Deadly Force

Criminology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip M. Stinson

Deadly force refers to any use of force by a police officer that could result in the imposition of serious bodily injury or death. It includes homicides by police. Most homicides by police in the United States are found to be legally justified. A sworn law enforcement officer with general powers of arrest is legally justified in using deadly force if the officer has a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death being imposed against the officer or someone else. The fleeing felon rule has been abrogated and police officers are no longer legally justified in using deadly force to stop a fleeing felon absent other exigencies that would constitute an imminent threat. Deadly force research has long been hampered by the lack of meaningful data on the incidence and prevalence of police use of deadly force. Government counts of fatal officer-involved shootings have grossly underestimated annual counts of deadly force incidents. Recent open-source databases, largely created and curated by media organizations, have found that between 900 and 1,000 persons are shot and killed by on-duty police officers each year in the United States. This bibliography mostly focuses on deadly force in the United States. There has been a renewed interest in deadly force research in the aftermath of numerous officer-involved shooting in recent years, with calls for police accountability, transparency, and legitimacy, particularly as various stakeholders have called attention to racial disparities in terms of who is victimized by police deadly force and claims of police bias manifested through police violence against minority citizens.

Author(s):  
Leigh Goodmark

The United States relies heavily on law enforcement to protect people subjected to intimate partner violence. The decision to prioritize law enforcement intervention may seem natural, but it is, in fact a political decision, with consequences along three dimensions. First, prioritizing the law enforcement response has precluded the development of other policies to address intimate partner violence. Second, channeling money into law enforcement helped to facilitate the growth of a hypermasculine, militarized environment where violence against women flourishes. Third, the decision to rely on law enforcement ignores research establishing that police officers are more likely than other groups to commit intimate partner violence. These political decisions have profound consequences for all people subjected to abuse, particularly the partners of police officers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 1526-1540
Author(s):  
Brandon Garrett ◽  
Christopher Slobogin

AbstractRecent events in the United States have highlighted the fact that American police resort to force, including deadly force, much more often than in many other Western countries. This Article describes how the current regulatory regime may ignore or even facilitate these aggressive police actions. The law governing police use of force in the United States derives in large part from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. As construed by the United States Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment provides police wide leeway in using deadly force, making custodial arrests, and stopping and frisking individuals. While state and local police departments can develop more restrictive rules, they often do not. Additionally, the remedies for violations of these rules are weak. The predominant remedy is exclusion of evidence, the impact of which falls primarily on the prosecutor and in any event only has a deterrent effect when evidence is sought. Civil and criminal sanctions have been significantly limited by the Supreme Court, particularly through the doctrine of qualified immunity (applied to individual officers) and the policy or custom defense (applied to municipalities). This minimal regulatory regime is one reason police-citizen encounters in the United States so often result in death or serious bodily harm to citizens, in particular those who are Black. The Article ends with a number of reform proposals.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 205395171769633
Author(s):  
Ben Brucato

Controversies about recent killings by police officers in the United States have prompted widespread questioning about the scale and changes in police use of force. A perceived lack of transparency about the frequency of police killings amplifies concerns that many such killings are unjustified. This commentary considers efforts by journalists and activists to comprise databases that document and measure police violence, particularly in terms of how these endeavors exemplify the New Transparency.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 284-287
Author(s):  
Lotte Houwing ◽  
Gerard Jan Ritsema van Eck

