Law enforcement has been in the wrong light through the media for decades and, more recently, due to the events of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The use of force has been controversial and deemed sensitive to talk about with many Americans, and movements such as "Defund the Police" are promoted to take away funding and authority away from the police. Using force by law enforcement professionals is crucial to maintaining public safety and preventing crimes. Officers can protect themselves and the community they serve through practical training and proper use of force while upholding the law and promoting justice. It is time for law enforcement and the community to unite again and educate each other on each other's background and resources needed and how both parties can support each other. Such can be possible through funding and events that include family and individual interactions.
What is the use of force? Using force is the necessary amount of compelling compliance or overcoming resistance deemed reasonable by an officer's authority to protect the life of the community or property of the city, county, or state they serve. Using force is to regain control of an uncompliant subject in a critical incident, perform the least amount of force possible in a situation pendant, and have custody of the subject(s). Using force is a tactic that deters crime rates and protects the community's people]as it is performed correctly. An article conducted by Gear Haven supports this claim: Proper training reduces the risk of injury and death in situations that require an officer to use some level of force (Haven 9). For this reason, the author emphasizes law enforcement agencies' training and utilization of the use of force when it is deemed necessary.
The biggest misconception about the use of force is that law enforcement officers automatically draw their weapons out of their holsters before getting a clear perspective on what the situation is about. However, that is not the truth, as there is something called the "use of force continuum," which has several distinct levels of force. The first level of force starts with physiological intimidation, which refers to "Officers presence." A Police officer is not meant to be intimidating nor want the public to believe they are unapproachable. Still, a police officer is to hold the high character in the uniform and be always professional so that when the officer arrives at a call for service, just by having the presence of an officer, both parties will come to their senses. It then leads to verbal direction, the officer giving commands to the subject in hopes that they will obey. Next is the empty hand control, also known as "hands-on." At this point in a situation, an officer has found it necessary to try and get control of the subject by having to use physical form.
Following is the "intermediate weapon." There are several other devices officers carry on them besides a loaded gun, which includes tasers with cartridges, some oleoresin capsicum spray, and batons. These devices are used to regain control through pain compliance when the lesser levels have failed. Finally, there is deadly force. Deadly force is when an officer has fears for their own life or other people's lives at substantial risk, and all levels of force have failed and cannot have any positive control of the subject(s) and utilize their loaded weapon in hopes of eliminating the active threat. In Alex Oliver's article, he quotes, "This Use of Force continuum generally has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds." According to the author, he supports the claim that there are various levels in the continuum and how officers respond to the most appropriate one relating to the crime being committed. Not every call for service must start with verbal commands, and just because officers have gone up the continuum does not mean the situation cannot be de-escalated in a civil manner.
To deter crime while using force, it is the officer's authority and judgment to decide if they believe the subject is posing such a threat. In Robert Leider's article, he states that "The modern fleeing felon rule permits police officers to use deadly force when necessary to prevent the escape of a person who has committed a violent felony." The statement proves that deadly force is authorized when necessary and is up to the officer. Just because an officer believes that all means have failed and uses deadly force does not mean that is the end of the situation. Every time an officer uses deadly force, an immediate investigation through the department and state will begin to justify the use of force provided. That goes for any force above verbal commands but is commonly used in deadly force, and the Cornell Law School article supports that. "Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed." Therefore, when an officer has deemed a situation substantial risk and uses reasonable force, crime rates are being prevented, and the community is safer.
Before officers can patrol their community streets, they must undergo a lengthy process of interviews and training. It is no surprise that through the last decade, many law enforcement agencies throughout the nation have had many vacant positions in their departments that need to be filled. The job of a police officer was once an extremely competitive career to apply for and be accepted into today's problem of low recruiting. Movements such as "defund the police" have been established to take away the proper funding and the authority law enforcement agencies need. It has been suggested through protests and mainstream media that police officers should be replaced with other resources to respond to 9-1-1 calls. Defunding our police is the exact opposite that needs to happen; if anything, our police need to be funded. Investing in departments and their training will benefit the community more than if you defund them or send other resources. There is nothing against having resources show up to a call and provide additional help to the situation, but law enforcement training is what gives police the ability to wear many hats of different resources.
Those who fully support the "Defund the Police" have not seen the movement's entire purpose come into effect, nor is it as trendy as it once was. Many supporters have changed their minds about the movement. In Steve Pomper's article "What Happens When 'Defund the Police' Smacks up Against Reality?" Pomper states that many public officials who were once supporters have been hit with reality, and since then, crime rates have increased. The author's article proves the point that defending the police is already acting for the worst rather than what it stood for. It shows anything like taking away from what is needed will only cause chaos.
Like the evidence that was given, there are several other examples of how their adverse effects have been to defund the police and how funding needs to be provided. U.S. Senator John Thume provides some information on the negative toll of defunding the police in his article "Demonizing and Defunding Police Has Consequences." Senator Thume states, "American communities are less safe today than they were a year ago. Crime rates have surged since "defund the police" became a rallying cry. It is no coincidence that cities that have slashed their police budgets have seen huge increases in violence". This gives the audience a clear insight that defunding police is not only going in the direction that it wished but also putting their own community in a bad place, making it unsafe and allowing crime rates to go up. When crimes occur, the police will be the first to respond, and that is exactly who the movement did not want to support, yet they are allowing negative opportunities to happen. This statement explains why funding law enforcement agencies will allow for positive results for the community.
