The use of force has traditionally been one of the most controversial aspects of police work. The use of force is also one of the hallmarks of policing and it is one of reasons why policing is so different than other occupations; it is seen as crude work (Bittner, 1970). However, what needs to be noted is that the police are very limited in their authority to use force, because force must be reasonable when all components are considered; use of force must be legitimate and necessary (Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert, 1998). In this what needs to be understood is that police officers have the most discretion, meaning they are the ones establishing what policies and or situations to pursue (Sherman, 1974). Police officers are trained to use force progressively along a continuum (Godoy, 2017); most policies require that officers use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish their goals; for the simple fact that the use of force is seen as the “norms” and “culture” of their department(s) (Godoy, 2017). Keep in mind throughout this essay, what will be discussed is the ways the police use force, why the police use such force, who are the police using force on and, what are the consequences behind using force.
In what ways do the police use force?
The police have the right to use force essentially unrestricted because police officers have the most discretion while being on duty (Sherman, 1974). Acknowledging this though means there is a need to further look into is the ways force is used in the police force. According to Bittner (1970) he found, that there are three different forms of responsive force; self-defense, specially deputized persons and to create a police force. First, Bittner (1970) found the following about self-defense:
Although the laws regarding self-defense are far from clear it appears that an attacked person can only counterattack only after he has exhausted all other means of avoiding harm, including retreat, and that the counterattack may not exceed what is necessary to disable the assailant from carrying out his intent. (p. 36)
Also, with causing harm under self-defense can lead to criminal and tort proceedings; this becomes necessary because it shows compliance with charges of excessive and unjustified force even during times of self-defense (Bittner, 1970). Next, type of force that Bittner talks about is the police officers use force against specially deputized persons; the police officers are assigned to certain positions (e.g. mental hospital attendant or a prison guard) so the officers carry out the acts of using force through court orders and only to the people that remain in their custody and only to the extent that the judicial order of confinement (Bittner, 1970). With such high degree of limitations for the officer under their assigned position this does not account for those officers that violate their required restrictions (Bittner, 1970). Finally, the third way to see how police officers use force is how the officers legitimize the use of responsive force to institute a police force and this is broken down into three formal limitations. Bittner’s (1970) three formal limitations:
First, the police use of deadly force is limited in most jurisdictions. Though the powers of a policeman in this respect exceed those of citizens, they are limited nevertheless. For example, in some jurisdictions policemen are empowered to shoot to kill fleeing felony suspects, but not fleeing misdemeanor suspects. It is scarcely necessary to argue that, given the uncertainties involved in defining a delict under conditions of hot pursuit, this could hardly be expected to be an effective limitation. Second, policemen may use force only in the performance of their duties and not to advance their own personal interest or the private interests of other persons. Though this is rather obvious/ we mention it for the sake of completeness. Third, and this point too is brought up to meet possible objections, policemen may not use force maliciously or frivolously. These three restrictions, and nothing else, were meant by the use of the qualifier "essentially". (p. 37)
To summarize this so the everyday person can understand, it is saying that police officers are not allowed to use deadly force unless it the absolutely necessary and the last solution, officers are only allowed to use force to perform their duties (i.e. police officers may not use it to advance their own self-interest or private interest of other persons), and the officers may not use force maliciously or frivolously (Bittner, 1970). With all the information provided what needs to be taken into consideration is the need for looking at the moral problems whether the officer is using force the way he or she is obliged to use it or if there is an abuse of power which will be further looked into below.
Why the police use such force?
The police are faced with daily moral decisions, which is to decide when and how to act when presented with the violation of the law. One of the ways police officers use force is for order maintenance response and law enforcement response; order maintenance response is for all less serious violations (e.g. parking or driving violation) and law enforcement response is for all serious violations (e.g. murder). This idea comes from the James Q. Wilson. Wilson (1968) said that policing has three different styles; those styles are watchman, service, and legalistic styles. The watchman style gives the police officer a greater deal of latitude to handle calls as order maintenance (Wilson, 1968). Next, there is the service style and it is basically how it is sound it is for service, focusing on providing a product that the community wants (Wilson, 1968). The last style is the legalistic style that is strictly enforcing the law (Wilson, 1968). The next social scientist that helps bring a better understanding on why the police officers use the force they do is John Crank. Crank (1998), was all about understanding the police culture; he wanted to understand why they must exercise and maintain order through coercion. Crank (1998), brought up coercive territorial control, basically this is force being acted to control assigned territory; the officers beat. He noted that the officers always wanted to be prepared for the unknown; “four feet leap over a three-foot ditch” officers always want to be prepared for the worse so they will do more (Crank, 1998). While the officers are doing more preparing for the unknown they keep their solidarity in check; they will not break that loyalty with their fellow officers. The last component that Crank (1998) talks about is loose coupling, that is being loosely connected; police are asked to reduce crime, but they feel as though they are not being backed for it. The last social scientist that contributes reasoning on why police use force is William Westley. Westley (1970) was saying that “in order for recruits to be good police officers they must take charge of situations in which they become involved”; the police must be in charge of the streets. So, force plays a role with what Westley was saying because his focus was on the in-group solidarity. In-group solidarity is the public could not be trusted to determine the appropriateness of police behavior. When presented with all this information the police use force to enforce laws, help, serve, preparation (protecting one’s self), and to remain loyal to fellow officers; and these are just the ones that are impactful since the police have everyday contact with the public.
