J., 2014. Controlling Use of Force: Identifying Police Use of Excessive Force through Analysis. Policing, 8(2), pp. 123-145.
Hunsicker, A., 2011. Behind the Shield: Anti-Riot Operations Guide. 1st ed. Florida: Universal Publishers.
INQUEST Charitable Trust, 2011. JURY’S VERDICT OF UNLAWFUL KILLING AT INQUEST INTO DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON VINDICATES FAMILY AND PUBLIC CONCERN. [Online]
Available at: http://inquest.org.uk/media/pr/jurys-verdict-of-unlawful-killing-at-inquest-into-death-of-ian-tomlinson
[Accessed 20th November 2015].
IPCC, 2009. IPCC announce fourth independent investigation into G20. [Online]
Available at: IPCC announce fourth independent investigation into G20 – See more at: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-announce-fourth-independent-investigation-g20#sthash.Za9N4Lka.dpuf
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
IPCC, 2015. Deaths in or following police custody. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/Deaths_Report_1415.pdf
[Accessed 3 December 2015].
James, R., 2014. Trends in less-lethal use of force techniques by police services. forensic sci med mathol, 10(12), pp. 50-55.
Jauchem, J., 2015. Exposures to Conducted Electrical Weapons (Including TASER (R) Devices): How Many and for How Long are Acceptable?. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(14), pp. 116-129.
John Beggs QC, G. T. S. R., 2012. Public Order: Law and Practice. 1 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legislation, GOV, 1984. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. [Online]
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/introduction
[Accessed 02 December 2013].
May, D. A. & Headley, J. E., 2008. Reasonable Use of Force by Police: Seizures, Firearms, and High-speed Chases. 1st ed. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
May, T., 2015. Home Secretary’s Police Federation 2015 speech. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-police-federation-2015-speech
[Accessed 12 November 2015].
Metropolitian Police, 2015. Taser. [Online]
Available at: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/taser
[Accessed 3 December 2015].
Nottinghamshire Police, 2014. Standards of Dress and Appearance for Police officers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/Standards%20Dress%20Appearance%20uniformed%20police%20officers%20special%20constables%20and%20uniformed%20police%20staff%20PD602%20.pdf
[Accessed 26 November 2015].
Pedgen, J., 2015. police officer jailed assault student protest tuition fees 2010. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/20/police-officer-jailed-assault-student-protest-tuition-fees-2010
[Accessed 30 November 2015].
Porter, L. & Prenzler, T., 2012. Police oversight in the United Kingdom: The Balance of Independence and Collaberation. The International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(3), pp. 152-171.
Romano, J., Salem, L. & Lukey, B., 2008. Chemical Warefare Agents. 2nd ed. London: CRC Press.
Smith, R., 2015. RESEARCH AND SAFETY. [Online]
Available at: http://uk.taser.com/products/smart-weapons/research-and-safety
[Accessed 3 December 2015].
Stott, C., 2010. Crowd psychology, public order police training and the policing of football crowds. Policing and International Journal of Police Stratagies and Management, 33(2), pp. 218-235.
Terrill, W. & Mastrofski, S., 2002. Situational and Officer Based Determinants of Police Coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 215-246.
The Gaurdian, 2015. Police officer jailed for eight months for assaulting student at London protest. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/20/police-officer-jailed-assault-student-protest-tuition-fees-2010
[Accessed 30 November 2015].
Todak, E., Cesar, G. & Brooks, L., 2015. Forensic reporting of TASER exposure: An examination of situational and exposure characteristics. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 35(1), pp. 4-8.
Tringle, D., 2014. Is the IPCC fit for purpose?. Socialist Lawyer, 1(66), pp. 32-35.
Trubitt, H., 1967. The hand that holds the baton. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 58(3), pp. 441-447.
Wake Forest University, 2009. Exposure of Taser. [Online]
Available at: http://uk.taser.com/products/smart-weapons/research-and-safety
[Accessed 3 December 2015].
Warner, C. & McCarthy, J. D., 2014. Whatever can go wrong will: situational complexity. Policing and Society, 24(5), pp. 566-587.
Waterton, S. & Sesay, K., 2012. Out of touch – a youth perspective. Criminal Justice Matters, 87(1), pp. 28-29.
Weiss, J., 2008. Ballistic Shields Tactics. Law and Order Magazine, 12(1), pp. 46-50.
Worden, E., 1995. The “causes” of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police. An justice for all: Understanding, 1(1), pp. 31-60.