For better results to occur, they call for better strategies. The point that police agencies need more spots to be filled has been provided. New officers mean that new training needs to be done, and for good training to happen, there must be funding. Author Matthew Yglesias supports the claim that better police work comes with the help of funding in his article, "Defund Police Is a Bad Idea, not a Bad Slogan, Slow Boring. "Better policing will cost money. Officers on patrol are more practical in reducing crime, so investing money into hiring is worthwhile (Yglesias 27). The significance of this statement is that when we put the money back into the police funds, the crime rates will deter rather than increase when we support movements such as defunding the police. The use of force is a critical aspect of the job and requires funding for good training. With the money showing that crime rates can lower, it is essential to add critical thinking and decision-making into training to ensure officers are ready to make such decisions.
The use of force is a critical decision to make and handle during a call of service. It is the most significant thing officers get judged on by people of the community and the media, sometimes without understanding the circumstances' totality. Use of force happens very frequently weekly for officers, and that is one of the most significant aspects that separate the careers of law enforcement professionals from other fields of work. For an officer to make such a decision, the officer must go through enough training to determine if the subject has posed such a threat to climb up the use of force continuum chart. If funding for the police officers has already decreased crime rates, critical decision-making must be incorporated into new officer training, knowing that deciding to use force is likely to be made. Though it is an intimidating aspect of the job, doing so will result in protecting the community and the property of the community. Every part of training to earn the title of a law enforcement professional is important, but the decision-making aspect stands out the most. To have such a good training resource and program for trainees to grow and be confident in their skills requires funding.
Not one call in law enforcement will be the same. There will be the same call of service, but what happens during the call will never be the same; as the saying goes, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." Times change, and we must change with it, including how we think and the resources we offer. Team Lexipol published an article, "The Importance of Incorporating Decision-Making in Law Enforcement Training," explaining the evaluation of calls should be considered in how we train decision-making and how training is performed on actual calls. Law enforcement leaders and their departments must analyze situations and incidents within their department and country to determine if their training leads to good or flawed decision-making (Lexipol 2). The article supports the claim that training needs to be evaluated based on the calls for service in the community and nationwide. Being able to look at an incident, talk about what went well and what could be better, and implement it into training in hopes of providing good judgment on the job.
The same article published by Team Lexipol states another claim on the importance of decision making. It goes into the structure of the training in hopes that it will simulate real life scenarios that officers will face during calls for service and that require decision making. "It's critical to build concepts, tactics and practices into training that officers will potentially face when responding to calls and serving the community" (Lexipol 5). Team Lexipol is supporting the fact that they want training to be relate to what is happening to other officers of their department and calls for service that make headlines across the country and how they want to prepare their officers for what is to come and how to use their best judgement. These articles and statements help support the claim that funding law enforcement agencies has better outcomes for the community by lowering crime rates rather than defunding them. It also supports why police agencies should evaluate what is happening in the community and the nation and base those calls on their best decision-making so that when officers are faced with a similar problem, they are prepared mentally and know how to use the best judgment when the use of force is necessary.
Through mainstream media and the community's people, it is no secret that law enforcement and the community have not been on the same page for decades. Most of the time, it concludes that both parties do not understand each other and what they ask each other. It is time for the community and law enforcement to come together and unite through innovative programs and events for the family or individuals from a professional standpoint. The White House has published an article emphasizing the importance of law enforcement and the community coming together. "While we can make policing safer and more effective by strengthening trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve, we must also reform our broader criminal justice system so that it protects and serves all people equally" (White House 5). The statement from the White House supports the claim that both parties are coming together.
Family-friendly and interactive events, such as Coffee with a Cop, are not utilized as much but should make a comeback. They are a fantastic way to unite the community and law enforcement. Heather Cotter's article "How to Launch Coffee with a Cop (and Why You Should)" explains the importance and the potential that can result from this event. "Establishing an unpretentious community relations program, like Coffee with a Cop, helps maintain trust and transparency and is an opportunity for positive encounters between officers and citizens" (Cotter 8). Cotter's statement supports and encourages both parties to have coffee with a cop. Other events, such as Citizen Police Academy, have the potential to bring police and the community together as it allows for the community to step foot into a police station and see what operations go on and why they happen and go behind the training of what officers do. Rob Hall's article "How a Citizens' Police Academy Can Help Improve Community Relations" states this. A Citizens Police Academy (CPA) is a way to strengthen the community's empathy and sympathy toward law enforcement and humanize the badge while getting to know those who wear it (Hall 6). This is another example of an event that could unite the community and law enforcement. Funding should go towards training and events that will unite both parties and allow them to learn and move forward.
In conclusion, the use of force by law enforcement professionals is a crucial aspect of maintaining public safety and preventing crimes. Officers can protect themselves and the community they serve through effective training and proper use of force while upholding the law and promoting justice. Funding and incorporating decision-making training will allow officers to receive better training and evaluate it based on calls for service throughout the community and nation. Also, through funding, events that are family-oriented and individually based on a professional level can be held in hopes of the community and law enforcement learning about each other, what resources each can ask for, and how they can support each other to lower crime rates and have a good bond.
