Why should Police Officers be able to use as much violence as necessary in order to arrest criminals?

~Amarie~

I don't think you're going to get much insight. Obviously police officers have to use reasonable force. They can't just kick somebody's *** because they want to. Where's the justice in that?

Greg P

Well it's simple. If police were limited in how much force they could use, the suspect could just put up such a fight that the police would be unable to match the force used and would have to let the suspect go.

ICE 'em

The perpetrators are the offenders. They are out to cause harm to civilians and should be stopped by whatever means. Keep in mind, many criminals are high on drugs that make them feel no pain and violent as all get out. I think they should do what needs to be done period.

joel

If the question is "all the force they want", then you will not find support in US law. If the question is "all the force that is reasonably necessary" then the answer is clearer. Consider focusing on the person being arrested. Citizens have a legal obligation to submit to a lawful arrest (in some states, and historically, citizens are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest). Every citizen also has the right to arrest (again the laws vary from state to state), and may use reasonable force to do so. In addition, every person has the right to defend themselves against unlawful force. Therefore the police officer doesn't really have any greater or lesser rights to use force than anyone else. The law does give some immunities and obligations to the peace officer and those provisions create a different set of standards based on the officers' training and legal responsibilities. The guiding principle is the US Constitution's 4th amendment which states prohibits "unreasonable" seizures, including seizures of persons, i.e. an arrest. The bottom line is that we all are obligated to obey the law and submit to lawful arrests. Since the police officer has an affirmative obligation to make an arrest when the law is violated (or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe so - the officer need not be correct, only reasonable in his or her belief), then any behavior other than submission gives rise to the need for the collective will of the people, as embodied in the law, to be most efficiently imposed by the persons empowered to use state-sanctioned force to gain compliance. Keep in mind the historical background of enforcement of socially imposed behavior. Laws used to be primarily enforced by citizens on watch, or banded together in a posse. The laws they enforced were against burglary, robbery, livestock theft, rape, and other crimes that had the death penalty attached to them. Therefore it was likely that a fleeing suspect would resist to the death, and those apprehending him could use lethal means to take the criminal. Before firearms, these contacts were hand-to-hand and therefore potentially very dangerous. It was from this set of conditions that today's use of force laws are derived.

Proud Military Brat!

Police can use whatever force necessary to arrest criminals. The law just says that they cant use unreasonable force. So in other words if they have someone standing there cussing and kicking them they cant just shoot him. But if that person is standing there and is shooting at them or putting others in danger they can use deadly force. But the amount of force they use has to be justifiable.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: