User:Popo10-4/Use of force

Lead:
There is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of use of force. This term is commonly used in fields such as law enforcement, military operations, and self-defense. Generally law enforcement use the International Association of Chiefs of Police description of use of force as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject". It can also be referred to the application of physical or non-physical means to achieve a particular objective or to maintain control over a situation. The use of force can have significant legal, ethical, and moral implications, as it involves the intentional infliction of harm or coercion upon others. We will explore the various types of force, the legal frameworks governing their use, and the controversies surrounding the use of force in different contexts.

Use of force doctrines can be employed by law enforcement officers and military personnel on guard duty. The aim of such doctrines is to balance the needs of security with ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects. Injuries to civilians tend to focus attention on self-defense as a justification and, in the event of death, the notion of justifiable homicide.

Context :No two situations are ever the same, nor are any two individuals. In a potentially threatening situation, an officer will need to quickly make a suitable response and apply force, if necessary. Situational awareness is essential, and in most cases, time becomes the key variable in determining when an officer chooses to use force or even the correct amount of force.

For the English law on the use of force in crime prevention, see Self-defence in English law. The Australian position on the use of troops for civil policing is set out by Michael Head in Calling Out the Troops: Disturbing Trends and Unanswered Questions; compare "Use of Deadly Force by the South African Police Services Re-visited" by Malebo Keebine-Sibanda and Omphemetse Sibanda.

Education[edit]
Studies have shown that law enforcement personnel with some college education (typically two-year degrees) use force much less often than those with little to no higher education. In events that the educated officers do use force, it is usually what is considered "reasonable" force. Despite these findings, very little – only 1% – of police forces within the United States have education requirements for those looking to join their forces. Some argue that police work deeply requires experience that can only be gained from actually working in the field.

adding this to the article

A randomized controlled pilot study was done that consisted of training officers to apply techniques to enhance psychological and physiological control during stressful critical incidents that either positively or negatively shape that outcome. Some analyses of individual officers suggested de-escalation training had no significant effects on the serious force, whereas a synthetic control analysis of the entire department suggested that de-escalation training led to a 40% reduction in serious force events. It is suggested that spillover effects between trained and untrained officers may account for the discrepancy. Further results revealed that the intervention group displayed significantly better physiological control, situational awareness, and overall performance, and made a greater number of correct use-of-force decisions than officers in the control group.

Experience[edit]
It is argued that the skills for performing law enforcement tasks well cannot be produced from a classroom setting. These skills tend to be better gained through repeated exposure to law enforcement situations while in the line of work. The results as to whether or not the amount of experience an officer has contributes to the likelihood that they will use force differ among studies.

Other characteristics[edit]
It has not been strongly found that the race, class, gender, age etc. of an officer affects the likelihood that they will use force. Situational factors may come into play.

Split-second syndrome[edit]
Split-second syndrome is an example of how use of force can be situation-based. Well-meaning officers may resort to the use of force too quickly under situations where they must make a rapid decision

Departmental attributes[edit]
Policies on use of force can differ between departments. The type of policies established and whether or not they are enforced can affect an officer's likeliness to use force. If policies are established, but not enforced heavily by the department, the policies may not make a difference. For example, the Rodney King case was described as a problem with the departmental supervision not being clear on policies of (excessive) force. Training offered by the department can be a contributing factor, as well, though it has only been a recent addition to include information on when to use force, rather than how to use force.

One departmental level policy that is currently being studied and called for by many citizens and politicians is the use of body cameras by officers. In one study body cameras were shown to reduce the use of force by as much as 50%.

'''

Will be adding information'''

Despite the widespread interest that de-escalation training has attracted in law enforcement contexts over the past few years, society knows little about its effectiveness in reducing use-of-force incidents. Therefore, it is unknown if de-escalation pieces of training actually reduce force, have no impact, or have unintended consequences that possibly increase injuries to officers or citizens.

Changing police use of force policies and training to incorporate de-escalation tactics is one of the most routinely recommended police reform measures. Despite widespread promotion and proliferation of de-escalation trainings, to date, no research has empirically demonstrated that these trainings reduce use of force in the field

Policy implications [edit]
The recommendations to agencies were that they should continue to implement and evaluate de-escalation training and adopt other resiliency-based approaches to police training. To facilitate long-term changes in police behavior, a holistic approach is recommended that supports training tenets with complementary policies, supervisory oversight, managerial support, and community involvement in reform efforts. Improve use-of-force decision-making directly translates into potential lifesaving decisions for police and the civilians they are working with.

This study offers evidence that de-escalation training may be more effective at reducing police force than other measures that have been proposed in recent years, such as consent decrees, among others as less lethal weapons, and technology such as body-worn cameras. However, the unique environment in which the pilot program was introduced, such as a high-crime, high-use-of-force jurisdiction that had previously dissolved and rebuilt its police force suggests these encouraging results should be tempered with a good dose of caution.

Due to the LMPD's partnership with researchers, evidence now exists that de-escalation training can make police encounters with the public safer for all. Continuing to implement and evaluate innovative policy pieces of training is our best opportunity for meaningful changes in policing. Finally, researchers must continue to support police executives willing to open their agencies for evaluation and oversight.