In the United States of America, police body-worn cameras (bodycams) were introduced to protect civilians against violence by law enforcement authorities. In the Netherlands, however, the same technology has been introduced to record and discipline the behavior of the growing number of citizens using their smartphone cameras to film the (mis)conduct of police. In answer to these citizens sousveilling the police and publishing their images on social media, the bodycam was introduced as an objective referee that also includes the perspective of the police officer. According to this view, the bodycam is a tool of equiveillance: a situation with a diversity of perspectives in which surveillance and sousveillance are in balance (Mann 2005). Various factors, however, hamper the equiveillant usage of bodycams in the Netherlands. Firstly, the attachment of the bodycam to the uniform of the officer leads to an imbalanced representation of perspectives. The police perspective is emphasized by the footage that is literally taken from their perspective, in which others are filmed slightly from below, making them look bigger and more overwhelming. Also, the police officers’ movements create shaky footage with deceptive intensity that invokes the image of a hectic situation that calls for police action. Secondly, it is the officer who decides when to wear a camera and when to start and stop recording. This leaves the potential to not record any misconduct. Thirdly, access to the recorded images, whilst in theory open to police and citizens alike, is in practice exclusively for the police. Within the current regulatory framework, bodycams are thus not neutral reporters of interactions between civilians and the police. We will end our contribution to this Dialogue section with suggestions for the improvement of those rules and reflect on the question of whether bodycams can ever be objective referees.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 291-293
Author(s):  
RIAS Editors

The International American Studies Association is dismayed to see the explosion of anger, bitterness and desperation that has been triggered by yet another senseless, cruel and wanton act of racialized violence in the United States. We stand in solidarity with and support the ongoing struggle by African Americans, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, migrants and the marginalized against the racialized violence perpetrated against them. As scholars of the United States, we see the killing of George Floyd and many before them as acts on the continuum of the history of the powerful committing racialized violence against the powerless in the United States from before the birth of that country to the here and now of the present day. This continuum stretches from the transatlantic slave trade, the genocide of the indigenous population, the denial of rights and liberties to women, through the exploitation of American workers, slavery and Jim Crow, to the exclusion and inhumane treatment of the same migrants who make a profit for American corporations and keep prices low for the U.S. consumer. As scholars of the United States, we are acutely aware of how racialized violence is systemic, of how it has been woven into the fabric of U.S. society and cultures by the powerful, and of how the struggle against it has produced some of the greatest contributions of U.S. society to world culture and heritage. The desperate rebellion of the powerless against racialized violence by the powerful is in turn propagandized as unreasonable or malicious. It is neither. It is an uprising to defend their own lives, their last resort after waiting for generations for justice and equal treatment from law enforcement, law makers, and the courts. In too many instances, those in power have answered such uprisings with deadly force—and in every instance, they have had alternatives to this response. We are calling on those in power and the people with the guns in the United States now to exercise their choices and choose an alternative to deadly force as a response to the struggle against racialized violence. You have the power and the weapons—you have a choice to do the right thing and make peace. We are calling on U.S. law makers to listen and address the issues of injustice and racialized violence through systemic reform that remakes the very fabric of the United States justice system, including independent accountability oversight for law enforcement. We are calling on our IASA members and Americanists around the world to redouble their efforts at teaching their students and educating the public of the truth about the struggle against racialized violence in the United States. We are calling on our IASA members and Americanists around the world to become allies in the struggle against racialized violence in the United States and in their home societies by publicizing scholarship on the truth, by listening to and amplifying the voices of black people, ethnic minorities and the marginalized, and supporting them in this struggle on their own terms. We are calling on all fellow scholarly associations to explore all the ways in which they can put pressure with those in power at all levels in the United States to do the right thing and end racialized violence. There will be no peace in our hearts and souls until justice is done and racialized violence is ended—until all of us are able “to breathe free.” Dr Manpreet Kaur Kang, President of the International American Studies Association, Professor of English and Dean, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, India;Dr Jennifer Frost, President of the Australian and New Zealand American Studies Association, Associate Professor of History, University of Auckland, New Zealand;Dr S. Bilge Mutluay Çetintaş, Associate Professor, Department of American Culture and Literature, Hacettepe University, Turkey;Dr Gabriela Vargas-Cetina, Professor of Anthropology, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mexico;Dr Paweł Jędrzejko, Associate Professor of American Literature, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;Dr Marietta Messmer, Associate Professor of American Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands;Dr Kryštof Kozák, Department of North American Studies, Charles University, Prague;Dr Giorgio Mariani, Professor of English and American Languages and Literatures, Department of European, American and Intercultural Studies, Università “Sapienza” of Rome;Dr György Tóth, Lecturer, History, Heritage and Politics, University of Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom;Dr Manuel Broncano, Professor of American Literature and Director of English, Spanish, and Translation, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, USA;Dr Jiaying Cai, Lecturer at the School of English Studies, Shanghai International Studies University, China;Dr Alessandro Buffa, Secretary, Center for Postcolonial and Gender Studies, University of Naples L’Orientale, Italy;