Who the police are using force on?
In discovering that the police tend to use force most on the symbolic assailant. This whole idea of the symbolic assailant comes from the social scientist Jerome Skolnick. Skolnick’s (1966) study was of an analyzation of two police department, but more importantly he gave us the symbolic assailant. A symbolic assailant is a person that is a member of a high-crime minority group, and is a person who is perceived to cause the most harm for the police; clothing, race, speech, and environment (Skolnick, 1966). Skolnick (1966) also spoke about the danger signifiers, which are the troublesome experiences and the person’s actual behaviors (e.g. age, gender, sex, and area). Going off of this brings us to who the police officers would essentially target; that being young African-American males. These African-American males are often found to have disproportionate contact with the police; traffic stops and pedestrian stops (cite). In the media recently there has been a ton of attention about police officers using force toward those symbolic assailants usually fitting the stereotype of being the young African American males. A few prominent cases that was mentioned throughout the media is Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddy Gray, and Alton Sterling; there are many others let it not be forgotten. These are the cases that got the most coverage and attention in classrooms, homes, workplaces, and even in places of worship. Finding out that there is a is a researcher from Arizona State University; Paul Atkinson. His primary focus for this particular study was to show how race plays a role when it comes to police using force (Atkinson, 2017). In the study, was a review of 6,000 use of force cases in seven cities over a two-year span: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Knoxville, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon and St. Petersburg, Florida. Only data from male police officers and male citizens were used to remove outside variables such as female suspects and other races (Atkinson, 2017). The findings of this study proves the point that police officers do use force differently depending on race; according to Atkinson (2017), it found that white officers use greater force on black suspects than they do on white suspects. Black officers, meanwhile, were found to use similar force against both black and white suspects. So, out of this what should be taken away from this is that race affects how much force will be used the suspect and the race of the officers as well.
What are the consequences behind using force?
Knowing all that is involved with the police and their use of force, there is a turn in this discussion where what needs to be discussed is the consequences or precaution behind the use of force that has been seen all throughout the media. Now, one of the ways found that focuses on the police using force is the incorporating of the use body-worn camera (BWC) and they are having a positive potential (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow, & Snyder, 2015). Smykla et al. 2015 found that:
Respondents also believe that use of BWCs is supported by the public because society does not trust police, media will use BWC data to embarrass police, and pressure to implement BWCs comes from the media. Perceptions of the impact of BWCs on safety, privacy, and police effectiveness are also discussed. (p. 424)
As stated in the prior section about how in the last few years it has been some very prevalent high-profile incidents involving police use of deadly force; it has resulted in increased scrutiny of officer behavior and police-community relations by the media, policy-makers, civil rights groups, and academics (Smykla et al., 2015). There has been controversy and conflicting accounts surrounding the deadly police shootings of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and other lethal force incidents have led to nationwide interest in the issue of police body-worn cameras (BWCs). Politicians, victims’ families, civil rights groups, and some police administrators have called for equipping police officers with body-worm cameras in an effort to increase transparency and accountability (Smykla et al., 2015). Going back to what page 424 had to say we can keep as a side-note that one of the potential consequences of the use of force is that the public lacks trust in the police and they are now more hesitant to call for the appropriate assistance (Smykla et al., 2015). This introduction of technology (BWC) improve the police officer conduct and citizen behavior. The BWC’s also reduce the negative complaints against police officers, increase officer and citizen safety (Smykla et al., 2015). The BWC’s decrease police use of force incidents, assist in criminal prosecutions, facilitate officer training, and build trust between the police and their communities (Smykla et a., 2015). The result of the Smykla et al. 2015 was:
The use of BWC’s address issues that has been endorsed by the media… Our results showed that the majority of law enforcement leadership were in favor of BWCs, however, they were cautious on the potential positive impact, and some differences on perceptions of BWCs based on demographics existed. Continued research on the perceptions of police officers including command staff and the public is needed to more fully understand this issue. (p.442)
In conclusion, coming to understand how the police see the use of force as the core capacity of their jobs; the questions that were asked throughout were “In what ways do the police use force, why the police use such force, who are the police using force on and, the consequences behind the police using force”. With all the information that was acquired for this essay; what was noticed was that a lot of citizens do not have a trust for the police; especially after all the events that have taken place the last few years and it is making the officers isolated amongst themselves keeping that loyalty.