2001 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Sugimoto ◽  
Kevin Ann Oltjenbruns

Exposure to the threat of death or to death events is acknowledged to be a factor in the manifestation of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Police officers in the United States are immersed in a professional and cultural environment replete with death. Given for consideration is the notion that inescapable, death-related stressors of wide variety and intensity, some of which are constructs of the police profession, contribute to the manifestation and maintenance of PTSD as well as traumatic grief reactions in American law enforcement officers. Personnel who continue police work while symptomatic may incur risks of reduced self-control, escalated use of force, and other inappropriate behavior due to irritability or outbursts of anger associated with PTSD. Because of the primacy of the element of death, those who are involved in the field of thanatology may hold the key to discovering and effecting palliative measures on behalf of this population.


2020 ◽  
pp. 096701062092100
Author(s):  
Vasja Badalič

This article explores how the United States (US) has redefined the concept of ‘imminent threat’ in order to relax the rules for anticipatory use of armed force against insurgents. The article focuses on how two new definitions of imminent threat have changed the conduct of specific combat activities, namely, drone strikes and ground combat operations. The central part of the article is divided into four sections. The first section examines the redefinition of imminent threat in the context of drone warfare, while the second section provides an analysis of the redefinition of imminent threat in ground combat operations. Both sections show how the new definitions of imminent threat abandoned two key elements of the classic definition, that is, the immediacy and certainty of the threat. The third and fourth sections of the article explore how the new definitions of imminent threat prevented the application of two key principles governing the use of armed force: the principles of necessity and proportionality. Both sections show how successive US administrations enabled the US military to conduct operations without observing these two key principles regulating the use of force.


2021 ◽  
pp. 257-290
Author(s):  
Noah Tsika

In the United States, the normalization of police power has often demanded the delineation of fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate aspirants to such power. This chapter considers cinematic depictions of parapolicing. Such representations speak to ongoing anxieties surrounding the actual, discernable contours of police power in the United States. In Hollywood, the Studio Relations Committee was particularly wary of analogies between “real” police officers and their privately employed counterparts. The films examined in this chapter address the complexities of those public-private partnerships that pivot around law enforcement. Ultimately, these films work to affirm the state’s monopoly on lawful violence, either because it is the state itself that “generously” grants power to particular private actors or because those private actors fail miserably and, in so doing, necessitate the expansion of “real” police forces. Such films complicate, in markedly populist terms, the professional police’s presumed monopoly on expertise, without, however, questioning the police’s monopoly on violence. The films at the center of this chapter are meant to show that while policing may be teachable—imitable—actual law enforcement officials hold the real power.


2021 ◽  
pp. 169-195
Author(s):  
Mary Angela Bock

Video evidence of use-of-force incidents has changed the conversation about policing in the United States and undermined faith in law enforcement. This chapter presents a critical discourse analysis of police efforts to maintain a positive public image. First, the chapter identifies three rhetorical strategies used by law enforcement in pursuit of image repair. When they cannot control the original creation and framing of an image through embodied gatekeeping, officials negotiate its recontextualization by controlling the narrative, explaining procedures, or appealing to the public’s respect for authority. Many departments are also crafting their own visual messaging, with social media accounts that highlight good deeds caught on badge cams or with lighthearted in-house video productions such as the 2018 Lip Sync Challenge. A close reading of the Lip Sync Challenge finds that its productions tended to reify, rather than dispute, the white, militaristic, hypermasculine culture that police accountability activists condemn.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document